The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-24

suspicious raised not so much by the testi-
mony CT Anderson rs by his hesitating and
doubtful manner when he appeared before
the Potter Committee to rebut that witness
as to the alleged letter 1t is now clear that
he did not write the letter, if Mrs. Jeuks is
to be believed. His contemptuous treat
ment of Anderson throughout the whole
period while that miscreant was proving
about Washington in pursuit OF nm ONCE
seems a pretty conclusive proof that Mr..
Sherman did not fear any document
in his possession or any revelation
he could make. This treatment of
Anderson is weighty circumstance
in yindication Of Mr.. Sherman, more valua-
bic and convincing because it is conceded
by all the hostile witnesses and is supported
by facts of general notoriety. Mr. Sherman,
from first to last, has acted toward Ander-
son as no public man would be likely to
act toward person who could convict him
OF dishonorable conduct. Nothing has been
more fully brought out by the concurrent
testimony Of all the witnesses than MIR.
Shermans apparent in difference to every
thing which Anderson might say, do, or
threaten.
Mrs. jerks testimony cannot be regarded
as adding much to the impression made by
Mr. Sherman's treatment Of Anderson, be-
cause her character for veracity is not S. fl
GENTLY established TO inspire confidence.
The singular story she tells respecting the
origin of the letter may be perfectly true,
even if she can be successfully contradicted
on other points. 1t is consistent enough
with her scheming character, so far as her
character is known, and it reconciles much
otherwise conflicting testimony but it is
supported rather by its intrinsic probable
ity than by the credibility of the witness
who delivers it, She may have told the
truth on this point though unworthy of be-
lief on some others but, unfortunately,
she testifes in such way as renders it i'm
possible either to corroborate or contradict
her on the main point of the origin OF the
letter.
The same qualities which render Mrs.
jerks so diverting a witness throw sus-
picion upon all she says. Her ingenuity,
her quickness of accusing repartee and her
nimble dexterity in parrying questions
which she does not wish to answer are not
the qualities Of straightforward witness.
The substance of her testimony is that by
an unprecedented stroke Of invention she
duped Weber and Anderson with an arti-
flee which cannot easily be distinguished
from forgery. woman who is gifted with
SO quick an invention and is SO ready
and unscrupulous in its exercise is a per-
son Of whose character candor and sim
cerity are not the strong points and yet
she testified very much as her personal
safety would require her to do if she was
telling the truth. She is careful not to
| swear that she fabricated the Sherman let
ter, although the whole drift Of her testi-
mony was artfully calculated to convey that
impression. II she was tho only person
privy to the forgery she was not imprudent
enough to furnish tangible evidence against
herself. She conveys the idea that she die
| tated the letter, but did not write it,
which, if true, would fix the actual for
gerry upon another person, but she re-
fuses to tell who that person was.
She swears it was perpetrated in q
room where several Of the visiting states
men were present, but declares that she re-
members none of them, which is the readiest
means of preventing any one being sum-
moned to contradict her. The presence OF
a woman in such company would hardly
pass unnoticed, and if she were debating
for another person to write it is next to GER
tain that in such an atmosphere she would
have been closely observed. 1t was neces-
sary to assign some such scene for the prep
aration OF the letter in order to show that
Mr.. Sherman was not present nor consulted.
by thus vindicating Mr. Sherman she
necessarily clears Anderson from the sus-
picion that the whole story Of the letter
and the copies was one OF his inventions.
II Mrs jerks is to be believed Anderson
was not the fabricator, but the unsuspect-
| ing dupe Of her own fabrication. II she
was acting in collision with nobody what
motive could she have had for practising
such deception on persons for whom she
then professed friendship and at the ex-
pense Of Mr.. Sherman's honor and good
name! Was it e gratuitous trick, injurious
20 others and Of no benefit to herself? How
ever this mystery may be solved 1t is now
certain that there was letter which Weber
and Anderson believed to be from Mr..
Sherman. 1t came in immediate reply
to one they had addressed to him
asking an immediate answer. 1t showed
perfect knowledge of what they had writ
ten to him under seal and was a full re-
Spouse. Their letter to Mr.. Sherman,
therefore, becomes an important piece Of
evidence. Whether he wrote the answer or
not their letter to him tends to prove that
he had made them verbal promises. That
is the statement they make in their letter,
and it is improbable that in sealed letter.
intended to meet no other eyes than his