Harper's Weekly Editorials on Carl Schurz/A “Presumptive Case” Exposed
The Boston Journal, one of the most virulent of the Blaine newspapers, recently said:
“Mr. Schurz's repeated and much-talked-of rulings in favor of the Northern Pacific interests during his Secretaryship of the Interior, when viewed in connection with Mr. Villard's friendship and Mr. Schurz's subsequent connection with the Evening Post, afford a far stronger presumptive case against Mr. Schurz for any enemy who might wish to use it, than any ‘rulings’ of Mr. Blaine can possibly be made to sustain against him. We do not believe that Mr. Schurz was a dishonest official. But we urge the people of this country, if they have any regard for their own high interests, to cease and to rebuke this cankering hypercriticism of public men.”
“Cankering hypercriticism" is undoubtedly bad, but so is gross and careless misrepresentation. Mr. Schurz disposed of this kind of insinuation long before the nomination of Mr. Blaine, by stating:
1. That at the time when these rulings were made, Mr. Henry Villard had no connection with the Northern Pacific Railroad.
2. That the rulings were made by Attorney-General Devens, and not by Mr. Schurz, although Mr. Schurz's name was appended to them pro forma. This statement was confirmed by a letter of General Devens published at the time.
3. That the railings were in conformity with decisions of the Supreme Court, which have been followed by every Administration since.
Will the Journal now make as clear, clean, and complete a disposition of the case which Mr. Blaine makes against himself?