Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1878-06-12

luo large gam ny IAO II CLlOSldls
being secured by legitimate means" and fol
| that reason they had respectively refused tc
sign any protest against counting the votes
of their parishes; but afterward, to use then
own language. 1.-THE electoral vote of L0uisi
ana being necessary to secure the election o.
Hayes and Wheeler, and in order to secure
such vote it being necessary to throw out the
vote Of East Feliclana and enough Democratic
votes In West Feliclana to make the parish
Republican, for this reason and no other
they consented to protest against counting
the votes as cast" When the visiting states
men came to New Orleans, Anderson and
Weber called on Mr. John Sherman and de.
mandad of him some guarantee that they
should be rewarded for what they had done
Mr.. Anderson testifes that in his presence
and hearing Mr.. Weber said to Mr.. Sher-
man: =" Mr.. Anderson and | hare already
done more than the circumstances Of the case
could t0arrant us in doing" Mr.. Sherman,
in the course of his reply, said: "If you, gen.
Gemen, stand firm in this matter, and let ii
run along as ii IS, you will find no cause to
regret it." Anderson and Weber wanted
something more specific, and the next day
they sent to Mr.. Sherman the following let
ter:
NEW ORLEANS, November 90 1875.
''SIR-We have carefully considered the
arguments advanced by you in our interview.
Your assurance that we shall be taken care
of Is scarcely specific enough. In case we
pursue the course suggested by you, we
should be obliged to leave the State. Will
you, therefore, state in writing who we shall
look to for the fullflment of those promises
Respectfully, sd. A. WEBER,
JAS. E. ANDERSON,
Hon. John Sherman"
The original is still in Mr.. Anderson's pos
session. In the copy sent to Mr.. Sherman
there were one or two trivial errors which
were not corrected. To this letter Mr. An
derson swears the following answer was re-
ceived from Mr.. Sherman:
NEW ORLEANS, November 20, 1875.
"Messrs. D. A. Weber and James E. Anderson.
CONTAMINATION note of even date
has just been received. Neither Mr.. Hayes,
myself. the gentlemen who accompany me,
nor the country at large, can ever forget the
obligations under which you will have placed
us, should you stand firm in the position you
have taken. From long and intimate acquaint-
ance with Governor Hayes, am justified in as
suming the responsibility for promises made,
and will guarantee that you will be provided
for as soon after the fourth of March as may
be practicable, and in such manner as will
enable you both to leave Louisiana, should
YOU deem it necessary. Very truly, yours,
John SHERMAN"
Before this letter was admitted as evidence
Mr.. John Sherman himself was sent for, and
placed on the witness stand. He was asked
if he wrote the letter. He declined to sVear
that he did not tOrite it. He said he thought
ne did not write it, but he added, in the next
breath: at the same time there are things
in this letter that IVould hare o,'itten.'' He
Did not assert, there were any things in it that
he would not have written. Considering that
the matter was one about which he could
have had no doubt if he had not written it,
and the immense stake he had IN denying it
If he could, we consider that his testimony,
added to Anderson 8, settles beyond any rea-
sonable doubt that he did write some such
letter. At all events, it makes out prima
fdcte case against Sherman, sufficient for the
foundation of articles of impeachment. 1t
Is solemn promise in writing, made in the
name OF the man who now occupies the office
of President by the man who now occupies
the office of secretary of the treasury, to two
officers OF election, to induce them to ''stand
firm" by an untrue return, and in a transac-
ton which they had informed Mr.. Sherman
was unjustlfable. Such a promise in this
State made by candidate to a single voter
would deprive the candidate himself, under
our State constitution, of the right to VOTE
We regard the first days proceedings as
booming John Sherman to Impeachment and
trial, happen what else may.
sHERMAN's TERGIvERsATIoNs.
Washington Post: 1t is interesting to
mark John Sherman's progress in crime.
Take for the first step his reply to the Demo-
cratic visitors to Louisiana, when they asked
MIN to unite with them to insure fair count:
1--WE are here as private citizens, with no
official powers. We, therefore, cannot su-
percede or modify any law of that State.
Nor hare zoe any right to control or influence
any of its officers as to the manner in which
they shall perform ministerial or judicial du-
ties imposed upon them by its laws; and
should we, being strangers, and without off
,ial functions, attempt this, we should be
by the people of every State in
he Union for an improper interference with
ocal administration.
"JoHN SHERMAN AND OTHERS"
Contrast with this his declaration made to
a reporter of the Republican, of this city, on
The fourteenth of last month:
:! went to Louisiana to supervise the count
Of the vote
Next in order is his impudent letter to Mr..
Potter, defying him to bottom fact" in
piece of bravado that excited
he unstinted praise of the Radical organs.
In this he says:
ITO my personal conduct during this ex-
| invite your fair and candid scru-
my, with entire confidence that not only
myself, but my associates of both political
parties. acted honestly and properly from
ense of public duty"
AS late as last February he wrote to the
editor of the Philadelphia Times as follows:
You are mistaken IN one thing, and that
s that l ever wrote letter to Anderson, or
,ver did anything in Louisiana which could
,ver be construed into wrong. l believe the
clement In louisiana that is endeavorIng to
tir up these prosecutions now acknowledge
hat they cannot asSail me, except by forgery
IT perjury. They sought to do this through |
Anderson and Mrs. jerks, but this utterly
allied; and I hare nOlo letters from each of
hem that no such letter teas received or tcas
Uer t0ritten."
Contrast with all of this his testimony of |
asst Saturday, and observe what shutting, |
vaslve, mean-spirited wretch this boastlng |
)ra9gart has become: |
81 can only say this, that l believe, upon |
ny responsibility and the oath that have |
aken,, that never wrote such q letter. |
lave no recollection of ever writing such a |
etter. If this letter was written, it must |
lave been, If l am not mistaken about the |
lates, on the day when the returning officers |
irst convened to open the returns. | think |
t was on the twentieth. At that time l |
new but little about the transactions. The |
,apers had not been opened. | do not be- |
ieve | ever wrote that letter. At the same |
ime there are things in this letter that |
would have written to these or any other men |
Who were engaged In the performance of
What believed to be their duty, if l had
,een asked; but do not believe wrote that
etter."
HE LIES AGAIN.
Washington Post: John Sherman has been
cling Mr.. Z B. Wright, correspondent of
he Chicago Tribune, that he would soon be
.ble to prove beyond doubt that the Ander-
on-Weber letter is forgery, etc., etc. At |
his point the question recurs: Why didn't |
dr. Sherman swear point blank that he never |
vrote the letter? Mr.. Sherman is bold and |
'razen enough when gabbling irresponsibly to |
casual correspondent; but when he gets on |
ne witness stand he writhes like skinned !