The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-03-08

the attempt of one of these watchers to
prevent illegal voting. AS this is a
bad year for thugs and thieves who
attempt to interfere with the suffrage
probably the authors of this crime will
have an opportunity to sit in the electric
chair.
The PRESS finds itself in very un-
handsome position in regard to its
fictitious quotations from speeches made
at the banquet of the Young Mems
Democratic Club and its abusive com
ments thereon. Its garbling and perver-
sion of statements made seem not to
have been due to hasty writing, but to
deliberate intent What it presented as
having been spoken by Mr.. Moulton was,
as it does not now deny, in part entirely
an error of it's own and in part side re-
mark expressly qualified as being based
upon information derived from another.
DR.. Gordon, with his usual directness,
says of the remarks attributed to him.
The quotations you make are without
one shadow of truth either in letter or
SPIRIT The PRESS excuses this by
quoting from'a condensed abstract taken
in longhand by a reporter. This excuse
will not do. The assistant editor of the
PRESS was present at the banquet, and
he, at least, knew the falsity of the as
sumed remarks. The PRESS has here
tofore claimed for it's editorial page
great candor and truthfulness. We ask
whether the above displays either OF
those qualities. We believe we do not
state the case too strongly when we say
that in this matter the PRESS has been
guilty not only of all offence against
good manners, but also of an offence
against good morals. Argus.
For cold effrontery the above is entit-
led to the first prize. Mr.. Moulton's
statement at the Young Mems banquet
was never garbIed by the PRESS. 1t
was reported just as he made it, He
said that no new cotton mill had been
built in this State since 1860, and he has
never publicly denied saying it. There
was no side remark about it. 1t was
plain, direct statement The Argus I'M
dertook to qualify it several days later
by injecting the words he had been
informed" making the statement read
I" Mr.. Moulton said that he had been in
formed that no new cotton mill had been
built in this State since $780," AS the
variation had no particular bearing on
the main point, which was the falsity of
the information which he conveyed to
his audience, we regarded it as of no
consequence. AS matter of fact, however,
the phrase she had been informed" was
an afterthought of some body's. The
Argus has allowed that information.
which was absurdly false, as we pointed
out by statistics, to stand uncontradict-
ed, Notwithstanding it's attention has
been called to it several times Mr..
Moulton, Internationally most likely,
misled his hearers. But the Argus by
publishing his statement and refusing
to correct it, is guilty of Intentionally
misleading it's readers.
As for Doctor Gordon's remarks, the
facts are even worse for the Argus The
PRESS had no report of his speech. Its
assistant editor was not present when he
made it and knew nothing about it.
Two days after it was delivered the
PRESS copied from the Argus report of
it paragraph, complete in itself, and
made some comments upon it. 1t was
this paragraph in the language in
which it appeared in the Argus that DR..
Gordon pronounced "arrant nonsense"
and of which he said that sit was with
out one shadow of truth in spirit or in
letter." The Quotations. which the
Argus says the Doctor denounced were
quotations from the Argus itself. DR..
Gordon pointed out in a letter to the
PRESS several days ago that they were
false, that they were "arrant nonsense,
and that they did not represent what he
said either IN spirit or in letter. But to
this day. the Argus has not withdrawn
them nor intimated to its readers that
it's report of the Doctors remarks was
not perfectly accurate. The "arrant
nonsense which the Doctor says was put
into his mouth, and which was put
there by the Argus, has been allowed to
remain. The peculiar thing about this
is the Indifference of DR.. Gordon himself.
When he saw the Argus's report of his
remarks printed in the PRESS he i'm
mediately took his pen in hand and in
letter to the PRESS pronounced them
"arrant nonsense" without one
shadow of truth in spirit or letter." But
apparently he has never taken any pains
whatever to get them corrected in the
Argus, which was responsible for them.
Are we to infer from this that the
Doctor has SO poor an opinion of the
Argus's constituency that he doesn't
oora ,uhathar if nuts sense or " arrant