Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1863-04-22

N-E+ "-Fhh w. HHM
tel, where they found Gen. Camefon. The
General told DR.. Boyer that DR.. Fuller
would have an interview with him there,
whenever he was ready to receive him,
and requested DIR. Boyer TO say TO DR.. Full
Ter that he would vote for him Cameron
for United States Senator. DR.. Fuller
was immediately introduced into the
room, and inquired, as the chairman of Il
committee appointed by the Republican
caucus. whether Dr.. Boyer would vote for
Gen. Cameron and receiving from DR..
Boyer an affirmative answer, he retired,
Now, if the statement OF DIR. Boyer Is
a true narrative Of facts, there can be no
doubt as 10 the employment of unlawful
means TO secure the election OF Gen. Simon
Cameron TO the Senate of the U. States
But the committee had other testimony
before them, in regard to the transactions
related by DR.. Boyer and il becomes ne.
cessary, in the hight Of that testimony to
examine his claims to truthiulness.
That there were, within a few days pre-
yious to the Senatorial election, repeated
interviews between Mr.. Brobst and Dr..
Boyer, cannot be doubted because they
not only both testify to this fact, but their
testimony is c]orroborated by Capt. Chritz,
man, DR.. Farley, Michael X. Boyer, and
Mr.. Vaughn. They also agree in regard
to the private interviews had between DR..
BOYER and General Cameron, first, at the
State Capitol Bank, and afterwards at DR..
BOyer's ROOM, in the Pennsylvania House
and in this they are sustained by the ties 9
timony Of Capt. Chritzman, DR.. Farley and
Mr. Vaughn. Thoy agree, MoreOver, as
to the arrangements and preparations
which were made to visit Gen. Cameron at
his own house, at the request Of Brobst
and as to the fact that such preparations
were made, we have the testimony of DR..
Farley.
There is also a marked agreement be-
tween the testimony of DR.. Boyer, and
that of John j. Patterson. They both
testify that they met in Harrisburg on
the Friday Immediately preceding the
Senatorial election; that they went to
Reading in the afternoon Of that day on
the Lebanon Valley cars, and that Gen.
Cameron was on the same train that ara
ranEements were there made between Mr..
Patterson and DR.. Boyer, to meet Gen.
Cameron at the house Of lis son, J. D.
Cameron, on the next evening: tina they
met according TO appointment and that
Oh the following Tuesday morning, the
day Of the Senatorial election, DR.. Boyer,
at the request Of Mr.. Patterson, went to
Fottersun's room, in Hers Hotel, where
he found Gen. Cameron, and afterwards
met DR.. Fuller, These are only n few Of
the numerous points of coincidence be-
tween the testimony Of DR. Boyer and
that Of Messrs. Brohst and Patterson. In,
deed, there is almost a perfect agreement
between them, except in regard TO the al
legged money transaction.
1t must be evident to every one, that in
the various interviews whicl Mr.. Brotst
and Mr.. Patterson had with DR.. Boyer,
their only object was, to influence him,
10y some means or other, to vote for Gen.
Cameron for United States Senator. But
10y what means did they attempt TO ac~
complish this object? Here the testi.
mony Of these three witnesses involves a
direct contradiction. Or. Boyer asserts
that Mr.. Brobst told him he was author,
lied by Gen. Cameron 10 offer five thouN
sand dollars for a vote, which Mr.. Brobst
denies; and that Gen. Cameron and Mr..
Patterson positively agreed to give him
twenty thousand dollars, and finally, TWEEN
ty' five thousand dollars, in order to Sc,
cure his vote for Simon Cameron, which
is emphatically denied by Mr.. Patterson.
We are, therefore, bound to conclude,
either that the statements of Er. Boyer
on the one hand, or those of Mr.. Brobst
and Mr.. Patterson on the other, in regard
to this pecuniary consideration, are downs
right and deliberate ialsehoods.
Men always act from motives. 1t is
therefore legitimate to inquire, what mo,
tive could have influenced DR.. Boyer, in
this single case, while all the other leads
ing features of his statement are shown to
be true, to bear false testimony? 1t could
not have been fear; Cor surely he had no
more to fear from telling the truth, than
from a declaration of falsehood. 1t could
not have been the hope Of gam, for il is
impossible for any one to see how he could
have expected any profit. or benefit from
the utlerance ofauy such false statement.
Nor could he have been actuated by a NAL.
evolent or revengeful feeling; for there
is no evidence of the existence Of any such
feeling on the part Of DR.. Boyer, against
Gen. Cameron OF any Of his friends. More>
over, to suppose that any q could falses
u knowingly charge upon his fellow
man, without some strong motive, a crime
which would forever blast the reputation
Of its perpelrator in community, and then
call upon God in the most solemn manner
in atteslatien Of the truthfuiness Of his
would be to ascribe 70 h::a ~ un
accountable degree of moral depray ity.
Here another question will naturally
arise; can any motive be discovered, on
part Of Messrs. Brobst and Patterson,
which might incline either Of them to a
of the truth, in regard 20 this mon
ey tsansaotion2 The answer is easy. III
This feature Of the statement of DR.. Boyer
Is true, they have both been guilty Of at
tempting to bride a member of this Leg
stature, which is, under our laws, a high
misdemeonor, subjecting the offender to a
severe penalty. But who does not know.
the fear of exposure and punishment,
and OF the odium that must necessarily
result from the commission OF such n
would be one OF the strongest mo. ;
lives to impel men 10 alsehood? 1t is !
not reasonable to expect men TO crimi,I =