Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1899-05-09
JOHN CHAMBERLAIN.
A SPECIMEN or THE ALLEGED EvI.
DENCE THAT ne SLEW THE
Pe0uAUker INDIAN CHIEF
PAU0uS m tOvEWeIl'S
FIGHT.

0eNCe THAT Ne SLEW The
II PEouAuKeT INDIAN CHIEF
PAUoUs m tovEWeLl'S
II FIGHT.
THE sroRY OF SUCH AN EPISODE o
/ FRYEBURe's FAMOUS BATTLE UTTERL
DEVOID OF TRUTH.
/ whore Loyswslrs Pond shines clear an
| bright.
who fell in Lovewelis bloody nsht"
i In the Boston Transcript while aGt
"The Listener" Of that journal, JOSEPH
Edgar Chamberlin, gave what he termet
"a bit Of testimony" In substantiatioi
Of the truth Of the story that the Pe
Quauket Indian chief Psugus, the com
msnder OF the Indians in Lovewell',
fight, was slain In single combat which
In the course OF that battle took plac'
between him and John Chamberlain O.
Groton, Mass, Q private 10 Captain Love
wells company. The "blt OF testimony
thus given by ''rhe Listener" 70 authen
ticate this story Of the killing Of Paugui
by Chamberlain was an extract from {
letter from DR.. Henry Boynton o
Woodstock, VI, the "bit Of testimony
being rs follows: "Asa boy knows {
man, / remember, when fifteen year
old, one Spaulding, an old man then
who told me he knew Chamberlain, tn
slayer Of Paugus, when he himself wa.
lad. have heard him tell the story
I Was raised Ia Pepperell
which was once part OF Groton.' Ever
II the old man Spaulding told DR.. Boyn
ton that In his youth "he knew Chamber
lain, the slayer OF Paugus," and ths
doctor heard Spsulding tell the story ol
the Staying, what the doctor says would
not be evidence Of any value 10 substan'
tiation Of. the truth OF this Chamber
lain -Pausus story. As ID well known
BY everybody who Is at all familiar with
the subject, this story OF the killing oil
Psugus by Chamberlain frst appeared,
"a far ~ can be nscertained, In q so
| called history Of Lovewell's Fight pub
lished by one Elljth Russell at Fryeburg,
Ne. (iu which town Lovewell's Fight
took place., In 1899 (or seveuty-four
years after the famous battle Was fought {.
when Russell unfastened a lid, 30 70
speak. and. all Of sudden, and without
the slightest premonition, the story, after
being locked from human knowledge for
three-quArters OF a century, sprang, like
the figure 10 q jsck-in-a-box, into public
view and thus for the drst time became
known 10 the world. Russell WAS . per-
son of thoroughly unreliable character,
being, at the time of his death, fugitive
from justice, he having been convicted
OF counterfeiting money, aud having,
after serving . portion of term 10
prison which WAS part OF his sentence,
contrived to escape. Though Russell
was person Of utterly untrustworthy
character, yet whether he himself fabri-
Gated this false story about Chamberlain
and Pxugus, thus deliberately essaying
to play q clever game OF duplicity In
undertaking to reduce historical trickery
to fine art, or whether some one told
him the story and he WAS 30 reckless a.
to make it part Of the history which
he published OF Lovewell's Fight, Il Il,
at this late day, rs may well be supposed,
impossible to determine; but, whether
Russell himself invented the story and
thus consciously esssyed the role Of an
artful deceiver, or whether, on the other
hand, he Was guilty Of such gross neg
liyence and csrelesspess ss to accept
the ridiculous story from another and
publish II a. truthful narrative OF one
OF the incidents OF Lovewell's Fight, In
either case be IL Justly chargeable with
being the author OF the story as vera
clous history and deserves TO be pilloried
a. a literary mslefactor for thus pslming
OF 90 rank an imposture ss historic truth.
The thrilling, stimulating and inspir-
ing flavor Of the glorious deeds OF valor
10 the enacting OF which Captain Love-
well and his band OF Spartan inyincibles
30 deeply crimsoned with their blood
the soil OF our New England Their
mopyl a. has been perverted TO the point
of utter obliteration OF its identity by
the false aud nsuseous pungency which
has been impaired to II by Russelrs
thus admixing with 1t the garlic, mus
tard, ginger and cayenne OF romance.
MANY of those who assume the respon-
slbility Of writing history fall to fulfill
their duty Of penetrating 10 original
sources and there ferreting out infor-
nation for their guidance, but blindly
repeat and thus perpetuate the blunders
of their predecessors In the same field
and from the seed Of error sown by
Russellin In publishing to the world as a
part of the history Of Lovewelrs Fight
the false story OF this knighterrstic
single combat between Chamberlain aud
Psugus have sprsng, like the crop OF
armed men which sprung from the
serpent's teeth sown by Cadmus, the
many accounts Of this Chamberlain
Psugus duel which have appeared since
Russell published the story OF IL az a
4 part Of his so-cAlled history OF
I.ovewell's Fight. Since the publication
of this story by Russell, the instances
In which IL has been retold-in some
cases with fantastic variations aud
additions-are as
In vallom bru~a, where tn Etrursan shades
High ovcrarcbed imbowcr"
These mere repetitions Of Russell's
story, however, should not be mistaken
for cumulative evidence of the truth OF
the story, for they add nothing to the
evidence Of its truth which Russeirs
publication Of Il furnishes. Such rePe-
titions OF the story are no evidence
whstever Of its truth. but, on the con-
trary, the fact that those who credit the
story can furnish no better reasons for
the faith that IL In them, the fact that
those who essay the task OF vindicattng
the story are driven TO the desperate
expedient OF resorting TO such worthless
evidence in the effort 70 authenticate Il,
Is conclusive proof that the story is ut
terly destitute Of foundation; and those
who advance such evidence In the futile
eudeavor 20 make out case In behalf OF
the story argue themselves out OF court
without any aid from those who are able
20 present the very best Of evidence to
show that the story 10 the merest fable.
The story has been so many times re-
pested since the original publication OF
IL by Russell that, II all these repeti-
tions of it could be counted as indepeud-
ent testifications in its favor, there
would be long array Of witnesses who
would be entitled 70 be heard 10 It's be-
half, and Q strong case could, Indeed,
be made out In substantiati0n OF its
truth. The testimony OF those who
have repeated the story on the mere
authority Of Russell is, however, OF no
more value to prove the truth OF the
story than would have been the testimony
OF the "witnesses" whom an Irishmsn
who was being tried for theft offered TO
nut upon the stand to testify that they
did not zee him commit the theft. Liunce,
the clownish servant 10 Shakepeare'a
1.-TWO Gentlemen Of Verona" having
| heen can't hy his mater Proteus 70 pre-