New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-03-03
rO1,r

sd. him and never saw him until saw him in
than Indirect charge at the close this vile libel
Mrs. was concerned in the alleged poisoning of
nan nnd not words to characterize It, Under the
action 70 do not wish to take any
Goaunued shall be forced TO take some steps to
our as well as for my own my ""S'"no anu
And now. enough OF this denial of lies that have
to say that they are baseless wckedly cruelty
trouble ~ "
But in conclusion let me say few words for my
husband and myself, In making these statements
b WIui5 neg the INDULGENCE OF that great public
day for the last year When l draw attention to
public should Know how grossly ' distorted how
nagrantly misrepresented were certain phases OF
inquire. That my lips have trembled many times
utter the truth, that silence, in the face of
H Hic d not aTeF haye maintained II solely by ad
band was reientlessly carried on.
APPEAL TO AMERICAN WOMEN.
l cannot remain longer silent appeal the
women Of this land to the mothers, the wives the
feel for me-for moment 10 put yourselves in
my pace-and can you wonder that l break the
silence so long enforced upon me. that cry aloud
in my own behalf against the malicious the cruel
me wanton lies: Shall man because he is vested
the prosecuting official in charge brought against
shall he. say, be permitted make that hapless
Wife the for his merciless invectlve. his
detained and robbed of her fair name? Is her
honor. her dignity. her character be wantonly
precedented attitude OF public prosecutor who
TO bolster up his case attacks the wife of the de
PENDANT but was il not Irrelevant? Was it in
consequent? Mas it not brutal? Besides. il was
| have remained dumh. with closed lips while my
name being constantly associated and CON
nected with that of my husbands friend. Henry
Barnet The absurd rumors developed into in
famous les and l know now at too late date
not scintitla of truth for their foundation. Every
scrap of sOcailed evidence introduced at the late
the District Attorney. wherein he sought to con-
meet my name with Mr. Barnet's. and to show the
friendship originated in his own very convent snt
and elastic imagination. He offered proofs as
10 the yeracity of his utterances regarding this
phase of his for very simple reason:
They did not exist: and the whole accuse ton
brought against me regarding Mr.. Barnet
huge fabrication. grossly and atroCiously false
that was SANDER introduced?
Could it be possible that this same public prose-
such utterly false and unsupported testimony as
mat given by paid negro witnesses merely to
MS lamentably weak case? Did he fail to bring
other Witnesses to support the paid testimony of
LoliE couI' not he supported? | ask YOU, the
mothers. wives ana daughters of our fair land
vas vas II Just? Cruelty false without foundation, as
theSe assaults were. why should peroration of in
Nective have been hurled at n defenceless woman
whose only connection with the in being
me wife of the Defendant
IN respect to II all wherein ] have borne the
aosointH,y unjustihed and unwarrantable reproach
have suffered unspeakably: but that suffering
has he; bee as naught compared to the anguish
when mas hlled, and stu continues fill my heart
cowardly persecution which one man brave calm
couraseous. is enduring to-day that man nv noble
hdence. is absolute.
BLANCHE C. MOLINEUX