The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-06-19
mo-. A..

illegal act.
Fourth--That he and Weber fully
expected that the reward promised
by Sherman wouldsbe proportionate
to the danger and difficulty of the
service to themselves, as well as in
thes-ratie ofits1impertanee TO .Mr.
Sherman an d those whom he
represented.
So much is concluded and estab-
lished by the documents produced in
the shape Of COMMUNICATIONS be-
tween Mr. Anderson and Mr.. Weber.
From this established point the Gull
pability is transferred to Mr.. Sher-
man over bridge composed of the
oral testimony Of Mr. Anderson,
supported by the abutment Of an
alleged letter from Sherman to An
derson and Weber jointly. This let
ter gives Anderson. and Weber assn +,
rance that their persons will be pro-
tected in the execution of their
work, and their services recognized
in view of the results of it. The
letter, if genuine, leaves no doubt in,
the appropriated mind thatS Sherman
fully understood the character Of the
wof!s-@,Vlliel.- Anderson. aad Weber
we're, toldo.' The question therefore
turns upon its genuineness. Inas.
much as this article is predicated
solely upon the testimony Of Mr..
Anderson, we will not cucumber It.
with any statements ofafact of our
own knowledge external to that tes.
timony as published; but we will
proceed to analyze the corroborationl
offered by Mr.. Anderson himself.
just as five knew nothing in addi-s
ton thereto. Thus Mr.. Anderson.
in support Of his theory that Mr..
Sherman wrote the letter in question,
amounting to documentary evidence
OF subornation of perjury or forgery,
Or both, produces first on alleged
copy of the letter, the ,genuineness
Of which lich Mr. Sherman, in a guarded
and lllnpco'nne slu 'l way, denies. Then
MIR. Anderson produces number of
autograph letters from. Mr.. Stanley
Matthews, the natural and logical
Interpretation Of which is that Mr..
Matthews lew understood the promises
!; made BY Sherman ito be binding up
On NJ. Hayes. In addition to this
Mr. Anderson testifes that when, be
/, applied for an Office, lconstructively
and and apparently in the nature of the
reward promised by Sherman, his
application was favorably enter.
tanned by Mr.. Hayes, and indorsed,
with the comment that it was "a
special case" saeYsi n 9sfw .6wa
Men have been hanged on tue
j strength of a Chain Of circumstantinl
j evidence less strong and less co3nrtini..
q uous than this. In conclusion, We
] remark, that the testimony OF Mr.,
q Anderson places John Sherman ii,
i the attitude Of a defendant to .
! charge of subornation Of perjury and
: forgery. It places Mr.. Stanley Mat.
q thews in the attitude of admitting
/ in l his own handwriting, that he was
+ accessory after the fact of Mr.. Sher.
, mans crime. But this is not all,
i On the heels of Mr.. Matthew'S own
{ admission, Mr.. Anderson produces
I the copy of.au agreement between
L himself and Mr.. Nash, Republican
/ Congressman, in which the nature Of
the work expected Of himself and
8 Weber is deliberately set forth III
terms, and he produces further doc
|, umentary evidence TO show that Mr.
Matthews is now, and been for som,
t time, the custodian of the origina
r of this contract. We have no com
/ ment Of our own to make beyond th,
foregoing 'ara'l analysis Of the testimony
}, as offered. 1t ,sufiices. to say. thu
t what we have analysed is the testi
g mony of the first witness upon til,
J, opening of the case. It would seen
}. to bea' fair Observation-Disclosures
e Post.1e3
nj DIDN'T LIKE PERSONAL SERMONS
g "A Vermont clergyman who use
RI ESyn S,, ~