New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-09-16
THE DREGS or DEFIMl7TON.

THE DREGS OF DEF1M41TON.
Malice has overreached itself at last. The
new letters published for the purpose of iniur-
ing Mr.. Blaine go far to vindlcate him. Nheh
Mulleanand Fisher ransacked their correspond
ence eight years ago for material to biackeh
MFR. Blainc's reputation, their cold and de
liDcrate malice rejected the letters now pub
lishcd. If there wercthcn in their hands any
which could have done him HARM we may be
sure those would have been produced. But
the letters now printed, though they contain no
new charge nor scrap OF evidence
that tends to sustain any old charge do
contain much that is of the greatest value to
Mr.. Blaine. For that reason, his accuScrS,
when cool, were smcwd enough to suppress
them. But now they see public opinion moving
forward with rcsistlcss sweep toward MI
Blaincs election they are maddened and des-
peIate they hunt thcirpigeOn-holcs AGAIN for the
dregs Of ancient scandal, and in their fury they
brand themselves with falschood, and for the
first time disclose the true character OF the
transactions between Mr.. Blaine and Mr.
Fisher.
The new publication embraces that very let
ter of October 24, 1871, which MIR. Blaine has
for eight years been accused of HuppreSslng.
As The sam showed with great cleamess the
oft-rcitcrated charge was reduced at last to tins
one letter, which was named in Muihgans
memorandum, but which Mr.. Blaine declared
was not in the package received and publicly
read by him. Continually The Times. The Post,
and other papers have repeated that
Mr. Blaine lied, and had delibe-
ratcly suppressed this letter. Yet now the
laundering rage OF his balled accuScrs pro
duccs It from their own stock, and makes one
thing clear: Eight years Mulhcan has seen
Mr. Blaine falsely accused of supprcsSng this
letter and has known all the time that the
charge was false, because he held in his posses
sion the proof. Yet he has kept back that
proof and silently allowed the lie to 20 ON
doiugIts dishonest VOL X, and thus has made that
lie IN, own. in order to blackcn the character
of Mr. Blaine. In tuc light OF this
fact. who should now be believed: Nh Blaine,
who told the truth, OF his accu~crs, eclt-con-
victed of falschood And why was this letter
chen suppressed! Because, as it now proves,
Fisher and Caldwell had failed 10 made good
pledges upon winch Mr.. Blaine had borrowed
So coo for their benefit.
The great fact which tie new letters cstab-
fish is that Nh Blaine was the victim Of Warren
Fisher deceived by him from the start, induced
TO involve himself and ms friends in an under
taking in which they all suffered, crippled 10y
the refusal OF Fisher to keep his word, per
suadcd when disaster camctoboToW money for
the enterprise upon hi, personal crcdI, and
finally Left in the luTch by his pr0icsscd friend,
who reasoned that Mr.. Blaine, being public /.
man. could never afford to demand what was
Justly duc 10 him. for fear of scandal.
The letter, OF Ju'. 1860, previously pub +.
li,hcd. prove that Fisher then made PROPOSE F.
ton to Mr.. Blaine, which ne hcsitated toacccpt I
uncertain whether it might involve larger re- .
sources than he could command. The new let
tcls of October ! and show, what has been
cyidcn, an along that he had closed the arrange
mcnt with Fisher TO take from him certain
bonds in order to raise money for the enter
prise. and that lac did not prove dead
head" but performed his part TO the let
ter. lie not only took bond, and placed
them to lift the enterprise over obstacles but
had disposed of $4,000 bct6rc he letter
,ras ,criHcH making mention of his ruling III
Congress. Thus ne has been iniamou,ly slam
dcrcd, all this time, by the charge that he re-
icl1cd to his ruling in order TO get into the con
Germ; he WAS in it already, as the new
letters prove, and had placed all the
bonds he was expected to place. But
these new letters also prove that privacy
about that negotiation was urged, not
by him. but by Fisher, who was at tnat time
negotiating with Caldwell. 1t may be inferred
that Fisher did not then want Caldwell to
know that the enterprise had been i'll such
straits he it was who wrote about "the i'm
portancc of keeping all quiet and to him Mr..
Blaine wrote: "NoOnc will ever know from me /
"that have diSposcdo ola single dollar in Maine. |
SO there need be no cmbalrassmentin talking |
" with Nh CALDWELL There was not thing
IN the transaction Of which Mr. Blaine had rea
son to be ashamed he had taken at his own
risk block of securities, and by his personal
credit and reputation with friends had placed .
Them receiving, as both Fisher and Mulligan
admitted, the average rate of percentage that
Others received. Thus;
May. 81 1876 Warren Fisher IT,, testified Mise Doc
JIG, page, - and s9).
Q-was any other besides stock given inthe
purchase of these bonds
A,-No, sir
Q.-WIe not land-grant bonds sometimes gvenl
A.-Oh, yes; II sold $4,000 II these first mortgage
bonds, would also give bonus $4,000 OF and-erant
bonds, 10000 Of STOCK and $4,000 of The pre-
foTsd stock.
Rp llldt 4 SAFE ol NloVpO ol THESE DOluh Intlc was
really transfer OF $4,000 mort-age bonds, $1,000
land grant bonds $40 900 preferred stock and $4,000
common stockl
Ayes.
Q-Makng transfer OF $4,000 instead of 100000
A.-Ne,. Sir
Odd on ever let Mr. Blaine have $4,000 Of these
b .nd- without any consideration
A.-No sir
My 81. 1876. James Muusan testified Mise Doc.
176. pa-c o.
Do ou know o. any other sale than the one to Nh
Bl..uol of the bonds Of thai compluyi
A.-Nes.
Q-Wore the other sales INA DC on the same terms as
this salcl
A.-No. sir; quite cifc'cnt
Q-Was the - rc,n age which was realized 10y Nh.