The Portland daily press., 1884-08-26
The Argus and Mr.. Blaine.

The Argus of Saturday last referring to
the letter of Mr.. Blaine dated September "a,
1859, directing the District Attorney of An
droscoggin County to enter mol. pros. in
the libel suit against the editor of the Ar
gus, attempts to create suspicion concernimg
the good faith of Mr.. Blaine by theSrrollowing
comment,
A word more with you, WIr. Spitfre PRESS. You
Say that letter was dcdTed Sept. Gath. How do you
reconcile that with the record which states, and
which wso copy, that the mol pros was entered the
10tfn? If the record is correct it would seem still to
indicate that those reasons for dropping the prose-
cution were given IA days after it was dropped!
The record which the Argus copied is in
| this form:
| SEPT. TERM, 1859.
No. 80. State Us. John N. adams.
10. Nos Pros. by Con. of Court.
Recorded Vol. 4, Page 428.
The record is right and it confirms, as q
lawyer like Mr.. Adams ought to have known
it did, and would have presumed it did if his
Judgment was not suppressed by malice, the
TACT that the mol. pros. was entered subse-
quent to, and not before, Mr.. Blaines's letter.
This appears clearly by the following state
ment from an indisputable authority, the
clerk of the court.
1t appears by the S. j. Court records that the
Sept. term, 1859, began Sept. 49, held days. then
adjourned to Nov. l. 1859 and that the date of final
adjournment was Nov. s, 1859, that being the
tenth and last day of the term. The figure 10 on
the docket refers to the day of the term. According
to the record the indictment against John NJ.
Adams was mol prossed the 10th day of the term,
which was Nov. 5, 1858.
Nv. HANSON.
Mr.. Blaine's letter therefore was written
three days before the term of court began
and nearly six weeks before the mol pros
was entered.
If the editor of the Argus was not under
bonds to the wicked calumny he is largely
responsible for to ignore the truth and bols-
ter up the lie he would avoid such disgrace
full exhibitions of his spirit. And in this
connection we desire to call attention to the
following extraordinary communication and
reply in the Argus of yesterday.
To the Editor Of the Argus:
Will you be SO kind as to answer through your
paper what was the date of James G. Blaines mar
rage? NORWAY
We cannot; were not present. An old resident of
augusta eaJc ~ OCCutIeu III march, 1901.
The whole substance of the calumny
which the Argus, with devilish ingenuity has
been insinuatlng into the public mind, cal
jimmy affecting the fair fame of wife moth
er not less than of the statesman who is a can
didate for President, depends upon condi-
ton which the Argus here confesses it is ig-
noIant about. If the editor of the Argus
does not know when Mr.. Blaine was mar
ried all that he has suggested of wrong or
disgrace is baseless and wanton defama-
ton. Mr. Blaine was married some years
before he came to Maine aud the sold resi-
dent of Augusta" the anonymous authority
the Argus refers to, was, We venture to say,
as far away from that ceremony as the edi-
tor of the Argue himself We are informed,
on much better authority, that Mr.. Blaine's
marriage was not In March 1851, and any
story to his prejudice based upon that as.
sumption, as he said in his despatch to Col.
Holloway, sis utterly and abominably false
in every statement and implication