The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-01
Milbank's Defence Of Borrowe.

Mr.. HARRY vANE MnBANK publishes a
card in the Herald. in which he un dertakes
& to defend the course and conduct OF Mr..
B0RRowE in his relations with Mr.. DRAY-
TON. This step. he says. he takes on his
/ own responsibility solely and because
:" there seems to be q general agreement to
oetracize Mr.. BoRRowE on those grounds.
and to treat him more or less as pariah."
The offences charged against Mr.. BoR-
BowE are these. according to the under
standing Of Mr.. M1LBANK: First. that the
correspondence in the affair was published
with his authority" secondly. that the
agreement between Mr.. and Mrs. DRAYroN.
{ on which his seconds based their refusal to
allow him to fight. EXISTED only in his
imagination"
The first charge. he says. sis disposed Of
completely" by the assumption that Mr..
Fox was solely responsible for publishing
Z the correspondence. Fox having been asso-
,ciated with MILBANK in managing the
"affair Of honor" for BoRRowE.
This defence, however. "is disposed Of
+ completely" in its turn. by the explana-
ton OF the circumstances OF the publication
BY our London correspondent yesterday.
{ He says distinctly that "BoRRowE
called with Fox upon him the day before
the Majestic sailed. and In the smoking
room OF tho Hotel Victoria. BoRRowE au-
thorized Fox to give to The SUN the corre-
spondence for publication as soon as
1t became apparent that the story Of
! tho quarrel was likely to appear in
any newspaper In England, France.
or America" The responsibility for the
publication therefore, rests with BoRRowE
and not Fox. He give his approval to the
publication in contingency which he left
his second to determine according to his
own Judgment. Mr.. DRAYToN had nothing
TO do with it. The correspondence was
given out by the other side, and with BoE-
MOVIES consent, and by his authority.
III The second charge. which seems to Mr.
MILBANK to DO :" fur graver." as it In
wolves BoRRowE's "honor. his reputation.
his entire future" he thinks he meets suf-
Rclontiy by giving a synopsis Of an agree
ment which he alleges was mado between
4 Mr.. and Mrs. DRAYToN Oct. IS, 1891. Ac-
cording to this. tho wife was to retain one
half OF her income OF S35.00O under all cir
Z cumstances. OF the other half. 5000 year
s Was to BIO paid by trustees to her husband
for his own use. and $4,000 to herself for
Z the maintenance OF her children: She agree
ing. however. that II she held any verbal or
written communication with BoRRowE. the
4 control OF tho children and OF tho $4,000
i should go to her husband; and he agreeing
& b take up his residence In Europe with her
Such synopsis OF an agreement In writ
Ing. even II the agreement was actually en-
y tered into. cannot DO taken as evidence In
. oourt OF honor or anywhere else. We must
K have tho precise terms and provisions OF the
4 document. not merely IN alleged abstract
myde up from memory or hearsay only by
i the party in the controversy opposed to
Mr.. DRAYToN. The agreement. SO far from
Ieaectlng on tho honor OF tho husband.
70 not at all inconsistent with his honor. It
Z may have been made In pursuance OF an
honorable effort on his part to shield his
wife from scandal. and TO guard the welfare
OF their children. Nothing In It's terms.
even as described by RoRROwE's second.
casts any imputation OF positive wrong
4 doing ON tho wife. or suggests more than
4 indlscretion dangerous to hor good name.
Moreover. tho question on which public
opinion IL trying BoRRowg Is not the ques-
tion OF vcrucity which Mr.MILDANK assumes
I, IL to BIO. It Is not whether the agreement
WIS made. but whether BoRRowE was JUS
titled In tryingito get out OF tho scrape by
sskinG acourse which sacrificed Mrs DRAY-