But however Mr. Blaine may have distinguished himself as an author, a diplomatist, or a man of varied experience and knowledge, in the present political campaign, in which he is destined to play so important a part, he will necessarily be largely judged in a political sense, and as a politician. What does the record show in these directions? Has he been true or false to his political convictions? Assuredly no man, be he friend or foe, can point to a single instance in Mr. Blaine’s long and varied political career, in which he has betrayed his political trust or failed to respond to the demands of his political professions. Through the anti-slavery period; during the trying years of the war; through the boisterous struggle for reconstruction, and constantly since, Mr. Blaine’s voice has always been heard pleading for the cause of equality, arguing for freedom, and combating all propositions that aimed to restrict human rights or fetter human progress. That he has sometimes been swayed by partisan rather than statesmanlike considerations is highly probable, but even that can but prove his zeal and devotion to party principles.
No one claims for him political infallibility, and his warmest admirer will admit that he, like other men, has faults. But those who look upon Mr. Blaine as an impetuous and rash politician have but to read his letter of acceptance to see how unjust that judgment is. Calm, dignified, and scholarly, it discusses with consummate ability the issues that to-day are engaging the attention of the American people, and whether it be the tariff question or our foreign policy, he shows a familiarity with the subject that at once stamps him as a man of remarkable versatility and rare accomplishments. As the standard-bearer of the great Republican party, he will unquestionably inspire in his followers great enthusiasm and determination, and, if elected to the high office to which he has been nominated, there is every reason to believe that he will make a Chief Magistrate of whom the entire people will justly be proud.
* * * * *
By the Hon. Samuel Abbott Green.
The running of the Provincial line in 1741 cut off a large part of Dunstable, and left it on the New Hampshire side of the boundary. It separated even the meeting-house from that portion of the town still remaining in Massachusetts, and this fact added not a little to the deep animosity felt by the inhabitants when the disputed question was settled. It is no exaggeration to say that, throughout the old township, the feelings and sympathies of the inhabitants on both sides of the line were entirely with Massachusetts. A short time before this period the town of Nottingham had been incorporated by the General Court, and its territory taken from Dunstable. It comprised all the lands of that town, lying on the easterly side of the Merrimack River; and the difficulty of attending public worship led to the division. When the Provincial line was established, it affected Nottingham, like many other towns, most unfavorably. It divided its territory and left a tract of land in Massachusetts, too small for a separate township, but by its associations belonging to Dunstable. This tract is to-day that part of Tyngsborough lying east of the river.