The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1884-09-27

journed without taking action.
Blaine has answered these interrogatories and the
answers are substantially given in his letter to Mr.
Phelps published above On this letter the Sentinel
says "The trouble possibly with Blaines attorneys
but certainly with all honest supporters of Blaines
candidacy-is that they do not know what Blaine
knows and what the Sentinel knows. James G.
Blaine has lifted his hand against the Sentinel but
he dares not let it fall In the language of Pitt ut
is the act of coward who raises his arm, and yet
has not the courage to give the blow" Swift to ae-
cuse of libel he yet skulks from answering on oath
as to the truth of the very matters which he so ORA
matically denounced when not on oath-as libelous
1.-THE story is utterly and abominably false in every
statement and every implication" is Blaine's Ian
guage. Very sweeping, very imposing, and very
honest in its sound is that, but paraphrasng upon
an utterance of Senator Voorhees, few days since
concerning another alsifer for political effect we
have say of Blaine that IF the mendacous scoun-
drel will put that statement in the form ofan affidavit
and in such way to come within the jurisdic-
ton of any criminal court we will agree to send him
to the pentenary the oaths of dozens of as repu
table people are in the United States. I"
Mr. Blaine is entirely satisfied that the Sentinel
has evidence-"propern evidence, not only for pred
icatng but for sustaining what at first the Sentinel
published as rumors but which recently it has
put in the form of charges against him. 1t is thi.
superior information of Mr.. Blaines his organs
which has restrained him from using the wires in
answering the Sentiners intcrrogatores he did in
ordering the suit, and which has restrained him
from facilitating the trial by answering them
through all the sixteen days that have passed since
those interrogatories were fled
The Boston Herald publishes the following from
John A. Bennett, well-known lawyer of that city
Again Mr. Blaine invites the confidence of So,
100000 of people in one of his explanations, and
again with disastrous results to himself In the
letter to W. W. Phelps, which it pains him so to
write he attempts to unwind the thread of truth
running through what he had previously called
the utterly and abominably false statement of the
indianapolis Sentinel. By this letter appears that
he married his wife in Kentucky June 3d. 1850, sup
posing the marriage perfectly legal until the winter
of 1851, when he learned that by the laws of Ken
lucky his marriage without license was invalid
This knowledge SO worked upon his apprehensions
that in March, 1851 the marriage was recelebrated
in time to all doubts to the legitimacy OF
the child which was born in June 1851 This is the
explanation. What are the facts? That by the
laws of Kentucky and the repeated decisions Of its
highest court g Marshall 372; 1. Bush, ca, Mr.
Blaines marriage in 1850, if then made, was per
fectly valid. license was not and never had been
AN Indispensable requisite in that state. Not till
July 1852, two years from that date did an act oil
the Legislature become law making marriage
void withouta license Whence come those doubts?
May not the legal counsel he fances he sought in
1850 have first been sought in 1884 from too care
less examination of the Kentucky statutes? The
cause assigned for all these msgvings we see could
not have been the true one Is it possible thateary
marriage may be mythical as the assigned reason
for the second one?"
w Rail- sbrro law in m int
states that at the request of John V. Lemovne he
witnessed the marriage in that city on the evening
of March %, 1851 of Mr. James G. Blaine. The mar
riage took place at the residence ofRey. DR.. Bryan,
and Mr.. Bell says he cannot remember that anything
was said at the time about previous marriage, OF
secrecy about the one to take place. He made a
memorandum of the event after the wedding
The Chicago News says: "Mr. Blaine telegraphed
Ben Harrison some time ago that he would die in
support of the honor of his family. That was no.
BILE sentiment expressed in words becoming real
knight but he has wofully petered out since then
and now is using every hook and crook to delay
proceedings in the case Mr. Blaine appears to be u
knight only with his mouth"
BLAINEs vERAcITY,
Blaines reputation for truthfulness has been
badly damaged by the Mulligan Letters and his de-
Tense of himself in the House of Representatives.
Witness the following extracts;
"My whole connection with the road has been as
open as the day. If there had been anything to
conceal about it l should not have touched it, =
Blaine Ia House Of Representatives..
mo one will ever know from me that disposed
of a single dollar to Maine."-Blaine 10 Fisher.
Hon. Carl Schurz has denounced Blaine not only
as a liar but deliberate liar and he proved it
from Blaine's own sworn evidence and his letters
to Fisher and Caldwell. lie should bring suit
against him for libel.