The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-10-22

The friends OF the defendant appe
to be much tickled by that gentleman
: argument. They applaud it as IAN a
solutely impartial inquiry concernil
the Little Rock speculations, whi
finds the charges to be thorough
false" 1t is worth while to examil
this new argument for the defendar
to which so much Importance is a
tached by the rest of the defenders.
/.
The first point is an assertion Ia;
Mr. Mulligan had no right to the po
session of the letters which M
, Blaine took from him in a very stranS
way in 1876; that he also had no ripi
to publish them. and that the receT
publication by Fisher and MuIligan {
second lot of Blaine's letters. shef
ding light on the Little Rock opers
tons OF Mr.. Speaker, was a "flagran
violation of the law Mr.. Goodwin
evidently not much of a lawyer: bu
that is an Irrelevant matter. 1t is ais
an irrelevant question whether Null
gan had any right to the possession
of the Blaine-Fisher correspondence o
not. The only question that concern
the public relates TO the evidence con
tanned in those letters against Jane
G. Blaine. member of congress anC
speaker of the house. If they con
tanned no evidence that would impli
cate that holder of q high public trus
IN the grave charge of prostitutiny
that public trust to the purpose of pri.
yate gain, it would seem strange tina
the writer of them, against whom tha
charge was pending, should have OBJ
/ InQfpd ffNs fbnir. lIinatfnYa cl,nr,11
sought to get possession of them
or should have resorted to the low
method Of a bully of the rat-pit to ac.
complish that desire. The first point
of this new argument for the defend.
ant invites no further comment.
II.
~The allegation that Mr.. Blaine
begged Mulligan 'on his knees to give
up the letters, and that he said their
publication would ruin him, is not
true" It is of not the least conse-
quence whether the allegation was true
or not true. 1t is also a matter of no
relevancy whether Blaine suppressed
| any of the letters or not. No charge
against him rests on the alleged evil
dence of any letter that has not been
published. All the charges that have
been brought are either supported by
the evidence of the published letters,
or they are not supported by any evil
dence.
The defendants new attorney says:
The charges that Mr.. Blaine was inter
ested in the seventy-tive bonds sold to the
Union Pacific Railroad company by Thomas
A. Scott is not only without evidence to
sustain it, but was, ON full investigation,
absolutely dlspr0ved. Every person who
did or could know anything of the transae-
ton agrees in saying that Mr.. Blaine had
nothing to do with the sale, never had any
interest in the bonds so sold, and neither
directly or indirectly benefited by the sale.
Mr.. Scott sw0re that he bought
them of Caldwell some eighteen months
before the sale of the Union Pacific COM
pany, and that Blaine had nothing to do
with them. Mr., Caldwell, who was in
Europe, cabled that Mr.. Blaine had no con-
nection with the matter"
There are some inaccuracies in these
allegations of fact. The testimony of
the witnesses by whom the charges are
said to have been absolutely disproVed"
was wholly negative. Scott, Carnegie,
Morton, Dillon, and others stated ON
oath before the committee simply that
they did not kRotC that Blaine had any
interest in the transaction, or that he
had no interest in it so fdrdS they knetc.
What appeared from the testimony of
Scott, who was then president of the
Union Pacific company, was that he
had purchased from Josiah Caldwell
bonds of the Little Rock and Fort
Smith railway, of the denomination of
$75, 900, for the sum of $64 900, or at the
rate of 50 cents in the dollar, while the
market value of the said bonds, if they
had any, was not exceeding 50 or 60
cents in the dollar. He had transfer
red them to the Union Pacific company
at so cents just what he gave for them),
though he could not have got more
than SO or 60 cents for them on the mar
ket. He said that this favor was ex-
tended to him by that company in con-
of extraordinary services"
be had rendered to the company as its
and that he had no kllolc-
ledge" that Mr.. Blaine was connected
with the bonds in any manner so Jar
as his [witness' connection loith the trans
action SOdS concerned" Certainly there
are no recognized rules OF evidence
that would warrant the assertion that
this testimony of Mr.. Scott absolutely |
the charge that Mr.. Speaker |
was the actual beneficiary of that |
queer transaction in Little Rock rail-
road bonds. There was no stronger |
evidence of any witness to the contrary |
Of that serious charge.
1t is only just to say that the charge |
that Mr.. Speaker was the actual bene- |
ficiary of that transaction was not |
proved by evidence that would have |
warranted his conviction upon an ln-
1ictment. Nevertheless, the circum- |
stantial evidence against him was so |
strong that probably no honest juryman
would have been willing to sign YER
1ict of not guilty.
Mr.. Scott did not swear that Blaine |
had no interest in that transaction. No
body so Swore. "Mr. Caldwell, who |
was in Europe, cabled that Mr.. Blaine
lad no connection with the matter"
,ays the defendants new attorney. |
Two dispatches were received from
Caldwell: one MAY 81 by Mr.. Scott;
he other June u by Mr.. Knott. chair
nan of the committee. The dispatch
20 Scott was sent in response to the fol-
owing cablegram from an intimate
md confidential friend of Blaine:
WASHINGTON, May 26.-TO JOSIAH
CALDWELL, No. lis Cannon street, Lon
lon, K. G. England See Scott's testimony, |
papers 10th. Telegraph Scott, Philadelphia,
IS YOU truthfully can, the strongest indorse-
A. P. ROBINSON.
This intimate friend of Blaine Rob
nson) had testified only the day before
hat he had conveyed a package from
Caldwell to Blaine, but did not know |
whatit contained.
The second dispatch from Caldwell
in Londonl was written in Washing
,on. cabled to London at an expense of |
S52.72, and from London cabled back, |
over the signature of Caldwell. Did |
Blaine write it? Was it another case |
If writing certificate Of his own vir- |
tue for another man to sign? Perhaps |
not. Perhaps it was written, like John |
PhRnix's signature, by zone Of his |
most intimate friends" Be that as it |
may have been, the judgment of the |
chairman of the judiciary committee |
an able lawyeTl respecting the evil |
1ence of the Caldwell dispatches was |
not the same as that OF Mr.. Goodwin, |
rs the following citation from his re-
marks on the subject will show:
'vThese dispatches need no comment. |
They speak for themselves. They show,
10 the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that !
the dispatches from Caldwell were con- |
sOcted in this capital, telegraphed to Lon |
ion and echoed back, in order that the Jn- |
dietary committee might be the unwilling |
through which fraud might be |
oerpetrated upon the house and the eOun- |
ny and that the tch0te scheme originated |
IN the fertile brain Of Mr.. James q. Blaine.
Is it possible to suppose that such a
scheme could have originated in the |
fertile brain of a man who was not in |
terested in the strange transfer of Lit !
tle Rock bonds to the Union Pacific
w.
The defendant. it is asserted, @did |
nothing that was improper or out OF |
tile ordinary course in securing the ex- |
tension Of the lapsed Little Rock land
grab, because, when Mr.. Julian moved
an amendment that was intended to
defeat the measure
.sHe qcds applied to bv friends Of the
measure for Information as to tCltdt they
enid do to protect themselves from the
lobby, and he made . suggestion which was
effectuaL Such applications arc dtlC0ys
-. ~ 41o ea1o01se- ne N q1a0ffpr 01Fnnef NJ