The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-20

mind to remove the incumbent he certainly
would not have proceeded to execute his reso-
luton by writing him curt letter of dis
missal without having settled upon some
body to succeed him; for at such a time as
that he could not mean to leave the War
Department dcephdIOuS while he would be
hunting head for it. But concede that no
thought was taken for the new officer be-
fore the removal of the old one, can it be
that the President decided the whole cues
tion in favor of q man never mentioned be-
fore, on the mere suggestion of the officer he
was discarding, and without seeking advice
from those members of the Cabinet who still
retained his favor? The suppressed letter
is, therefore, not only an important fact in
itself, but it has the gravest influence on the
credibility Of Mr.. Camerons whole tale.
Other questions signify but little in compari-
son to that. If the correspondence after
wards published was not that which actually
took place, we must presume everything
against the party for whom, or at whose ln-
stance, the spoliation was committed. The
short plain, direct, curt note, with which
Mr.. Lin coin opened the business would have
explained every thing if it had been permitted
10 see the light; and it could not have been
destroyed except for the purpose of making
false impression. This compels me to show
that your conduct in the fair has been such
as admits of no justification except that burn
ing loyalty and intense patriotism which con-
verts all vice into virtue.
After your first article appeared, and before
my answer to it, leading and very distin-
guished member of the Republican party in
this State told you that you had misstated
the facts concerning Mr.. Cameron's retire.
ment, and especially the important and prin-
cipal fact of the suppressed note from the
President; and he referred to the Chief JUS
tice, who, upon being interrogated, gave you
the authentic information that such a note
had been written, delivered, and suppressed.
Thereupon you solemnly promised that if you
ever had occasion to refer to the sub ject
again, you would teN tie lohOLe truth. Besides,
Judge Chase, after my review of you, wrote
me letter from Sandusky, Ohio, in which he
said that he bore the note in question, and
mentioned that he had also written to you.
What he wrote you of course 1 do not
know, but he certainly did not give you one
version and me another. You had, there
fore, the written statement of the Chief
Justice, in addition to his verbal assurance.
With all these lights before you, and with
all the obligations of common veracity,
strengthened by an express promise to tell
the truth, what do you do in your second
article? Why you simply stick to your first
story. Nay, you take great trouble to snug
gle the truth away, and bury it out of sight;
!or, hsteau OF producing Judge Chases let
ter to yourself, in which the fact, no doubt,
is fairly stated, you give us an extract from
another letter written by him to Cameron,
from which you are permitted to quote
nothing whatever on the subject of that i'm
portant letter. forbear to say much that
ought to be said about this part of your be-
havior, because the distinguished gentleman
before spoken of has taken you in hand, and
will doubtless jerk an acknowledgment of
the facts out of you, in spite of all your shut
fling