The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1884-09-24
w. A. MCKIM. Seal
JAMES g. BLAINE.

Sarah Z. Stanwood was a sister OF Harriet.
Blaine became bondsman with McKim for
procuring the license. This was October 3,
only three months after Blaine's pretended
marriage. Wonder what Major Blaine
thought he and McKim were giving bond
for? He didn't think it was to procure a
license; not until months afterward, "dur-
ing the ensuing winter" did he learn that
the laws of Kentucky made a license IAN
indispensable requisite of legal marriage"
Poor innocent Major Blainel Poor ignorant
Professor Blainel
SIS
Who will believe that when Blaine joined
in making that bond on the Sd of October,
he did not know license indispensable to
marriage? Even admitting him the stupid
donkey he pleads himself to have been on
the 30th of June, he surely was enlightened
on that subject on the Sd of October. Did
he make haste to amend his blunder? If he
had had the marriage he pretends, and been
as anxious as he pretends to have the glrl
''indissolubly" bound to him, would he not
have instantly had Mckim join him in
bond FOR license for himself and Harriet
Stanwood? If he had had any mar
riage, however secret and however want
ing in technical legal requisites, would
he not have asserted it in behalf
of the honor of his wife Immediately upon
the discovery by the public of her preg-
nancy? He would have been a craven not
to have done so. To concede that Mr..
Blaine was welded to Harriet Stanwood in
June, 1850 is to convict him of the grossest
infamy that could blacken a husbands
character. 1t is to convict him of having,
for some selfish end, compelled her to walk
before her young lady pup andil her asso-
ciates as a woman of shame, as his wanton
mistress, and with that foul stain upon her
character to leave those who had formerly
trusted and honored her. Is it not then
charity extended to Mr.. Blaine to set it
down to his credit that he did not have that
secret marriage he pretends and to just be-
lieye that in his answer on that point he has
perjured himself like a gentleman?
Mr.. Blaine does not indicate the fashion Of
the pretended secret marriage. He has not
yet named the minister or officer who per-
formed the ceremony. Perhaps he has not
yet decided upon the name he Will give.
When he does select one to thus accuse of
having committed a crime, it will, of course,
be that of some person who is not alive to
deny the charge. He names two witnesses,
one the sister of Mrs. Blaine and now dead;
one kinsman of mis- own, who is also re-
ported dead. Such is the device
by which Mr.. Blaine essays to
| yindicate his honor and sustain
his libel suit. The device is an entirely new
one. He did not proclaim it to save the We
man who trusted him. when in March, 1851
she had to leave Kentucky under a cloud
| and Journey to her mothers home to be de-
/ livered of her child. He has never pro-
1 claimed it since then until now. Necessity
/ is the mother of invention" Mr.. Blaine has
here proven the truth of the adage. But
there are many inventions which do not
prove to be practicable, and this is one Of
these.
So
Mr.. Blaine had no marriage, secret in Ken.
lucky, on the 30th of June, 1850, nor at any
other time. This is susceptible of proof, not
Only by the showing we have made of the
impossihility of it under the laws of Ken
lucky, but by statements made by Mr..
Blaine himself in 1851 and since, and by a
chain of evidence that no possible lying on
| Nv plain ofc mort oau hrooE Tho al