Morning journal and courier., 1891-07-17
EDITOR PORTER,s> REPLY.

Dear Sir: Your 0open letter" OF July
9th is before me. This is not the frs
time we have differed.
vigorously protested in my paper
against the passage of your bogus ballot
bill-the law which has caused all the re-
cent political trouble in Connecticut and
] mercilessly exposed your defense of it
printed in the New Highlander magazine. e
More than once have felt obliged, in
the interest of the public, to criticise the
affairs and officers of the railroad corpora
ton of which you are the working" at,
torney. - @
When, few months ago, the newspaper
which you control made an outrageous at
tack on State Treasurer Henry, I de-
nounced your course in unmeasured terms.
When, more recently, after the adjourn
turned the editorial criticisms of the same
journal upon me personally, did not hes
itate to show the public your real attitude
to the committee and the party.
With these events in mind, perhaps you
set yourself the task of composing an
"open letter" to me in q spirit of strict
impartiality and judicial calmness. .>6
You admit that my editorial upon you
published in the Hartford Post of June
10Th drew out your "open' letter." You,
therefore, not myself, or the committee,
or the republican party of Connecticut,
are really on the defensive.
Before taking up the points of your let
ter seriatim, will briefly illustrate the
tone of insecurity and exaggeration which
runs through the whole of it, You state
that met you on the floor of the house
on January 9th and upbraided you for
not coming up the night before, ETC., etc.
What really said was, "Why did you not
come up to our meeting last EVENING""
because was busy and I did not feel
we'll, ;" you replied. tT am sorry" said,
and the matter dropped there.
You write, in regard to your being pres
emit with the committee at it's meeting in
the Capitol on the same day, that you
stated that you desired to 60 to New Ha-
ven on the next train, but I, especially,
was so urgent that you consented to re-
main. What casually remarked was,
when you took out your watch and said
you must be going to the train, "Well,
there is another train in short time
(naming the hour; why not take that?"
These are small matters in themselves, but
they sufficiently indicate the method of
your Misrepresentation object of it
will be seen later, at the critical points of
your so-called argument. They and ex-
aggerations like them are the only pegs on
which yeu could hang your false infer
ences and wrong deductions.
Your "open letter" may logically be
classified under three heads, VIZ:
I. The attitude of the leaders of the re-
ton problem before the converting of the
general assembly and prior to the appoint
ment of the committee on canvass Of votes
| for state officers.
II. The work done by the committee, of
which was appointed member, without
! solicitation on my part.
l III. The alleged 7infuence" which was
| brought to bear upon myself and the other
| members of the committee to make them
I "change" their report.
Your remarks under each of these heads
| propose to analyze, concealing nothing.
In the first place, as your letter makes
| no unfavorable comment on my share in
| shaping the policy of the party previous
to the meeting of the legislature-but as
you acknowledge, rather, that, at that
| time, I held sound and liberal views look
l ing towards fair and honest settlement
| of the difficulty need only add that
agree with you in stating that the attitude
l of republicans in general on this subject
l was eminently fair and unprecedented.
They expressed themselves, in private
| consultations, as we'll as in public, as in
| favor of doing what was legally sound
4 duO u1Oldlly JuStJ W1UuOuG IcRdTo W DcE-
sonal considerations, or the braggadocio
of their opponents. Can I name any ex-
| ceptionss Yes! 1 am told that at ga
| gathering in a neighboring city of several
of the leading republicans of the state''-
referred to In your letter-that you, Mr..
Harrison, before the general assembly had
met and before it had had an opportunity
to consider the accuracy of the official re-
turns-stated, in substance, to other gen
tlemen who were present, that your rela
tions to your clients would not permit yor
under any circumstances to endorse any
policy which might cause delay, or breal
in the session. This can prove on relia
BILE authority. I, whom you accuse o.
having acted falsely, had no "clients;"
had never been approached by, or agreed
to give my support to any men, corpora
tions or measures, certain or likely to come
l before the general assembly. Are yo1
l willing to make SO sweeping statement
Are you willing to make any statement OF
this points Personally it made a differ
ence of good many hundreds of dollars
to me that the legislature should go on, al
each session my paper has published ,
Legislative Annual"
In the second place we come to the peri
cd after the organization and during tn
recess of the house, while the committe,
was taking testimony. Here is your yer
sion of what happened after the recess O.
the house of January 21st: That I me
you with two or three others at the foot O.
the steps leading to the speakers desk anc
requested you to go to the Allyn Hous'
and meet myself and the other republican
members of the committee on canvass O.
votes, for the purpose of discussing tn
kind of report that we should make upo1
the evidence which we had taken. L ex
pressly stated, you add, that objected t.
doing what had been urged by some gen
| tlemen to do-to make report which
would keep out of Office some Of the dem
ocratic candidates whom I believed ha(
been elected; and I stated, you say, that
did not propose to be bulldozed by certain
persons whom I named, into making an,
such report.
| deny the truth of the above Statement
in toto. It is twisted and biased in the in
genious manner already explained by pre-
vious instances. What I really did say
was that wished you would discuss the
subject with us, as other prominent re
pubhcans had done SO, and you. as yor
admit, had not been before the committee
and did not know what information they
had obtained. said that I was anxious
that perfectly fair report should be
| made; that no man should be kept out OF
Office who was justly entitled to it; that
should not be controlled by the opinion OF
any one man, but in forming my conclu-
sion I wished to hear the views of all
But your allegation discloses its falseness
on the very face Of it. If had made up
my mind that certain democratic or other
candidates had been elected, why should ]
wish to have you 60 with me Ito quote
your own language) "for the purpose OF
discussing the kind of report we should
| makea
The meeting above referred to occurred
on January 21st. The next meeting of the
committee was held on Monday, January
26th. You allege that at the former date
emo one suggested that there should be
any report declaring that the democratic
candidates for ieutenant-governor, score
tary or comptroller were not elected, mol
did any one in that room suggest that there
should be any prolonged delay as to those
men who were believed to have been elect
ed, for the purpose of coercing the demo-
cratic senate" Here we have three of
your mis- statements, made with deliberate
design, all crowded together in one sen
tence. First, the committee separated
without reaching any conclusion in favor
of the seating of the leutenant-governor
secretary or comptroller, but, on the con,
trary, having reached such conclusions as
to the results of the evidence as logically
required the adoption of the report after
ward presented. Second, at that meeting
no one had anything to say about pro.
| lonped DELAY in seating men who were be-