The Portland daily press., 1883-10-12
Question and Answer.


We asked our contemporary, the Argus,
day or two ago, few pertinent questions
concerning the Massachusetts campaign,
which, yesterday, it made pretense OF an
swering. We discover, from its answers.
first, that it is densely ignorant of the facts
in the case; second, that it assumes to be
true certain statements by General Butler,
although they were definitely proved to be
untrue upon investigation; third, that it has
remarkable facility for lodging the ques-
ton asked, and replying to something else;
fourth, that it quite understands the attor-
ney's art of covering up an avoidance OF the
issue by sweeping denunciation of some
thing or other. For example: We men
toned the fact that the Argus described the
campaign of Massachusetts, Republicans as
one Of personal abuse and vulgar black
guardism, and asked it to tell its readers what
1t thought of the Democratic campaign.
Does the Argus answer, that 1t is free from
abuse and vulgarity, is decent, high-minded,
just, or in any manner describe the charac-
ter of that campaign? 0, no! 1t says that
1t is ga campaign against party which isl
doing certain things that the party is not do
ing and never has thought of doing; but
which, if it were doing, would not be essen
TALLY different from the action of the Dem
ocratic party in defending and excusing the
Ku Klux crimes. We asked what it thought
of a certain Democratic campaign docu-
ment which the Democratic Boston Post
condemns as ''coarse, nasty,and disgusting .
II replies that it s'has not read it, but if''
it'contains certain of Gen. Buffers disproved
ISLANDERS, 1t ought to be read by everybody.
We asked whether it had changed its
opinion about Buffers character since he
was Republican, and it vindcates its con-
sistency by paraphrase of the convincing
retort, "You're another"
The Argus having thus lodged our ques-
lions, proceeds to put some to as. Its ques-
tions, of course, are unfair in what they as
sumo. We shall not, on that account, avoid
them, but will answer them with fraukness
and explicitly.
Does the Press think itFright to keep men in of
ace who have plundered the people of millions of
dollars. who have conducted the government on the
most extravagant scale, who have corrupted the
ballot boxes in many States with money wrung
from the ofiiceholders and from great corpora
lions to which they have granted bountics, who
have used the civil service for their own and their
party's interests, and who have resorted to brib-
cry fraud and corruption in almost every conceiy-
able form?
That is long question, but our answer to
it, In whole and in detail, is No. And be-
cause our answer is No, we should, if liv-
ing in Massachusetts, vote for George D.
Robinson instead of General Butler for
Governor. There is no man running for
Office anywhere in America whose record is
worse in respect of the wrongs specified
than that of General Butler. In the army
and in Congress he was notorious support
er and defender of jobs and he is an adept
in all corrupt arts. For this reason he new
er had the confidence of the Republican
party of Massachusetts, was repudiated by
two Congressional districts, both strongly Re-
publican, and denied the party nomination
for Governor again and again. But when
he took his blasted character and his impu-
dent claims to the Democratic party
for market he was embraced as a long
lost brother.
Does the Press think State institution we'll con-
Quoted where nine-tenths of the infants COM
mitted to its care die of starvation, neglect or
abuse2
No, we do not, and the Argus knows there
has never been such an institution in Mas
-saShasotts. There was time, years ago,
when the MORALLY sick and dying infants
from Boston charity station were sent to
the State almshouse to die and be buried.
They did not die of starvation, neglect or
abuse, but of inherited disease and weak
ness which could not be cured, or they
would not have been sent to Tewksbury
But the system under which these infants
were sent to Tewksbury was changed by the
Republicans years before General Butler
became Governor.
Does it uphold the officers of such institution in
surreptitiously digging up in the night time the
bodies of people who die therein and carting them
on to q dissecting room, to be sold for SO each,
where their skins are tanned and converted into
slippers and the like.
No, we do not, and nothing of that kind
was proved againt the officers of any Massa-
chusetts institution. Bodies destined, in ac-
cordance with wise and reasonable provis-
ion of law, for the medical schools were re-
moved at night, but not s'surreptitiously''
any more than vaults are emptied or the
Argus edited surreptitously. The bodies
were not sold.
Does 1t comport with honesty and justice, and is
ii in the line of reform to defend men who perbe-
trste such horrors upon the innocent the poor and
the defenceless as those perpetrated at the Tewks
bury aims house?
1t would not comport with honesty and
Justice, nor would it be in he line of reform
to defend men who do such things as are
falsely alleged to have been done at Tewks-
bury. But the ASSUMPTION that such things
were done there is contrary to the evidence
taken in the investigation, unless the evil
dence on one side only, is considered las
it seems to be by the Argus) the whole tes-
timony, and that of reputable persons con-
tradicting it is ignored.
In 1t wrong to expose and correct such helsh
work, and should man be condemned for doing it?
II so, for what reason?
No, 1t Is not wrong to expose and correct
such work, and man should be praised for
doing it; but it is wrong and monstrous to
charge on untrustworthv evidence that
such crimes have been committed, and it is
worse when the charges are bruited abroad to
make political capital, and it is worse still
when the author of the ISLANDERS continues
to repeat them after they are shown to be
false, and if any thing can be worst in SO
mean business iii the conduct of newspap-
ers which support the slanderer and defend
him.
former to defend and apologize for fraud, for ex-
trayagance. for corruption for bribery for forgery
for thieving and the long list of crimes of which
the Republican party is proven guilty and also for
the starvation of helpless infants for the abuse of
paupers, for the stealing of panpers' bodies and
peddng their bones and for taking off and tanning
the skins of men and of fair women who were has
tened out of the world while resting under the care
Of the commonwealth?
No, it is not honest for anybody to defend
the proven crimes of either party or any
wrongs done to the poor and weak; nor is it
honest for a newspaper which processes to