Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1884-08-26
Portland Pres.
BLAINE And TIN ARGUS.
How rmE ARGUS Ara ITs OwN VoNu %
YEARS AGO aNp RErRicrTp CnaEGEs
wmCu ARR Now REVIVED,

The Argus % SATURDAY contained The
complaint flcd In the United States Cir.
cult Court Al Indianapolis by The counsel
Of Mr. Blaine alleging that certain article
published In the Indianapolis >sHnHsi was
q false, scAndalOus aud defamAtOry, and
asklng FOR Judgment ani damages. The
compliant contains the full text OF TIE
false AMI scAndAlous libel, which the irJHs
was anxious 10 get before ~ readers aud
undoubtedly thought that by Publishing u
As a part OF the document nlcd Ia Court u
could 90 50 safely. But the Aryus i not
content with this. II thinks no ~ charac-
teriEs the bringing of the suit ~ Mr.
Blaine a. game Of bluf having no serious
purpose, and In this connection Alluies
mysterlOusly % some experience % L. own
with Mr.. Blaine twenty-five years ago, A.
N IL had mate a similar scaudalOus charge
which Mr.. Blaine dii not prosecute u Tor,
although he began proceedings. TIE dr'
gus doe. no; tell the whole truth about
that anair, making no allusion TO it, own
swim disclaimer OF any Intention Of inu'
mating that Mr. Blaine had been guilty Of
any delinquency Injurious - bis personal
and soci al standing.
The facts are that while Nr Blaine wss
editor OF the Iirsrfiser In the year 1857 he
became engaged Ia somewhat acrimonl-
ous controversy with the irgus, then. a.
now. editca by Mr.. Adams The Argus,
getting the worst OF the matter, undertook
10 get IL revenge In particularly mean
way. co the 18th OF September, II con.
talned an article setting forth that, what
ever the editor might have been guilty or
he bad never been guilty OF certain other
things enumerated, mentioning among the
res, In = iguratlve wsy an enforced choice
between paddock aud wetlOck. There was
no charge, only an inslnuatlon of a charAc'
ter which honorable gentlemen will be able
10 ntly characterize. Mr Blaine promptly
Instituted proceedings against the editor
OF the ArgHs for libel, and on the Soth oi
September, eighteen days after the origin'
al publication the Argus Published the FOL.
lowing humble disclaimer tO which wc call
attention In order thu, no journal aud no
person may be deceived BY any pre- ensiou
The Irgys may now make that Mr. Blaine
and not itself backed out
From the Argus. sept. -, ~
Ne hear that an article In the daily Argus OF
the ian inst. headei Personality" has been
enormously understood BY some a. containing
an attack upon the personal and private char
acfeF Of James g.. blaine. the leading EDITOR ol
tie Advertiser. We deeply regret the mi-con
ception, a. ID l. not our Intention % charge
him. by Implication OF otherwise, " I'm the 81
fences Ne then dlsciaimcd for ourselves, We
nOS therefore take gfeat pleasure IN disclaim
ing any design 10 impute any such delinquen
cies 90 Mr.. blaine, and We most checrfuliy aid
that We knOw nothing OF him which would In.
iaFtOnsiy affect hts standing IN the personal
aud social relations Of life
Thus did the Argus, twenty-five years
ago, eat It's own yomlt II u made the
statement In this article voluntarily, and u
true a. concerning It's intention and is
knowledge OF Mr.. Blaine, 10 cannot be
true, as IL lately declared, that ii knew
twenty five years ago things which would
affect lnluri0usly his personal aud socla
standing. But II IL tells the truth now w
do not see how the conclusion Il 10 be
avoided that II did something twenty-five
years ago more humlllating 10 q person OF
Integrity than the retrsction OF scandalous
imputations published without due consld'
Grafton OF thelr significance. The editor
OF the Argus may take either horn OF the
dilemma which seems most comfortable "a
him. Whichever he takes his testimony
Is dlscredIted In the view OF all men who
care for the truth by his direct aud potent
sslfcontrxdlctiOn.