The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-08-08
mr.. BLAINE ANp THE HARPERs.
Joseph w. Harper, jr., Attempts to Explain
and Defend His Shameful Hypocrisy.


70 the Editor National Republican.
FRANKLIN SQUARE, N Y, Aug. 4.-Sir That
public record should have been made of private
letter to the Hon. VIM. Walter Phelps in which
l frankly expressed my admiration for certain
qualities in Mr.. Blaine, which are readily con
coded by his political opponents is of no moment
so far as am concerned personally; for on all
proper occasions am ready to renew such ex-
pressions. But these views, which may be cred
liable enough in themselves, become impairment
when they are discreditably and unfairly made
public in connection with private business
matter. The avowed object of such publication
was to impugn the political honesty Of Harpers
Weekly, whose publishers ARE now accused of
having personal spite against Mr.. Blaine be-
cause he declined their eager offer to publish his
book" Harper & Brothers, in their letter of
August 2, to the Philadelphia Press, pronounced
this accusation unquahtedly false. | propose to
demonstrate its talsty and to show that the
position of Harper's Weekly is in no way neon
sistent with the utteranees in my letter of March
Ii, 1888 to the Hon. William Walter Phelps
Before doing SO, however, cannot forbear the
expression OF my sincere regret that such un-
worthy and unjustifable use should have been
allowed by Mr.. Phelps of a private and personal
letter Viii the honorable gentleman from New
Jersey declare his responsibility for the publica
ton of a private letter; and unmindful, as he
appears to be, of the wholesome precepts Of
alma mater, and having yielded himself to the
influence of his present political ASSOCIATIONS
will he insist that such use of personal letter is
strictly honorable and when candid men pro
nounce such conduct dishonorable, will he deride
them as only so many for so fewl denAan..aaent
dudes, Pharisees, ministers end 1;,lugwumps?
Now, Mr.. Blaine ana mis- publisher are quite
gsvcome to the 'frst-rate notice which has been
extracted from my purely personal letter to Mr.
Phelps American publishers, as rue, are not
envious or jealous of one another. In our friend
~ rivalry and wholesome competition, we are
not unlike college crews in boat-race where
when our own college cannot win it is.
left to us to cheer the crew which fair
~ wins and it was left with Harper
81 Brothers to wish success, which they
did most heartily, to Mr.. Blaine's publisher Mir.
Henry Bill, who has been the friend of my house
for nearly fifty years. Albeit my disappoint
ment was somewhat alleviated by Mr. Phelpss
assurance of Mr.. Blaines repeatedly expressed
qualification at the offer-which does not accord
with your statement that the offer was co1dly
declined.
The success of Mr.. Blaine's book shows how
true my instinct as a publisher, while the
result of the Chicago Republican convention
amply confirmed my Judgment of Mr.. Blaines
great personal popularity The book is a good
one and unquestionably 'the historian of his
own times has the sympathies of the people with
his literary undertaking.
You assert that Harper & Brothers were dis
appointed in securing the publication of Mr..
Blaine's book, and that therefore they are politi
cally hostile to the author This statement is
utterly without foundation The fact is that
Harper % Brothers, as firm, were unaware,
until after the Weekly had refused to support Mr..
Blaine, that any such application had been made
in their behalf though my suggestion on the
subject in my personal note to Mr. Phelps was
one which my partners would have cordially
approved. Mr. Phelps's explanation in his
reply of March 25, 1885, that it was too late for
business with Mr.. Blaine, owing to the fact
tc0Tna lima MAR fpian de bod Nv do.
grees beguiled him into q publication associa-
ton, and there he was fastened" left no room
whatever for chagrin or resentment on my part.
But Mr.. Phelpss insinuation that Mr. Blaine
had become the victim of the insidious wiles of a
Down easter and had been deceived by juggling
tricks into arrangements hostile to his interests,
is, in my judgment, unfair to his present pub
fishers, and not creditable to Mr.. Blaine's sa-
otcity.
The business relations between authors and
publishers are not unlike the business and pro
fessional relations of other classes of the com
munity. Publishers have their political convic-
tons quite Independently of their authors, in
the same way that bankers and merchants and
lawyers and physicians mold their political opin-
ions uncontrolled by the dictation of their Gus
toners and clients and patients.
For more than five years Harper's Weekly has
been on record in its opposition to Mr.. Blame as
candidate for the presidency, and any business
relations which we might have had with Mr..
Blaine as the publishers of his ttTwenty Years
/
of the paper. Its proprietors would have been
false to the trust which they have inherited and
regardless of the highest obligations Of journal
ism; they would have been blind to the signs of
the times, Indifferent to the teachings of their
own journal, and disloyal to the editor who has
been so long associated with them, had they
allowed the Weekly to advocate Mr.. Blaine's
nomination or support his candidacy. 1t would
have been easy to throw up our caps and to join
in the enthusiasm of the June convention, and
to pay thoughtless tribute, by pen and pencil, to
Mr.. Blaines unquestioned popularity. But as a
journal of civilization, it is the duty Of our
Weekly to continue to protest against the in
difference to political integrity which is dsinte-
grating the Republican party; to continue it's
fight for the people against the worst class of
politicians; and to advocate the great patriotic
measures which the people are determined upon
and the politicians hate. civilseryiee reform
have no wish to recall or withdraw my last
years estimate of Mr.. Blaine's extraordinary
popularity. But while | freely concede the
warm sympathy Of his nature, and confess to
continued admiration of his eloquence and his
courageous defense of some Republican prinei-
Piles, yet claim that it by no means follows
that the magnetic qualities which make the
personal popularity Of a great writer or orator
are necessarily the qualities most to be desired
in candidate for the highest executive Office.
History shows US that the persuasive qualities
of the orator are too often united with those of
the demagogue Our best orators have passed
into history simply as orators, whatever may
have been the aspirations of some of them, and
our countrymen, with all their admiration for
them, have abstained from making them rulers.
There is one omission in my letter to Mr..
Phelps which seems to have escaped him, and,
as it was designed, beg leave to draw your at
tention to it. / carefully and studiouslly avoided
any allusion whatever to Mr. BlaInes integrity
His indecent use of official position to secure
personal pecuniary advantages was disclosed in
his own printed letters to Mr.. Fisher, and is,
therefore, authoritatively and conclusively es-
tabshed. This indecency is shamefully upheld
by certain politicians who boast of its business
smartness, end in the familiar slang of the
about it," 1t is reluctantly condoned by larger
class who try to believe in party supremacy at
any price-even at the cost of national degrade
ton. But that this official indecency is con-