Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-09-22
RInine,s Secret Marriage.

Blaine has told the story OF his mar
riace. about which there has been so
much scandalous gossip. He has told it
in a letter to his friend, William Walter
Phelps, and also in answer to the IN
terrogatOries filed in his libel suit against
the Indianapolis Sentinel.
The facts set forth in the legal docu-
ment are fuller than those detailed In the
Phelps letter. In the legal document the
names Of two witnesses to the alleged
marriage are given. These witnesses are
not mentioned in the Phelps letter. No
inference can be properly drawn from that
fact, however. that is pTeiudicial to
Blaine. The names of the witnesses were
not necessary for the purpose which
Blaine evidently had in view in writing
the letter. HIS purpose apparently was
simply to excite sympathy and prepare
the way for favorable reception of the
answer to the interrOgatOries which, Curl
ousIy enough, was filed in court the day
the letter was published and, of course,
reached the public the day after the letter
The answer appeared to strengthen the
letter and, perhaps, that was one 1.-THE
things aimed at.
But are the letter and answer wholly
satisfactory They doubtless are to
BIaine's admirers and supporters, but it
is not altogether certain that they are to
the general public. The general public,
perhaps, would not have bothered itself
about this scandal if Blaine bad not no.
ticed it himself, because, assuming that
his domestic life began irregularly, it has
been blameless, as far as any one knows,
since the date of his marriage. But hay-
ing denied that he was guilty of an nten-
tional wrong in his relations with the lady
who became his wife, it becomes OF inter-
est to know whether he told the truth or
not.
1t is rather curious that the only per-
sons mentioned as witnesses OF the al
legged secret marriage are Sarah e. STAN
wood and ;. L. Blaine. The lady is sup
posed to be a sister of Mrs. Blaine. The
gentleman was probably a relative
Of Blaine. 1t does not appear
from the publications whether they
are living or dead. They were
all the witnesses needed, however,
provided there was a genuine marriage.
II is noticeable that il is not stated in the
Phelps letter. or in the answer to the inter-
rOgatories, that there was clergyman, or
any one else, present who was authorized
to unite persons in marriage. Was there
such a person PRESENT. If there was why
has not the fact been stateds OF course,
If there was a clergyman or a civil officer
present there must have been
marriage certificate, and there must
be a record of the marriage somewhere.
Why not produce the certificate or the
record? The production Of either would
leave no further room for suspicion or
criticism. Perhaps Blaine Will produce
one or both, as the case progresses. If he
does not, he will hardly be able to wholly
satisfy the public that his marriage was
as genuine as he claims it was.
He says that his secret marriage was
such a marriage as would have been legal
in PENNSYLVANIA, and he leaves the i'm
preston that the only thing that threw a
doubt on its legality in Kentucky was the
want Of a license. If a license was the
only thing lacking the marriage was suf-
ficiently regular to dlsarm criticism, but
was it the only thing? Further infOTma-
.F,,, orDears To no necessary