The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-06-13
STANLEY MATTHEWS In TROUBLE.

S1aNAG1 uA11 Nb W . 4N 4AsVOoA6s
Senator Stanley Matthews has thrown
himself upon his dignity, and refuses to
appear before the House Committee,
which is now investigating the frauds in
relation to the Presidential election, on
the ground that as he is Senator his
conduct should be investigated by a COM
mittee from the Senate. On question
Of privilege in the Senate, he made o
personal explanation about the testimony
of Anderson and the correspondence,
which appears on another page, in which
he made general contradiction on his
honor as Senator, which be proposed
to substantiate under oath. He denies
that he was q party or privy to any
promise of protection or any reward to
any one, in consideration of the commits
sion of any frauds, real or pretended, in
that election. He denies that he en-
deavored to secure Office for Anderson or
any one, with the knowledge that he or
any one else had been guilty of fraud in
chat election, and he did not know, and
in fact did not believe, that frauds had
been committed in that election.
Upon his request Senatorial Com
mittee of seven was appointed to investi-
gate the charges against him, and as the
majority of the Senate are Republicans,
and also the majority of the committee
to investigate him are Republicans, it is
easy to foresee that the fraudulent Presi-
dents brother-in-law will be completely
vindicated in his diplomatic transactions
connected with the counting of the cleo
toral vote of Louisiana, But this Radi-
cal coat of whitewash will hardly be suf.
ficient to remove the stains which the in
vestigations of the Potter Committee
have already fixed upon Mr.. Matthews.
His denial is circuitous, and partakes
more of the nature of an avoidance of the
testimony of Anderson and the docu-
ments presented by him than of con-
tradiction of that testimony. The sim
pie question for him to answer is, did he
write those letters to Anderson? (? and did
he have in his possession the agreement
between Anderson and Nash. If he did
not, and can show these documents as
presented by Anderson to be forgery,
then the verdict of the country will be
not guilty so fer as Mr.. Matthews is
charged in that portion of Anderson's
testimony; but if he did write those let
ters, all the pleas of ignorance and all
the protestations of innocence which he
can make under oath or otherwise will
not avail him before the bar of an en-
lightened public sentiment. Those let
ters are not such letters as an innocent
man would have written. The Senator's
persistent endeayor to obtain Office for
Anderson, after he had shown his charac-
ter in the letters he wrote Mr.. Matthews,
is not such course as an innocent man
would have pursued. And last, but not
least, an innocent man would not avail
himself of his position as Senator to
shield him from having the opportunity
of vindicating himself before the Com
mittee where the original charge was
made. The course of Senator Matthews
is not such as to inspire any confidence
in his innocence, and it may fairly be
predicted that, whatever else the Potter
Committee may do, it has overwhelmed
Mr.. Matthews by the crushing develop
mens it has lnearthed in regard to his
connection With the counting Of the
Louisiana vote.