Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1899-05-09

he knew Chamberlain. Too many year
Intervened between The death OF Cham
] berlain and the time when saw Spauld
! Ing TO allow that statement OF mine 70 b
correct. When wrote 70 The Listener,
J did not stop to reckon the years be-
, tween Chamberiain's death and the time
when saw Spauldtng. While l must
have been In error in saying that Spauid-
ing told me that be himself, when lad,
knew the slayer OF Paugus, the proba-
billty ID that he said that bis father told
him that he (the father, when lad,
knew Chamberlain" IL thus seen that
DR.: Boynton himself admits that the
.bit Of testimony which "T'he Listener
sdduced from him TO bolster up the
truth OF this story Of the staying OF
Paugus by Chamberlain collapses st
once when touched by the hand OF ex-
smination. This, however, is only what
happens In the case OF any and every
piece Of alleged evidence which has been
or can be adduced 10 attempted substan-
tiation Of this -Psugus story.
All the alleged evidence which has been
or can be brought forward In behalf OF
the story is mere phsnt0m, and upon
any attempt 10 subject II to examination
the apparitiou at once vanishes into thin
air. IL Is utterly impossible TO find any
evidence Of the least value In favor Of the
truth Of the story, and to attempt 20 do
40 is as futile AZ sThe Hunting OF the
Snsrk--an Agony 10 Eight Fits" When
one essays to champion any particular
contention. he OF course deems it lncum-
bent upon him TO present the strongest
tl.~ ts~kx ~ A~A
and, utterly worthless AS Is the evidence
which "'rhe Listener" brought forward
TO substantiate this Chamberlsin-P Paugus
story, the evidence which no presented
Is fully on 4 par with the very best that
can be advanced in Authentication Of the
story. The alleged evidence" which
he adduced from DR.. Boynton 10 rs
good as any evidence which can be
brought forward In the story's support,
and from the quality Of this specimen Of
evidence the worthlessness of all the
other evidence which has been or can be
advanced In authorization Of the story
may be inferred. Ex pede Hefculem.
That the story IL utterly wanting In
substantially Il disclosed by the lightest
touch OF the Ithuriel spear OF investiga-
ton, which causes IL, like The Deacon's
Masterpiece" to 90
| 80 pieces a'l at once
| All at once and nothing nrst,-
Just ~ bubbles do when they burst"
The story is . nero fairy tale, with not
the least element OF truth In It's compo-
sitIon, the alleged evidence upon which
II rests being OF so vsporous and evsnes-
cent nature that 1t is instantly dissi-
L sl. xs( isx,p tal
tiny are focused upon it. No good evil
denee TO authenticate the story, Abso-
lutely none whatever, can be produced,
and, whenever any such alleged evidence
is brought forward, It is found, upon
examination, to be utterly devoid OF
substantially. The story Il not an In
stance Of half-pennyworth Of actuality
TO an iutolerable deal Of fiction, not al
Instance Of fact hidden from view by
an overshadowing and enshr0udIng
growth Of the rank, luxurisnt weeds OF
romance, but II Ia impossible to discover
even the tiniest germ OF truth from
which the story could have sprung. The
story Il mere myth;
"This Il Is, and nothing more"
| IL has no foundation whatever. 1t Is all
superstrueture, and nj q breath the top
heavy cdifice tumbies TO the ground 10
ruins. II IL one OF the baldest and most
bsrefaced hoaxes ever invented and
paImed of as history, having not sim
gle grain of truth 10 serve "A its sup
port and 1t should be uneeremoniously
aud contemptuously excluded from
every professed authentic account Of the
incidents Of I.ovewell's Fight and rele-
gated 10 the limbo OF some such narra-
tive as the chapter in Isaac D'lsraeli's
..Curiosities Of Literature" which is
entitled ssOf History Of Events Which
Have not Happened" Notwithstanding
the fact that the story IL often seen mas
quersding 10 the guise OF verAcious his
tory, Il must be set down as the inven-
ton of person of fertile Imagination
who, not content TO detail the desperate
and sanguinsry incidents OF I.ovewelrs
Fight as they actually occurred, not
thinking that to attempt
ITO Gid renned gold. 10 paint toe nly.
To throw q oerfumc on tbe violet.
To smooth the ice OF ADD Another hue
into the rainbow. or with tspsrisht
To eek the besuteoas eye Of heaven ~
i.vs.,sfaI and ridiculous sxoe.s.-
but essaying 10 adorn sn account OF the
thrilling and blood-curdling battle by
prsnking IL out with meretricious deco
rs;ions and embellishments drawn from
An efiiorescent fancy, interpolsted q pea-
picture Of Chamberlain and Psnsus,
With their befouled niptlock muskets,
pItted against each other In single CON-
bat Of 40 fantastic, grotesque and un-
natural . character a 10 show ~ q
glance, one would suppose, that this
alleged single combat between them 10
as much product of the imagination ss
the equally trsgical single combat In
which. according 10 that congenital liar,
Jack Falstsn, he and Harry Hotspur,
after being s'down and out OF breath"
..rose both at an instant and fought q
q long hour by Shrewsbury clock"
In the three Boston newspapers pub
lished AZ the time OF Lovewelrs Fight
(being all the newspapers then published
In New Englsnd) and In the accounts OF
the battle which were written by Rev.
Thomas Symmes Of Bradford, Mass,
and Judge samuel Penhallow OF Ports
mouth, y. H., We have minute narratives
OF the Incidents Of the battle which were
prepared by those who were contempo-
rsries Of those whose deeds they 30 cir
cumstantiaily portrayed; and the fact
that the detailed yet independent descrip-
tions Of the battle which were written by
these chroniclers are, each and every one
Of them, silent as to so important and
spectacular an episode Of the battle ss
would have been the slaying OF the Indian
commander Paugus by Chamberlain in
the alleged single combat between them
makes II clearly manifest that, ut the
time when these minute contemporane.
Gus descriptions Of the battle were
written, this Chamberlain Psugus story
was unknown and unheard OF. Had
Chamberlain slain the Indian commander
as claimed, II is utterly beyond the pale
OF reason and common sense to suppose
that 90 important IN incident OF Love
Lwell's Fight would have been completely
Ignored by All these writer's OF minute
contemporaneous descriptions OF the
battle, Not to come to this conclusion
| IA TO give the lie to all historical reason
| ing in the search after truth. These
minute contemporsne0us accounts OF
the battle were written while all the
circumstances were yet fresh In the
recollection Of the survivors, being, In
deed, partly based upon information
| furnished BY some OF those very sufvtv-
ors, and the fact that the story OF the
death Of the Indian commander Paugus
at the hands Of Chamberlain was unheard
OF by each and every one Of these writer's
| IL sufficient 70 brand the story ~ IN out
rage upon truth and 40 belonging not to
history, but to farce, buffoonery and