The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1867-08-29
The Ashley-Conover Infamy.

Concerning the recent ConOver revela-
lions and counter-reyelations, the Chicago
Tribune says:
"'Take the whole business, from. first to last,
we doubt whether there a more loath-
some chapter OF total deprayity opened than Is
furnished by these combined exposures. 1t is,
without exception, the most uneean thing that
has ever been thrust before the eyes of the Ameri
can people. 1t is perjury upon forgery forgery
upon perjury falsehood sustained by faisehood,
and subornatiOn of perjury piled upon perjury
itself; swearing away life, character and all that
is sacred. 1t is, without exception, the most dis
graceful exhibition of criminal depravity that
ever proceeded from the fertile brain of any sin
gle thief, swindler, spy, forger and biasphemer'"
While all that is said of the nature of this I'M
clean thing is most true, the Tribune errs in
assuming that it proceeded from ''the fertile
brain of any single thief, swindler, spy, forg-
er or blasphemer." The Tribune also errs
in saying, in another place, that the first ex.
posture by the wretch Conover ''was followed
promptly by the denials of all the parties
implicated" 1t has not been followed, to
this day, by any denial, on the part of Con-
gressman John M. Ashley, that he wrote the
notes to Conovsr which were included in
Mr.. Binkley's report, or that he had the in
terviews with Conover which the latter, in
his statement, says he had. He has not
been followed by any public denial on the
part of the individual referred to as the Rev.
Mr. Matchett, who was alleged to have been
| Ashley's gobetween in the foul business
| These are the parties mainly implicated by
| Conover in his revelation of an alleged plot
to connect President johnson with the as
| sassnation of Mr.. Lincoln, in order to pro-
/ cure his impeachment and removal from
| Office. "af
/ Concerning the revelation which is said to
| implicate Mr.. A. j. Rogers and certain other
democratic congressman, in what does it pur-
port to implicate them? Why, in simply
| signing paper recommending Conover to
| executive clemency for the alleged reason
| that he was less guilty of the crime for
which he was convicted than some one else.
There is no corrupt or improper motiv ere
vealed, or that can be implied, against the
parties who signed that paper. There is,
however some reason to suppose that the
paper was inspired, through some indirect
| agency, from the same fountain of inspira-
ton that was revealed in the case of the pa
| per signed by Mr.. Riddle and Mr.. Holt, to
wit: John NJ. Ashley.
| Ashley, Butler a. Co. are the only men
implicated in this unclean thing who appear
as acting in pursuance of an adequate and
| well-defined motive. 1t is the intent in al
eases which constitutes the offence. On
the Hon. Jack Rogers and his indorsers,
/ there does not and cannot be made toappear
any criminal or unlawful intent On the
| part of the Hon. John NJ. Ashley, the intent
to implicate the President in crime which
should assure his impeachment stands out in
bold relief, supported by the fact that Ash
ley has not denied the authenticity or credi-
bility of the proofs on which the criminal in
tent rests. Until he does so, it cannot be
said that this disgraceful exhibition of crimi-
nal depravity proceeded from the fertile
brain of a 'single thief, swindler, spy, forger
and blasphemer," unless by the word .'sin-
| gle" 1t is intended to include all but John
NJ. Ashley. Chicago Times.