The Portland daily press., 1884-08-02

Ex-MarShal AndrewS'S Case Again.
1t is well known that ex-MarshaI Andrews
is to be a candidate before the Democratic
county convention for the Office of sheriff.
His claim to the nomination, and his only
claim, rests on the argument that because
he was removed from an Office of trust and
profit by Republican board of aldermen
because his administration of that office had
been found dlscreditable by an investigation,
therefore it is The duty of the Democrats to
"vindicate" him by nominating and electing
him 10 an Office of still greater trust and
profit. For The successful prosecution of
this claim 1t Is essential that Mr.. Andrews be
kept before the public in his role of martyr
There seems to be tendency on the part of
the Democracy to forget him, which the ex-
Marshal naturally views with alarm, and to
counteract it he from time to time exposes
his bleeding wounds in the Argus. Yester-
day that journal devoted over column to
his cease" We should not refer to the Ar
gus's article If it I'D nothing more than re-
call to recollection the fast-dissolVing Mr..
Andrews. For concerning him we are su-
want
to undertake his vindication the PRESS GER
tainly has no disposition to turn them from
that work. At the same time it will refuse
to exhibit Mr.. Andrews to the public exec pt
at the usual advertising rate.
But the Argus's article contains one insin
uation which gives an impression so utterly
false that it seems necessary to call atten
ton to it and contradict it, even at the risk
of giving Mr.. Andrews free notice. In the
certiorari proceedings before Judge Virgin
1t will be recollected that Mr.. Putnam Of
fered to prove by Mr.. Charles f. SWEET twho,
by the way, the Argus goes to needless trou-
BILE to Identify, for there is, SO far as we
know, but one person of his name and ma
ture in the city, that Mayor King agreed
with Mr.. SWEET before election that IL the
latter would work for him City Marshal An
drews should be removed. This proof, the
Argus declares, was kept out by the cunning
management of ex-Mayor Libby, counsel for
the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. SIT is
true" says that journal, "that the Mayors
willy counsel and predecessor, ex-Mayor Lib
by, protested willingness to allow the tes-
timony to be given because he knew the
Court would not admit it," This insinua-
ton that Mr.. Libby or Mr.. Libby's client
was afraid of any statement that Mr.. SWEET
might make is entirely without any founda-
ton in fact. Mr.. Libby was anxious that
whatever Mr.. SWEET had to say might be
heard and so expressed himself to the court.
He had no more knowledge of what the
courts rulipg would be than had Mr..
Putnam. If it can be argued that
Mr.. Libby professel willingness to
admit Mr.. Swetts affidavit because
he knew the court would exclude it, it can
be argued with just as much force that Mr.
Putnam professed willingness to put it in
because he knew the court would keep it
out. Ia other words, that the offer was
made for public effect, and that it would not
have been made had the counsel for Mr.. An
drews not felt certain that the Mayor and
Board Of Aldermen would not have the OPP
portunity to meet and break it down, as they
were prepared to do