The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-05-17
Either KnaMeru Or Eollv.


A great ado is naturally made by the
Democratic papers over the fact that
ex-Secretary Whitney and one Of the
Hayemeyers have entered 'denisls of the
charge that their gigantic sugar trust
subscribed large fund to the Demo-
cratic national campaign committee.
in exchange for the privilege of editing
the sugar schedules Of the Democratic
tariff bill. We cannot blame the gen
tlemen for not wishing to confirm the
disgraceful details of this convincing
exposure. Neither can we feel large
measure OF surprise at the fact that
their denials are uncommonly satisfao-
tory TO the able editors who conduct
cuckoo Democratic organs. For pur'
poses Of seusationalism. it would be
decidedly more startling if they had
not denied them. but had admitted
their substantial accuracy.
1t will be perceived, nevertheless.
that vague denial from this interested
source does not fulfill all the functions
of an explicit vindication. 1t is prac.
tice of our criminal courts. when 3
prisoner is under criminal indictment
to give him the benefit of plea Of
mot guilty but it is also customary
to 20 right On with the trial There Ia
certainly nothing in brief negation
which destroys any Of the force Of the
Philadelphia Press detailed aud sum
mary accusation. The writer of that
arraignment, Mr. L, J. Edwards. is a
journalist whose long experience as the
custodian OF important secrets has not
yet been marred by any such decep-
tiou as would be true of this
expose were it to turn out 10 be delib-
erately false. The editor OF the paper
in which the article was couspicuously
printed, Mr.. Charles Emory Smith, is a
man who has represented his govern
ment in the highest diplomatic trusts
and a gentleman of whom 1t is impos
sible TO believe that he would con-
sciously libel or print without ade-
quate investigation charges rejecting
so seriously as do these upon the honor
and the conscience Of the administra-
tion. II 1t be said that the burden Of
proof rests naturally upon the prose-
cution. all who have read the detailed
arraignment must candidly admit
that this burden has been unloaded
and that now it is in order for the de-
PENDANTS to bring forward something
more substantial in rebuttal than a
flippant denial unsupported by eXcul-
patory evidence
Last OF all, ii is notorious that the
denials from this interested source have
not denied in the past. 1t is the same
Mr.. Whitney in this instance that once
before solsmnly denied the existence Of
an understanding with John J. Van
Allen, yet the symptoms OF vicious
bargain were so numerous aud so dam
aging that Van Allen himself had to
forsgo the promised reward and betaks
himself, amid the derision OF the whole
nation. to a foreign cline. II in 80
small matter as the purchase OF an
smbassadorship u denial from the
alleged agents in the deal was not sut-
feient 10 carry conviction in the
minds Of the public. how dare these
same men now presume to believe that
an equally weak and pointlsss denial
can clear the bsdraRglsd skirts Of the
entire Democratic administration with.
out further inquiry or vindicationl
One Of two conclusions in this case /,
absolutely inevitable Either the Bour.
bon managers have sold their country
men out at the bidding OF a giant trust
or else they have themselves acted in
manner that betoks1s idiocy, stupidity
and utter unftness for legislative re.
sponsibility
The public may JUDI ge which Of these
suppoSi,ions Is true.