The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-05-06

Ne will tell the Advertiser why we hap
pened to mention Judge Goddard along
with itself and the Argus as engaged in
weaving crown for spurious martyr. It
was because o. that passage in Judge God
dard's Democratic stump speech last Thurs
day evening in which he referred 10 the
cases of Judge Woodbury. Davis and Collec-
tor Chester A. Arthur as examples of VIC
tins of politica! persecution, the judgment
as to whom had been in the one case con-
demned by he exclusion from power ever
since of the responsible political party, in
the other by making the victim President of
the United States, and plainly intimated
that if the Marshal were removed he would
be promoted by an indignant community.
We remembered that the Advertiser had
followed this up by nominating Mr.. An
drews for higher Office. When we hear
that Judge Goddard thinks it an imperti-
nence for the Argus and Advertiser to laud
that because he is ''nota public newspaper"
newspapers have no business to refer to his
public acts, we will consider whether it is an
impertinence to name him in the same SEN
tence with those papers as colaborer in
the same foolishness.
If we had lot been discussing Mr. An
drews's claims TO be considered an abused
man instead CT Judge Goddard's speech
we might have had more to say about that
forensic effort. Perhaps the Advertiser will
fhiply If iynnartinanf ~ hot
other things happened about twenty-eight
years ago, and some things have happened
since, which have had more to do with
keeping the Democratic party out of power
than the removal of Judge Woodbury. Davis.
As to Mr.. Arthur nobody knows better than
Judge Goddard that Mr.. Arthur's being
President is the result of series of acct
dents, and quite contrary to the wish of the
people, who took no interest in him as a
martyr. This whole passage is bit of bus
tian rhetoric, destitute of logical conference
Through ii all there runs the inevitable sug-
gestion.-"There is another example of I'M
just removal from Office the victim of which
deserves to be set right; but l will not mem
ton it.''
The Advertiser thinks we were provoked
to mention the Judge on account of GER
tain passage in that gentleman's speech
which it vouches for as "keen criticism of
the PRESS" If we had thought anything
in the Judges remarks sufficiently pointed
to do the PRESS an injury we should not
have waited for the Advertiser to invite
consideration of them. However. since it
has done SO, we will hold the "keen criti-
cism' up to the light. This is the passage:
confess that haze been shocked at the state
nents an6lashingEy put forth, not only in
tion but in the newspapers, in relation to these
proceedings. On the one hand it is asserted,
apparently seriously, that even though none of the
charges sustained by the evidence nevertheless
the marshal might, may and ought to be removed
for ineffciency, charged or unchanged, proved or
improved, provided any can be found within
the whole range of the city whom the aldermen
may be made to believe would be more efficient.
And on the other hand it is gravely asserted that
certain men are and are not candidates for the
approaching vacancy, and that citizen at least
has been offered and declined the appointment All
of these things seem to me a mere mockery of
justice, decency and law. Again, have heard the
abomnable doctrine suggested, that in spite of the
failure of all evidence at the hearing tending to
sustain the charges to sustain any charges,
nevertheless aldermen are at liberty to weigh state
ments privately whispered in their by enemies
of the marshal and to convict and remove him
thereon. How any gentleman can reconcile such a
suggestion with his oath and the law 1 cannot
imagine. How can the marshal be said to have a
hearing if private calumnies whispered into the ear
of his judges behind his back are to be listened to
for a moment? To such plausible and insdious
tempters of your integrity every honest alderman
should in his indignation excam, sect thee behind
me, Satan"
The Advertiser says this refers to the
PRESS and undoubtedly it has good authori-
ty for the statement. The Italics are the
Advertisers, but we discover no criticism,
"Been" or blunt, in the statement of law
yer that he is shocked by something not fav-
orabe to his client. 1t is his business to be
shocked by such things. The next sentence
is Misrepresentation of what the PRESS
had said The PRESS did not say that the
Marshal could be removed if none Of the
charges Were sustained, but that the question
to be determined ''isnot only whether the
Marshal is guilty Of all the offences specified,
bat whether he is gully of such neglect or
such errors of judgment or action as make
it for the interest of the city that he should
be removed" The PRESS did not say that
he could be removed for lnefficiency charged
or unchanged, proved or improved, but it
said it did not think the Aldermen we're
TOD hu fho ip4s oil DIV brO11Olf
and did not see why they could not push the
inquiry as to inefficiency Zone of the COM
plaints) 10 any direction they chose. The
PRESS holds to the opinion that if we can
have better management of the police
force than we have had the people are EMIT
led to it and that City Marshal is ineffic-
lent if he is less efficient than another would
be. To Judge Goddard, as counsel for An
drews, this may seem "mcckery Of decen-
cy"; but it will not seem so TO those who
pay the city taxes, and want protection.
This is the only thing in the extract that
can refer to the PRESS. 1t has said nothing
about candidates for the vacancy, nothing
to the effect that the Aldermen were at lib
erty to weigh statements privately whispered
into their ears by enemies of the Marshal.
The Advertiser falsely attributed such a
statement to us but we disclaimed and repu.
dated it before Judge Goddard's speech was
delivered.
This "keen criticism" therefore appears
to be of the nature of the eloquent perora-
ton already referred to, rhetorical per-
Torrance without substance of fact or rea-
son that will endure examination.
New Publications.