The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1884-09-12

10 accept, without inveStigatlon, the
indefinite and sweeping accusations
which have been made against Mr..
Blaine; if they have read Mr.. Schurz's
speech, let them also read Mr..
Blaine's explanation, made eight
years ago in Congress, and at that
time pronounced satisfactory by some
Of the very critics who now assail him
most bitterly, and let them read, too,
Senator Hoar's letter on the same
subject. Their study in this direction
will lead them, we believe, to these
conclusions: First that Mr.. Blaine's
bltterest enemy has yet to place
his finger on single corrupt or dis
honest act; second, that the equivo-
cal expressions in Mr.. Blaine's letters
to Mr.. Fisher are capable of a con-
struction which is perfectly consis-
tent with personal integrity, and that
common charity requires that Of two
constructions Of conduct which are
equally natural and easy. that should
be taken which is favorable rather
than the reverse; and third, that at
one or two points where Mr.. Blaine's
testimony conflicts with that of Mr..
Mulligan there is at least as good
reason for believing Mr.. Blaine as
for believing Mr.. Mulligan. Any
man who approaches the study Of
these facts with mind that is only
moderately free from prejudice will
be amazed at the distortions, insinua-
tons and unjust accusations to which
they have given rise.
In the second place, as to Mr..
Cleveland. We will not ask thcs.
gentlemen to accept as true the mar
rative of Mr.. Cleveland's immorali-
ties as told by the Buffalo Telegraph,
although not single statement has
been impeached. Let them take any
one of the explanations and apologies
which have been made by MIR. Cleve-
lands friends, or better still, let them
take them all, and compare them.
There are five of them-the version
of the New York Post; that of Gen.
King, joint protege of Mr.. Cleve-
land and Mr.. Beecher, who investi.
gated the former for the satisfaction
Of the latter; that of the Buffalo Cour-
Ter; that of Mr.. Cleveland's sixteen
Buffalo friends, and that of the Rev.
Kinsley Twining. Of these, the last
mentioned was, on the whole, most
satisfactory to Mr.. Clevelands friends
and was taken up most eagerly.
But what was its effect upon the
journal for whose benefit it was made?
The stern and scathing article in
the Independent of August 81, ut
terly repudiating Mr.. Cleveland and
pronouncing his candidacy dis
grace, answers this question. The
New York Post asserts that chastity
is not one of the virtues which hold
society together or which make hui
man progress possible. Do any of
the conscientious, Christian voters
whom We are Addressing believe that?
Do any of them accept the doctrine
that private character has nothing to
do with public character9 Taking
only the facts which are acknowledged
by Mr.. Cleveland s friends, is Mr..
Cleveland fit man to place at the
head of fifty-five millions of people ?
Shall we make it possible for young
men who are tempted to prohigacy
to say that if they sin they are at
least no worse than the President of
the United States, and that a sin
which was overlooked and condoned
by the whole Nation cannot be a
very serious affair Dare the relig.
ious and moral teachers of the Ma
ton and the educators of its youth
take this position?
Now as to vote for St. John.
The voters whom we are addressing
concede the impossibility, under ex.
listing circumstances, Of voting for
Mr.. Cleveland. But they are not
sure they can vote for Mr.. Blaine;
and they are asking themselves and
each other whether they will not be
answering the dictates of their con-
science by voting for St. John. They
appreciate the Importance of the