The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-07-03
THE SHERMAN LETTER.

In her possession, and never had The control
Of IL, and that II she pretended last winter to
John Sherman, or Stanley Matthews TO have
control Of It she did so for blackmaiIing pur-
poses, ..
We cannot see upon what this concession is
based; and indeed, we know that no such
opinion Is held by at least one laember of
the Louisiana subcommittee That Conclu-
sion s certainly not Sustained by the testi-
mony. On the contrary, the correspondence
submitted on Monday by Mrs. jerks, which
was given In full In the dispatches of the
DEMOCRAT alone, shows very conclusively
that there was an "original Sherman letter, "
that Mrs. jerks had II In her possession. and
that she did attempt TO use it-not for
the purpose of Matchmaking Sherman,
but of compelling him TO discharge in
measure the corrupt obligations he
had placed himself under. "Blackmailing,"
however, ls not the proper word to use in this
connection. That word conveys an idea of
injured innocence, which can never apply to
John Sherman or any party TO a transaction
like this. AS a legal obligation TO be enforced
in the courts, or by any legal process, this
letter OF Sherman's has no effect whatever.
Its only force as q legal document and for
lawful and moral purposes is that which the
Potter committee seeks TO give 1t. and that is
as . confession of guilty aud corrupt prac-
tlces.
Christian Reid, in one OF her books, makes
a burglar require of his accomplice with
whom he had left the whole Of their plunder.
note of hand for his moiety of 1t. This
looks like an absurdity. for no such note
could be sued on or collected in court But
what lever that note of hand was, regarded
as confession of guilt, to compel fair play
from the aceomplice That was precisely the
effect Mrs. jerks sought TO give TO the
Sherman letter, and in endeavoring to do SO
she was not guilty Of "blaokmailing.
"Honor among. thieves" is as old and venera-
BILE maxim as any the law lays down, and
Mrs. Jenks merely sought In holding
that letter of Sherman's over his head. to en-
force compliance with 1t.
Now, with reference to Mrs. jerks possess
sion of the Sherman letter. we hold that the
correspondence submitted by her is conclu-
sive upon that point. The theory of the
DEMOCRAT, as already published, is that she
opened the Anderson Weber letter and read
it that she procured John Sherman's reply,
dictated" copy to clerk gave Weber the
copy and retained the original. realizing the
advantage 1t gave her. This theory is entire
ly sustained by the correspondence submitted
by Mrs, jerks on Monday. Says Anderson
In one of these letters to her: "They do say
that Sherman fooled you badly; that yoW
pdve him that letter on promises to pay, and
that after getting 1t, he told you to whistle
for your dingbats." Anderson then goes on
to ridicule Mrs. jerks for her innocence in
allowing the "sly old coon," Sherman, to In
veigle her out of that" letter Now, the date
Of this correspondence is March 25, 1878,
months before the Potter investigation was
set afoot.
Ifno such letter was in existence, If Mrs,
jerks had not possession Of it, II she had
not used it on Sherman, If Sherman
had not procured 1t from her by promises,
and IL all this was not a mutual confidence
between Anderson and jerks, then how is
this correspondence to be accounted forF
Sometimes sensational and fancful historians
tell us of such wonderful prescence as would
be necessary to the reaching of another con-
| clusion-they tell us that such men as Talley-
rand. Metternich and Castlereagh have made
out cases as complete as this, and prepared
the facts as they went along by creating sit,
uations, by coloring transactions that hap
pened naturally. and even by a system OF incl
dental allusion in writing and by words
spoken in the hearing of others
Butsensible people never believe these things
even OF such men, though they may enjoy the
dramatic climaxes in which they culmnate
1t Is mere mid-summer madness to attribute
any such diplomacy to such creatures as An
derson and Jenks and it is the most disgust
ing and disrespectful special pleading to urge
any such view on sensible people. This single
clause from Andersons letter, then, clearl!
substantiates our view Of the case, and Il
!, a cumulation of proof in support Of all tina
} Anderson has said.
We have, perhaps, given this matter NOR
serious consideration than it deserves, but W
have not seen a single paper that has at
tempted an analysis of this womans test
mony. while every sheet in the country inim
| ical to the investigation is wild in its exulta
. tion over the manner in which this pert an
Q brazen woman has successfully evaded tn
t truth. to the discontinue of the able an
= learned lawyers who have been probing in
Q vain quest after her moral perceptions.
0 We have not been able to appreciate tE
: wonderful acumen and adroitness attribute
g her, nor to see wherein she has so shameful
s routed the astute lawyers who elected III
g testimony. We feel assured that there WI
be an end to all this fippant talk when I'll
;, summing up of this testimony takes plac
9 and that Mrs. jerks will be found to ha'
q given herself away and to have corroboratt
il in every particular the testimony OF Ande
n son.
el This corroboration is all the stronger, b
% cause she has been so smart and so swift
,e witness for Sherman, and because the tru
n- has been got from her only by her mabili
E. to utterly suppress it, to obscure or perve
In it. This correspondence also shows tn
le Sherman had that letter when he gave !
ne eouivocal testimony. His trepidation is
lyl planned by bis fears Of the existence d