St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1884-06-26
The Facts in Respect to MIR.
Blaine.

In it's issue for May 10, 1884, Har-
per's Weekly said, in allusiOn to Mr..
Phelps's effort 10 explain the cOnnec-
ton of Mr.. Blaine with the Little Rock
and Fort Smith railroad:
"The one fact in this controversy
which remains undisturbed, and which
the honest voter everywhere will
plainly combrehend, is this: In the
spring of 1869 Mr.. Blaine, as speaker,
made a ruling in favor of the Little
Rock railroad securing to it a govern
ment land grant, which passed on
April 9. Soon afIerward it appeared
that Mr.. Blaine was very desirous of
obtaining an interest in building the
road, and on June % he wrote to his
friend Mr.. Fisher, the contractor, who
had made him some offer, asking that
| Mr.. Caldwell, who then controlled the
enterprise, should make him (Mr.
Blaine) definite proposition to enable
him to acquire the interest that he
desired On the I'd of July he renews
the suggestion. Mr.. Caldwell apparent
Iy not responding, Mr.. Blaine writes
again, on the 4th of October, to his in
termediary, Mr.. Fisher, and tells the
story of his ruling, showing that he, as
speaker, saved the road, and author
izing Mr.. Fisher to tell Mr.. Caldwell
that thus, without knowing it, he (Mr.
Blaine) had done him great favor.
On the same day he writes another let
ter to Mr.. Fisher, urging him to read
the Globe, which he sends him, and
see how narrowly, by means of his
ruling, the bill aiding the road escaped
defeat. In the same letter Mr.. Blaine
expresses his natural anxiety to make
the most of the arrangement which he
had already completed with Mr.. Fisher,
but states that he is bothered by Mr..
Caldwell's delay. This repeated ref
erence to his official action was ap-
parently intended to bring Mr.. Cald-
well to the point. This is the natural
and fair Interpretation of the letters
t and it is this which startled the country
) when the disclosures were first made
, eight years ago. Our readers viii
+ jndge for themselves whether this is q
= fair view of the letters, and whether
; Mr.. Phelps's explanation removes this
| impression. We do not think that i
f does. But now, having what must b,
considered an explanation from Mr.
! Blaine himself, which leaves the ques
= ton where 1T was, can anything b'
= palmer than that his nomination wOul'
e involve extraordinary risks for the re
e publican party Could the party wise
q ly venture upon campaign wbicl
would inevitably turn upon the ques
J. ton whether its presidential candidat
is had made his official action serve hi
+ personal advantage 2"
q Mr.. Phelps's letter was Mr.. Blaine
i own explanation and defense, because
N of course, it was not published withOu
N Mr.. Blaine's knowledge and consen
re 1t was all that could be said to explai
t. the transaction, and other simila
le transactions, and of this explanatiO
4 Harper's Weekly declared that it wa
D. unsatisfactory. No subsequent wOr
m upon the subject has been spoken b
| Mr. Blaine or his friends. 1t has bee
| assented, indeed, that the story was
Id stale calumny that the republica
,e masses demanded Mr.. Blaine's nomina
2 ton; that ''the people" had repud
X ated the slander; that Pharisees are Il