The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-04-05
THURSDAY, APRIL 5. 1866.
The Reply of Senator ScOvel and the
Grounds of Our Accusation.


Grounds of Our Accusation.
THE following despatch has come to us from
Hon. JAMES M. SCovEL., to which we cheer
fully give a place In our columns:--
TRENTON, April 5-In answer to your editorial /
unhesitatingly say tbat / never received letter
from President JOHNSON, in which he offered me
any position under the Government If 1 wo1ld
defeat the election of a radical Senator from New
Jersey. DO me justice by publishing this.
JAMES VI. SoovEL.
As Mr.. SCovEL has frankly denied the ac-
cusation made by us few days since, simple
justice to ourselves demands that we give the
authority on which we based our assertion.
On Saturday, that gentleman, in company
with Mr.. r. BARCLAY LEEDS, OF Atlantic
City, visited our city. In crossing the river,
Mr.. SCovEL said to his companion that he
had received from the President just such a
letter as we announced on the afternoon of
that day. He did not actually produce the
manuscript, but positively and emphatically
declared its receipt to Mr.. LEEDS. After
leaving MIR. SCovEL, that gentleman repeated
the conversation he had had to DIR. HoRNER,
OF Philadelphia, and in his company visited
W. hOWopopOL OAASOo, ehhu SOoOOu OhO idSbos IL
was from the lips OF DR.. HoRNEB that we re-
ceived our information; we took it down in
writing, read it to the Doctor, and he, in the
presence of two other editors, acknowledged
all the facts correctly reported. He has since
expressed his willingness to make his affidavit
to their truth, and informs us that while Mr..
LEEDS denies having seen the letter, he still
hot l.
had it in his possession.
EAnd now Mr.. SCOvEL denies that he ever
was in receipt of such document-or vir-
tually contesses that his statement to Mr..
LEEDS was a fabrication, falsehood. The
question is now one of veracity. Are we to
believe Mr.. SCovEL, when he, without any
apparent object for falsifying, acknowledged
its receipt; or are we accept as truth his late
assertion that such a letter was never in his
possession? 1t is matter OF small conse-
quence which of his statements was true.
but there can be no doubt but that one of
them was false. In this light the question
naturally arises, has the moral attitude of the
Senator improved? Does he remove any
OF the Odium which he has, by his own action,
attached to his name? He has evidently
contradicted himself, and whether he re-
ceived such letter or not is a matter for him
to settle with his own conscience. He has
without warrant introduced the name of the
President, and by so doing passed the limits
of courtesy as we'll as truth.
While we asked Mr.. SoovEL if he had re-
ceived that letter, and repeated his own
assertion that he had, yet at the same time
we doubted whether the President of the
United States would have been willing to
write such an epistle or make such promise.
We designed not to accuse the President Of
penning such communication but to charge
Mr.. SCovEL with boasting its receipt. We
have given our proofs. We have quoted the
names of the gentlemen who are responsible
for the fact of Mr.. SCovEL's assertion. Their
address can be procuree fsom us at any time.
Mr.. SCovEL has seen fit to deny the receipt
OF any letter from Mr.. JOHNSON, and we are
bound to believe his word; and with his
denial must close the question, so far as we
are concerned.