Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-04-06

lily adhered to by Mr.. Blaine. No word has
or indirectly to the course of Mr.. Edmunds
in 1884 or to his reelection to the Senate in
1887. The republicans of Maine unanimous
ly believe that it is wise for the party to look
duties Of the future all the unpleasant incl
dents Of the past.
We sincerely regret that certain restless
and misguided friends of Senator Edmunds in
other States have not seen their duty in the
same light About six weeks ago the Boston
Advertiser published communication from
Burlington, Vermont. to the effec: that Mr..
Edmunds had notified the republican national
committee in 1884 of his readiness to take the
stump for Mr.. Blaine, but advising the COM
mittee frankly that the moment he should do
so a letter of his rejecting on Mr.. Blaine's
career would be made public-the letter be-
ing in the hands of third and hostile party.
Thereupon. as the story goes, the national
committee was unwilling to have Mr.. Ed
munds speak.
The New York Tribune did not believe the
statement thus made BY the correspondent of
the Boston Advertiser, although it originated
in Mr. Eimunds' home. After an exhaustive
investigation the Tribune published, on The
9th of March, the most conclusive proof that
no such letter was ever written bv Mr.. Ed
mund. to the national committee and that, on
the contrary, the committee had IN vain invit-
ed Mr. Edmunds to speak on four different
occasions. A letter in which Mr. Edmunds
declined to speak is published by the Tribune.
The complaint is thereupon made by certain
papers that confidence violated in pub
fishing a private" communication. But 1t
must be remembered that the Boston Adver
ti-er had misrepresented what Mr.. Edmunds
said and that the truth. thus perverted, could
only be indicated ov showing the genuine
letter.
The Burlington (Vt.) Free Press was orig
inally supposed by tire Tribune to be equally
responsible with the Boston Advertiser for
the misstatement But the editor of that
paper, Mr.. G. g. Benedict, now explains in a
personal note to the Tribune, written from
Florida, that only part of the Advertisers
communication was published in his paper,
"somr of its erroneous statements-as that
Mr.. Edmunds rendered his services
speaker to the National Committee, etc, -
being carefully omitted in copying" If Mr..
Benedict knew the Advertisers statements
were erroneous why did he not say so in
his paper when he was "carefully' copying
part of the despatch. Mr. Benedict will par
don Us for expressing our great surprise that
while the Advertiser was opening its columns
to the sUggestto fatsr he was by his own
statement carefully" engaged in the sup
preSsio veri. Mr.. Benedict has certainly not
improved his own position in relation to the
matter.
1t is somew hat amusing tina; certain papers
which aided in circulating the misstatements
of the Boston Advertiser are now afraid that
the harmony of the party" may be endan-
gered by the direct and candid effort of the
New York Tribune to set the matter right
1t would be well for these papers to recall
the scripture rule First pure, then peacea-
BILE" Harmony is not disturbed by frank
ness, candor and truth But it is always en-
dangered bv the opposite qualities. We shall
feel surprise quite equal TO our regret if the
Boston Advertiser shail fail to make the
amrnde honorable. already too long DELAYED.
Meauw bile tho most cordial thanks OF every
lover of fair play are due to the New York
Tribune for so effectualy correcting mis-
statements which were at once untrue and
mischievous.