National Republican., 1878-10-18
FAIsIryING THE RECORD.

MARBLES card In relation TO the cipher dis
patches, and thinks he has put the Tribune
on the defensive. To prove that its view is
correct the Poa-erior deliberately falsifies
the record. 1t says:
Mr.. MARBLE has, consequently, given the
charges his attention, and now writes to the
New York press to say:
First. That he never sent telegram to Mr..
II. HAvENEYER, or any man Of that name, In
his life.
Second That the cipher dispatch No. %,
translated and ascribcd to him, is forgery.
The following Is the Trbune's translation
Have just received proposition to hand over a.
any hour required Tilden decision Of board and
certificate Of Governor for $4,000. MARBLE
Mr.. MARBLE nowhere in his card makes
"No. 93' He does deny the authorship of
cipher dispatch No. 7s in the following Ian
gunge:
The Tribune ascribes to me. while in Florida,
November and December 1876 the sending of
certain kilograms which | never sent the re-
ceiving Of certain kilograms which never re-
ceived. One decisive instance will here suffice.
Cipher telegram -, as translated and ascribed
to me, is a forgery. 1t misstates the situation
| Us knew it.
The following is the disp:tch in question
precisely rs the Tribune printed it:
NOVEMBER 81.
| H. Hdremeyer:
Board attempted to count electoral votes this
morning. We opposed aud they adjourned
until three. Think they are controlled tbyl
| Republican party. They said they would count
votes rs they stood on face Of returns, and that
was all Democrats wanted. NJ.
And of this dispatch the Tribune of We'd
nesday said
The authorship is not of the least conse-
quemcc, in its bearing upon Mr.. MARBLES sub
sequent dispatches. and those of hi associates,
supplementing and completing the story, and
the prctense that It willbe seen on the hastiest
reading TO be ridiculous. Here are the undis-
putcd dispatches. We challenge Mr.. MARBLE
| to question either their gcnuineness or the
| substantial accuracy of our translation and
We give him notice that he will soon have an
opportunity to stand a acroSs-examination about
them under oath, in the eyes of the whole
country.
The reader will observe the striking and
important difference between the two dis.
patches. The one the POst-erior publishes
is signed MARBLE" The one which Mr.
MARBLE disclams is signed "M." No. 03,
which Mr.. MARBLE nowhere refers to in his
card, Is q very important one. No. -, which
is discIaimcd, is unimportant. To the or
dinary mind it would appear that there was
n deliberate motive in this falsication
What could that motive be other than to
make it appear that Mr.. MARBLE had dis
claimed the authorship of one of the mos
important dispatches, when, in truth and in
fact, he denied the authorship of what was
the least important in the damning exhibit
The POst-erior calls upon the Tribune for al
explanation, and it gave it yesterday, say
ing:
Now, let us see what the dispatches prove.
Is necessary first to notice that Mr.. MARBLI
does not deny tho authorship Of a single dis
patch attributed to him save one, and that tn,
, utterly unimportant one quoted yesterday
namely, No. IS, to Mr.. HAvEMEYER, beginning
, Board attempted to count electoral votest thi
morning" Is it not amazing that, out of al
the damning dispatches Published as from Mr.
MARBLE, he ventures to name aud positively
deny not one, but instances only this dispatch
of no consequence in any point OF view Blu
there Is something to be added here. That yer,
dispatch, the only one the authorship
) to be one not signed Moses" insid
the cipher, aud therefore not printed by us Il
signed, MARBLE" We gave 1t with the sigma
, turs M" as it appeared in the original, an
it Is entirely possible that it may have bee
either from MAX" in Florida, or frOL
MEAD" alias WEED, in South Carolina. I'll
fact that Mr.. MARBLE does not venture to as
, sert that a single one of the other dispatches
signed MOSES inside the cipher, Is not fror
him, is in itself exceedingly strong eyidcnc
that they are all correctly attributed TO hiu
And one thing more will be Observed VI
: MARBLE does not venture to mention singl
dispatch purporting to be received by him Q
: one which he did not receive.
, Does the POst-crior imagine that its reat
n ers are all simpletous, and that they woul
4 not discover such q thin deception an
Justification as this?, As THE REPuBLICA
\ stated yesterday, Mr.. MARBLE has don
a himself no credit by his explanation, and
the papers that pretend to believe him innt
cent, aud much-maligued man by IL
IA Tribune rIposs, can find no better defen'
"a than deliberate falsifcation of the recor
:. he may well pray to be saved from h
:. friends