Daily Kennebec journal., 1884-04-29

should charge that II would have been better
and wiser for Mr.. Blaine 70 have refrained
from making anv investment in . railroad
that had directly or indirectly received aid
from the legislation of Congress. should be
ready to agree with you, not because the thing
was necessarily wrong in itself hut because II
is easy for such matters TO be so represented
as to appear wrong But why should Mr.
Blaine be selected for special reprobation and
criticism when So many other Senators and
Representatives have been similarly situated.
know of nv own knowledge that Governor
Morgan, Mr.. Hooper, Senator Grimes and
many of my friends while in Congress ac-
/ quired and held interests in such enterprises,
and neither you, nor l, nor the people,
suspected the transaction to be wrong or that
| il gave them an advantage over other inves-
tors. Why entertain and publish that sus-
pieion against Mr.. Blaine alone? When
sat as delegate at large in the last National
| Convention, Senator Edmunds and Senator
Window were both candidates. and should
gladly have supported either. Senators
Edmunds was understood to have block of
Burlington and Missouri securities, and the
other had not only block in the securities
Of the Northern Pacific Company, but was
| one of its directors. Yet you find no fault
with these gentlemen. Nor would you and l
differ in giving the highest rank TO Senator
Grimes, but both be and Senator Edmunds
acquired their interests in the Burlington and
Missouri roads while they were in the Senate.
They both certainly supported the bill to
restore the land grant to their road. passed
on the same day with the Little Rock BILL
Both measures we're just, and both we're
passed in the House and Senate without q
dissenting vote. Why must We suspect that
Mr.. Blaine had q secret and corrupt motive
and that other members and Senators had
none?
Let me add circumstance which seems to
me to be significant ofMr Blaine's conscious
innocence in this Fort Smith transaction.
He voluntarily made himself party of re-
cord in a suit against the Fort Smith and Lit
tie Rock Railway Company in the United
States Court which involved the nature and
source of his ownership in the property.
This was before he was named for the Presi-
dency. If he had obtained this ownership
dishonesty would he have courted this pub
licity?
have thus ventured. Mr.. Editor, to make
answer to the charges you have brought
against Mr.. Blaine. There are other charges
equally baseless which l have read, but in
other papers. so that may not claim your
space to deny OF answer them. l give two
examples. Mr.. Blaine is represented as the
possessor of millions. while l know that he
was never the possessor of the halfof one mil
lion He was represented as living for the past
ten years in palatial grandeur in Washington
He sold that palatial mansion, with all its
furniture, to Mr.. Travers for S24 500. and
got all it was worth. But you are responsible
only for such charges as you have made, and
have therefore made answer to them author
itatively over nv own name. and challenge
denial ofany substantial fact have stated
Y our attacks are not on Mr.. Blaine alone.
they are on his friends as we'll, and these are
certainly larger and more devoted body of
supporters than can be claimed bv any other
man in public life. 1t seems TO me as re-
call those in every station who are proud to
be numbered among them that l recognize
many of the ablest. truest and most honOra-
BILE of our countrymen.
l am respectfully yours.
WILLIAM WALTER PHELPS.
Washington. April %, 1884.