The Cecil Whig., 1878-06-08
THE SHERMAN.ANDERSO LETTER.


journalistic gentleman somewhat known
to fame, one Anderson by name, he OF
the fiery crown, the red-headed Louisiana
political avenger, who, in November,
1876, made. and, in June, 1878, seeks
to unmake a President of our unhappy
Republic. The initial performance of
the committee was the hopeful, but
frutless, task to connect Secretary Sher-
man personally with fraud in Louisiana.
The anxious bosom of the conscientious
Clarkson throbbed with untold expecta-
ton, as the Night Editor of a Philadel-
phia newspaper, commenced his startling
recital, before which every other story
of modern fraud was to sink into con-
temptible insignifcance. As the " big
card" in this Democratic game OF haZ-
ard, Anderson was to be played first,
and with what result we leave it to
every honest and impartial reader Of
his testimony to decide. An alleged
copy of damning letter, with all its
grammatical imperfections plainly ap-
parent on its face, was produced, the
authorship of which is charged upon
Mr. Sherman. On his oath he declares
his belief that he never wrote it, but
which, Notwithstanding its discredited
authenticity, Mr. Potter promulgates to
the country, and which, we maintain, is
capable Of perfectly upright and hon
orable interpretation And just here
we cannot but regard Mr. Sherman's
evasive and hesitating denial of the
authorship Of this letter as unfortunate,
ill-tmed, and calculated to weaken the
force of his defence upon the general
denial of the fraudulent acts charged
against him. lie had recently addressed
the committee bold and defiant letter,
in which he threw down the gauntlet
to the most unrelenting Of his political
opponents The effect of his aggres-
sive and manly course was apparent
every where. Republicans congratu-
lated themselves that Mr. Hayes Cab-
net contained at least one courageous
man, at time when the spirit of tame
submission and surrender, had appar-
emily invested the administration
They were, therefore, reasonably disap-
pointed at his treatment of the Andcr-
son-W eber letter, since his rather vague
statement concerning it, was in notice
able contrast with his bold and defiant
attitude when the House Of Representa-
tives formally indicted him, by the pas
sage of the Potter resolution And for
this weak denial of the authorship of
the letter there was no earthl V neces
sity upon any theory consistent with
his innocence of the fraudulent acts
charged 1t is this point of the case
we propose to call attention to, outside
of any consideration of its general mer-
its. Suppose Mr.. Sherman had openly,
frankly, and unreservedly avowed .he
authorship Of the letter, and in not do
ing which we think he seriously erred
Is there any thing in it, capable as it
is of two directly opposite construc-
tions, that he need have feared 1t is
true, of course, that Democrats will in
terpret it in a manner consistent with
the theory of the prosecution, and which
THEORY Anderson was put upon the
stand to maintain. That is, if, as we
believe he did, Mr. Sherman had gone
to Louisiana and had influenced two
election officers to make false and per
jured protest in order to secure the
State for the Republicans, it would
have been perfectly consistent for him
to use the language of this letter.
Stand firm in the position you have
"taken.' II am justified in assuming
the responsibility for promises made,
land will guarantee you shall be pro-
"yided for" But while this language
would have been perfectly consistent
with the theory of his guilt, it is not
only inconsistent with the character of
Mr.. Sherman as politician, inconsist-
ent with his subsequent acts as a men,
Der of the Administration but is equally
CONSISTENT with the theory of his nno-
nence of fraud as we shall presently
show? Can any one, not biased by
partisan passion, believe that John
Sherman was so unmitigated an ass, as
to conspirc with IA sclf-confessed scoun-
drel like Anderson, and then fail to shut
his (Anderson's) mouth eternallv =
Anderson was for sale, and Sherman
knew his price He could take him or
leave him Mr.. Sherman understood
this mans nature as we'll as the nature
Of a bribe, but vet let him demand in
vain of the Administration some petty
place, as protection against his be-
trayal of Sherman's guilty completely
in fraud. Isthis course consistent with
the theory of the Secretary's guilt?
Quite the reverse. If Sherman had
accepted any guilty service at Ander-
sons bands, the former knew the lat
ter's metal we'll enough to protect him
self against his brazen demands. Cor
roborative of this presumption we need
but refer our readers to Mr. Sherman's
positive refusal to make vacancy in
his department as a reward for this
mans criminal acts in Louisiana, but
even his refusal in any branch of the
public service, acts totally irreconcila-