Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-11-08

8. :
chief strikers were Jim Burns, fellow
named Brobst, and our dapper rogue, Johr
Patterson. The plot was laid in secret, bu
the Democrats were on guard, and every
doubtful man was watched, night and day
CameroH's only chance was to buy mar
hitherto above suspicion. After careful de
liberation, a member from Clear6eld county
DR.. Jefferson Boyer, was selected as the prey
and Brobst and Patterson were instructed tt
20 for him. They went, they saw, and they
thought they had conquered. Boyer wa'
complacent, but detailed the risks be must
run, in loss of reputation, or from persona!
violence. After considerable angling and
nibbling, Patterson, Boyer and old Simon
met at the house of Don Cameron, the pres
ent Senator, and Simon's son. Here it was
agreed that Cameron should give Boyer $2O,
900 for his vote. The clan Cameron was
happy; Patterson was jubilant. But things
didn't pan out according to expectation
When the election came on, Boyer, who was
shrewd fellow, rose in his seat and voted fol
Buckalew, (who was elected by two votes)
and then, Immediately after the result was
announced, be stated that an attempt had
been made to bribe him, and demanded q
committee of investigation. This was ap'
pointed, and Boyer told his whole story be-
fore it. Patterson and Probst admitted hav.
ing had frequent talks with Boyer, but, Of
course vehemently denied the bribery PROPOSE
ton, for men who steal will lie, and Patterson
does both. The majority of the committee,
however, emphatically but decorously init
mated that these worthless had perjured them
selves in denying the impeachment. Dr.
Boyer's testimony was fully corroborated by
disinterested witnesses and the House, on the
18th of April, by vote of 4S to 40, passed
the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the Governor be requested to
instruct the Attorney General of this common.
wealth to institute criminal proceedings against
Simon Cameron, William Probst, John .. fatter-
son and Henry Thomas"
These proceedings were never instituted,
because the Attorney of Pennsylvania was no
better than the Radical Attorney Generals
of the Southern States.
Patterson has ever happily blended bis pri-
vate and bis public crimes, so that it is diff
cult to say in which career he shines the most:
His crowning outrage was an attempt to steal
from his sisters by forging note from his de-
ceased father. At the old mans death, the
hero of this narrative was left as co.executor
with one j. M. Sellers. The property, which
was estimated at $4,000, was to be divided
in five years between John and bis three sis-
ters one of whom is the wife of Judge Sterret,
now one of the Supreme Judges of Pennsyl.
vania, and a gentleman of high character.
Five years passed and no settlement was
made. Judge Sterret went into the courts,
and then John Patterson made showing
which brought the estate in debt to him in the
sum of 2S9005. The other parties disputed
the account, claiming swindles in several par
ticulars, and especially charging him with
having forged note for $4,000, in which he
claimed 81 ,124 interest additional. A tedi.
GUS suit was instituted. Patterson brought
two witnesses to prove that they saw old Pat
terson sign the note for $4,000 in payment of
some western lands purchased from John.
These witnesses we're Captain W. H. Patter-
son, q cousin, and DR.. Thomas Moore, q
brother.in. law of Johns, who subsequently
figured for while in South Carolina. Their
evidence was of the most decided character,
given with great detail and minuteness. A
carpenter named Sherlock also gave the
strongest testimony. The defendants pro-
duced number of relatives and all the lead
ing business men of Pittsburg, who pronounc-
ed the signature forgery. The physician
swore that the plaintiff and his witness could
not possibly have been with bis father at the
time they said they were. Other proof was
brought of the most positive character. New
ertheless the jury found for John Patterson.
The other parties appealed. Pending this
appeal, Patterson came to South Carolina and
began that career which has made him doubly
infamous.
And now comes the strangest part of the
whole story. In 1870. Patterson, with Col.
A. K. Mcclure, then lawyer and now editor
of the brilliant Philadelphia Times, and j. V.
Cresswell, were in South Carolina, and they
met in Columbia at Nckerson's Hotel. Col.
Mcclure had been Patterson's lawyer in the
forgery case, and although his client was
successful, Mcclure had a strong suspicion
that there had been rascslity on Patterson's
part. So much so, that after the trial, he
approached Patterson, and, telling him that
the Jury had vipdicated him Of the charge of
forgery, added that be did not like the aspects
of the case, and Patterson must compromise
with his sisters. This Patterson promised to
do, but, of course, broke his word. Colonel
Mcclure thought, however, that the compro.
mise had been made, and gave himself no
further trouble about it. On the visit to
Columbia, Patterson alluded to the trial,
and then, in the presence of Mr.. Cresswell,
boasted to Mcclure that he had bribed Cap
tain Patterson and John Sherlock to commit
perjury in the suit. In one conversation, be
stated to Colonel Mcclure (as the Colonel sub
sequently swore) "that it required him and
the witness, w. H. Patterson, two weeks Of
careful study to determine which of the two
or three lies could be most successfully sworn
in this case" And he thought "he had
fixed it up damned cunningly by the lies they
had adopted" On another occasion, in the
presence of Mcclure and Cresswell, he open
ed letter containing protested note, drawn
by Sherlock, with his endorsement. Colonel
Mcclure testified subsequently as follows:
II said, Colonel, is not that the price of Mr..
Sherlock testimony in your caser His an
swer was, Yes; it was damned cheap-only
one hundred and sixty or eighty dollars, 1
forget which," :,
This unblushing villany disgusted Colonel
Mcclure, and no sooner did he get back to
Pennsylvania than he went to Dauphin
County, had his name erased as counsel for
Patterson in the case, and then made
lengthy statement under oath, part of which
is quoted above. The case was still on the
docket in 1873.