Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-02-21
REVELs.
interesting agd Curious Revelations About
the Character Of the Negro Senator.
Letter from Iohn H. Norris, cOIOFed, Of
LeayeHwOTih, Kansas.

Ny attention has been called to an
article in your issue of the Sd under
/ the nom de plume of "a COlOred Man" "
in which the writer lauds II. r.. Rev
els and grossly ISLANDERS me.
In consequence OF an old quarrel,
and that strange freak of fortune, the
election of Revels to the Senate, l am
called upon TO endure private slander
and public detractiOn.
This l must endure in silence, after
having been vindicated in a court Of
Justice, or, by a public defense, place
myself in seeming antag0nism 10 my
race and party.
SelfpreServatiOn is the first law of
nature, and no good cause can be
served by sacrificing an honest man to
gloss the crimes of q notorious ScOun-
drel. And now for this adventurous
ass who volunteers al gTatuitOus kick.
Mr.. "ColOred Man." why do you,
ike a skulking savage, shoot your
poisoned arrows of detTactiOn at me
from behind the covert Of a non de
pyumes
Own thy name and face me in the
sunshine. You say that
Morris is as keen as q Damascus
blade, as vindictive as a Camanche, As
unrelentiug in pursuit of his object as
a sleuth-hound. He attacked Revel'5
private character, his family relations,
his standing as a minister, from the
stump andthrOugh the powerful in
strumentality OF the press. ReYeis
bore it until fOTbearance ceased to be
a virtue, when he appealed 20 the law.
But he got no redress, for the jury was
packed have seen a letter from
the Judge presiding at the trial and le-
gal gentlemen of undOubted respecta-
bility, whounite in saying that justice
was rot done ReVels in the case, and
that the finding of the jury was at va
rance with the facts adduced. All
fair-minded men were satisfied that
the charge Ofmalfeasancew was prOmnt-
ed through malice, was not sustained,
and that Morris was guilty Of gross
libel"
As a general and comprehensive de-
NAL of the above, l submit the follow
ing documents:
LEAyENwORTH CITY, Feb. Il, 1870.
" ,JOhs II. Norris, Esq;
"DEAR SIR: Having been shown a
communication in the Louisville
C0Urie1-JOuyHdJ over the signature
of A COIOred Mau,' in which certain
falsehoOds are freely INDUCED in, 1
feel called upon, in simple justice TO
myself, having been the Judge pre-
siding ut the trial to deny that the
Jury was packed and that l at that
time, or at any time since, wrote let
ter to Mr.. Reveis, or TO any one for
him, in respect 10 the said trial; or
that / at any time, either directly or
indirectly, intimated to any one that
Justice was not done Revels in the
case, and That the finding Of the jury
was at variance with the facts ad-
duced.' JAMES KETNER."
"LEAvENwoRTH, Aug. q, 1867.
We, the undersigned, were jury
men in the case of the State of Kansas
VS.. John II. Morris, in which one
Hiram II. ReVelS was complaining
witness. Said suit was instituted by
the said Revels in the form of a GRIM
inal prosecution, for an alleged libel
in charging the said Revels with en-
beZZling the funds Of his church; with
falsehOOd and hypocrisy, in a certain
pamphlet entitled a Humbug.'
The defendant (MOrris) took the
ground that the alleged libel was true, l
and proved to our satisfaction that |
the said Hiram Z. Revels had en- 1
bezZled certain funds belonging to his 4
church, and has been guilty of false |
hood, and had unnecessarily forced |
a quarrel on the said Morris, thus /
compelling him to act in VindlcatiOn |
Of his own character.
"In short, We found that the al I
leged libel was true, and that 1t was /
for good motives and justi- !
liable ends, all of which it was neceS- !
sary to prove TO secure an acqUittal IN |
a suit for libel.
'sIz. N. RANKIN, Foreman.
JAMES CURRAN.
LABEL ARMSTRONG.
"a. l.. RUSuMORE.
"H. MARhSON,
-. b. FLUNO."
This statement Of one-half of the /
Jury who tried me (sOme were out of /
the CITY, Others | could not find in the 4
limited time 1 had, buts all that l |
found readily signed It, seeming glad /
to unite IN an effort to rid this city Of 1
his baneiul pT6Sence) was taken TO I
the clerk of the court, who certified 1
that the above named gentlemen were /
iurymen in the case State of Kansas I
vs.. John II. Norris" aud that the /,
ease was tried on the DIST and I'D 4
days Of June, 1867, and that the jury /
returned verdict of mot guilty as |
the defendant, John IL. |
Morris" He then hXed the seal of
the court to it.
E. NJ. Rankin is a prominent and /
citizen of this city, II. Mark 1
son is a Deputy Collector Of Internal |
J. b. FluG0 Keeps the Euro |
pean House, etc, etc.
This document, with others, i'm 1
peaching Reveis, was forwarded to /
the Missouri Conference Of the A. M. 1
Z. Church, and they removed him |
from here, sending him to Louisville, |
Kentucky.
It is a peculiarity Of this case that |
my cause is 50 strong that it seems /
The thoughtful reader 4
win ask, how could any man Of COM I
mon sense, being guilty, force a quar- 4
rel and then appeal to a court? or, in /
other words, how did it come to pass |
that 1 accused him of stealing, and /
vet he unnecessarily forced a quarrel
upon Norris"
NV answer is, that ReveIs has 10 /
common sensei that he is the strang-
est compound of malignant cunning |
and plausible depravity that ever
saw.
/ have for years helped the church |
in her financial operations, and had |
thousands Of dollars OF her
funds. / commenced 10 suspicion /
Revels, aud feared TO be implicated I.
with him, and / own TO little preju- 1
dice against stealing.
1 expressed my suspicious privately |
10 a few, bct did not accuse. Hearing !
Of this, Reyels asked for en interview,
which took place in the presence Of 4
two trustees of the church. In this |
interview Revels evinced a very con-
disposition, owned that he /
had made misstatements about the |
financial affairs of the church, aDd |
had thus rendered himself liable TO /
suspicion; but went on to give me an 1
that was SO sKilifully con- 4
trived that it really threw me into /
doubt, and, being related by marriage,
and for many other reasons not wish- I
ing to quarrel with him; and, in any
event, having averted suspicion from
myself, gave him the benefit Of the
doubt, and fully, frankly and une-
disavOWed nay suspicious;
told him that L thought l had
wronged him in expressing those sen /
timents, and promised to right him.
This proce6dad to do; but, before
l could see all the parties 10 whom |
had expressed my suspicious, heard