New-York tribune., 1884-10-12
CiyONS or DEFAMATION.

Mr.. Bcechcrs warmcst friends regard his
sorry plight with grief and humiliation. Tnr
rRInuNr can speak plainly on this subject, be-
cause IN he knows and m Plymouth Church
knows. II secured fair play for him IN the great
crisis Of his HE. Ten years ago his friends
would not have believed that he would ever be
installed ns chaplain In ordinary OF pack oi
rabd scandal -mongcrs. Times have changed
since The Times. The Nation, and with few
exceptions, the Democratic press, branded nm
as hypocritc, Il liar and pcriurcr. The same
Journals which, bounded on by his enemies,
were then gnashng and tearing at his private
character are now whining at his feet and
greedily snatchmg at the dry crumbs and
tainted bits of scandal falling from his table.
Chaplain in ordinary to the scandal-mongers
is the title we have given him. Perhaps we
ought to say high priest of the gospel of de-
famation. From the foundation OF thc Repub
lie defamation has been the most glarng vice
of American political life. At the outset 1t
was the malignant device of personal spite
then it was a recognized method OF political
warfare; and in the present campaign 1t has
become a species of fanaticism. HE enemies
of Mr.. Blaine have held a high carnival OF
hypocrisy and cant and been thrown into Il
frenzy of intolerance and hate. Defamation
has ceased TO be regarded by them as one of
the ignoble arts OF partisan politics. They
have proclaimed it as new form
of ethical culture-a pure gospel of politi-
cal regeneration. Of this gospel Mr..
Beecher is for the time being preacher and
priest. This aspect OF the case lends Signlil-
cance to the particular charges which he has
made against Mr.. Blaine. lidcfamati0n be po-
litcal gospel, it ought naturally To be regulated
by canon law. Mr. Bcechcr by his theological
training is cminently fitted to formulate these
canons of defamation.
The on.y effect of Mr.. Bccchcl's story,
if it be true, is to destroy the crediblity OF
his own witness. If Mr.. Bccchcr ten years ago
had gone on the witnc css-Stand and impeachcd
the credibillty Of every witness who had tcsti-
fed in his behalf his lawyers would have
been laughed ont of court. From a
logical point of view this is precisely
what he has done in the present instance.
If he does not tell the truth, or if his memory
is at fault, he has no case against Mr. Blaine.
If he does tell the truth, he inpcacheS his only
witness and renders the testimony worthless.
This ostabhshe the first canon of political de-
famaton namely A charge against public
bility is DESTROYED by the dciamcrs them selves
Tins, of course, is not a rule of evidence. or
principle of law recognized in the courts; but
defamation when elevated to political gospel
is law unto itself.
Let us admit now. for the sake ot argument.
that Mr.. Beecher tells the precise story which
he Processes to have heard in Mr.. joys house.
That story was briefly this Mr. JOY bad asked
Mr. Blaine to have one sound lawyer, of either
party, appointed on a committee: Mr.. Blaine
had sent word through Il friend that
Mr.. JOY could have the whole committee
as he wanted it. If he would take some
deprecated bonds of his hands AMI place them
at par; Mr.. JOY Indignantly refused the offer.
Now what were the inherent probabilities of
the easel When Mr.. JOY had asked Tor one
member of the committee, would the Speaker.
if corrupt public man. have offered 10 appoint
seven men, or even Thirteen mcn--ihc entire
committee. whatever the number wls} Would
not the speaker have granted the ptccisc favor
which was asked. rather than have offered 10
do seven or thirteen times ~ much ~ MIR. JOY
had requested Would not the Speaker #
corrupt. have asked for personal interview
rather than place himself NJ the mercy Of inter-
mcdimics who could blAchmail him at their
lcisurcl Would the Speaker have ycntulcd to
east ordinary prudence aside and openly con-
Wet himself Of vcnality2 All the inherent
probabilities of the ease are against the charge
which Mr.. Bcechcr Processes TO repeat on the
authority of the very man who cmphatically
denies it. 1t was n prcpostcrous charge
false on its face gIOtrsqucy inn
probable yet Mr. Beecher prorcsses to have
al ui tn I
then is the second canon of defamation, name
", that scandalous charge against public
man is to be believed without questioning,
even when the inherent probabilities condemn
il rs naked false and Incredible. This. of
course, is not common sense, but defamation
when elevated to political goSpcls law unto
itself
This charge, if We are to accept Mr.. Bccchcr's
account, was based solely upon Mr.. joys after
dinner table talk in September, 1877. In 1850
Mr.. joy nominated Mr. Blaine for the Prcsi-
dency III the Chicago Convention Mr. Beech
er must have known, therefore, that his only
witness no longer believed that Mr.. Blaine was
corrupt man. He also knew that
Mr.. Blame did not admit that the
charge was well founded Mr. Blaine
having been told that Mr. Becchcr was
repeating this story, had confronted him about
il. Mr. BeecheI's sole witness had broken
down and the charge had been repellcd as pre-
postcrous. There was no longer any evidence
against Mr.. Blaine. Did Mr.. Bccchcr with
draw the charge and stop talking about il
No he continued, IA he says himself, 10 men
ton ii among his private friends, and finally.
after Nh. JOY had made sweeping denial of
the charge rushed with it into the public
prints lie does not profess 10 have any
knowledge of the case. He says. "Let Mr..