Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-10-16

, faculties, could muster the brazen hardi-
hood to assume the role that Mr.. Hughes
has undertaken to play before the people
of New Mexico. We frankly admit that
we we're unable to give oredence to the
incredible story until We saw the con-
, elusive proof in black and white.
Mr.. Hughes is we'll known to the people
of the territory as the managing editor of
the albuquerque Citizen. In his sworn
answers to the interrogatories PROFOUND
ed to him respecting the publication of
the malicious and libelous article that
caused his arrest for contempt of court,
he admitted that, on the day the article
in question was published, he was on
duty as usual at his Office as such man
aging and responsible editor; yet he had
the audacious effrontery to tell the court
on his solemn oath and otherwise in the
most positive manner that he knew moth
Ing whatever as to the authorship of the
Objectionable article, that he found the
manuscript typewriter and unsigned on
his desk in the morning, that he placed
1t on the hook for the printers without
sufficient examination to realize what it
contained, and that if he had perused the
article carefully he would not have per-
United its publication.
The recital of the facts that the article
in question was the conspicuous feature
of the Citizens editorial page on October
9, occupying about three columns of
space; that it WAS evidently prepared
with more than ordinary labor and pains;
that it employed the editorial "we" with
freedom and frequency; that it bore d.
rectly on the grave charges pending be-
fore the supreme court against the per-
sonal and political idol of the editor of
the Citizen, and that when the Intelligent
proof reader attracted the attention of
the editor to the dangerous statements
contained therein, he suggested no modi-
locations, only tends to heighten the in
credibilitv of the preposterous statement
set up by Mr.. Hughes in his sworn an
swer. No one capable of forming judg-
ment in the premises believes that his
representations concerning the article are
true. 1t is absurd to suppose that Thorn
as Hughes accepted and published with
out question purely anonymous article
OF the kind described. The statement is
an insult to reason. It is as abhorrent to
truth as vacuum is to nature. 1t is i'm
possible.
Why did Thomas Hughes do this
thing! No one believes that he wrote
the Objectionable article nor does any,
one doubt that he certainly knows the
name of the author thereof. Why did he
add the offense of perjury to his confess
sion of contempt of court rather than
disclose the authorship of that miserable
article. The answer PUSHES to our pen
point. Because he has been 80 long &C.
customed to yielding blind and slavlsh
obedience to the dominating and un-
scrupulous bosses Of his party that it has
become second nature to him to do 80,
and when those malign influences were ex-
erted upon him to save the guilty writer :
from exposure he knew of no other
course to pursue than the shameful one
he adopted.
Hughes deserves to suffer for his Of I
lenses in connection with this wretched
affair, but his crime is minor one com.
pared with that of the masterful and crafty
coward who wrote the article, virtually
forced its publication and now skulks in
imaginary security behind the transpar-
ant perjury of his unhappy and unfortu- A
nate tool. If that man has a spark of
manhood, a quantity sufficient to be dis
'overable poised upon the point of
,ambric needle, he will not let Thomas a
Hughes, doubtless more sinned against :
han SHINING, suffer alone. Will he have
The manhood to disclose himself and
shoulder his share of the responsibility! y
Dr. does he fancy himself so secure in his
present hiding that he can afford to re-
main silentf If SO. he is deluding him
elf. His sin will find him out. Z