New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-06-06

Mr.. Sherman Is a man of very high. character
and standing. and Anderson is quite the re-
verse.
Furthermore, as to Secretary Sherman, who IS
really the only person Of the first importance IN
VOWED, Andersons story is also, in itself, wildly
mprobable. He asserts that at his very hrSt
meeting with Secretary Sherman, he told this
perfect stranger that he, Anderson, had been
guilty of crime, and that Dir. Sherman there
upon wrote to this man whom he had never
seen but once, and who then confessed that
he was scoundrel. letter promising 10
pay him for persisting in the crime. 1t Is IN
the last degree unlikely that Anderson would
have thus confessed a perjury to a per-
feet stranger but it is literally lmpossl-
ble that n cool, experienced and cautious
man like John Sherman should thus have
placed himself in the power of complete
stranger, of whom he knew only that he was
thorough scoundrel. Add to this the fact
that Secretary Sherman, according to Ander-
sons own testimony. has snubbed him, acting
not at all like man who feared another or
bad placed himself at his mercy, but like one
who was wholly fearless, and we have as
strong reason as can well be imagined for the
conclusion that Anderson lies in asserting that
he ever told Mr.. Sherman that any fraud had
been committed.
What did he say? His own testimony shows
what his attitude at that time must have been,
in any conversation with Republican leaders
He claimed that East Feliciana was carried
by mtimidation-in fact, even now he asserts
that terror had probably cost the Republicans
500 votes-and that he had made an official
g. Il. no
could not live in Louisiana if he adhered to
that protest; and that he should probably be
forced to back down and recant, unless assured
of protection. In the nature of things, this
is the story Anderson would have told to
Republican visitors. whether it was true or
false. This story, more than any other, would
command their sympathies, and enable them to
assist or reward him openly. Moreover, this Is
the story which he has formerly sworn that he
did tell In response, it was not unnatural
for Mr.. Sherman to assure HIM that II he
adhered to his position, every effort would be
made to secure him reasonable provision, and
protection from vengeance OF Democratic as
sassins. If any letters or conversation passed
between him and Mr.. Sherman, it is morally
certain that this was the nature and the ground
Of Mr.. Shermans reply. Whether any letters
did pass, we shall probably learn in due time
But the point which it is import
ant for every candid man to weigh Is
that Anderson, in any appeal by word or let
ter to Mr.. Sherman or other Republican states
men, cannot be bcliered TO hare needteSsy dc-
cuscd himself Of crime, rheR an assertion that he
had done his duty, but tcas in danger Of his life,
iroud hare been infinitely more effective The
! Ia in no bapIQ Of
Mr.. Matthews was of the same character.
Formerly Anderson swOre that he was viz
tually under duress and in fear of life,
when this was made. If he told
any other story to Mr.. Matthews or
anybody else, he confessed that he
was trying to blackmail, and was n
miserable scoundre, when the contrary
statement would have served his purpose in
Gnitely better. But If neither Mr.. Sherman,
Mr.. Matthews, nor any other Republican
leader, knew from Anderson that any fraud
had been committed it was natural that they
should wish to sustain him in the perform
ance of his duty. In that case, not letter
yet produced by any prominent Republican
conveys the slightest suspicion of completely
with fraud. They are entirely consistent with
the suppOsition that Anderson was man
who had done his duty, though at the peril
of his life. But they are entirely inconsistent
with any knowledge or suspicion, on the part
of the writer's, that Anderson had sworn to a
lying report.
The main question in public interest
whether Mr.. Hayes was really and legally en-
titled to the vote of LOuisiana-has yet TO be
tried. Anderson still swears that there had been
terrorism and violence in the parish, by which
n great number of Republicans were prevented
from voting. Of that fact there is abundant
other evidence. 1t was the official duty of the
Returning Board, under the law of Louisiana,
to Judge whether the election was neverthe
less so far fair and free that It's result should
he lawfully counted. Whether they judged
rightly or wrongly, honestly or from unscrupu-
Ions partisanship, will not be settled by
any assertion of man who once swOre
that IL was not such n fair election, who now
swears that it was, and who offered his oath
for sale to both parties. Nor are any docu-
ments in his own writing, which may have
been fabricated by him within a week or
month, since they purport to have been re-
ceived by man now dead, of any value as
evidence The only witness who could prove that
they were written or received at the time of
the events referred to is dead; and Anderson
would not hesitate to write fictitious letters if
he does not hesitate to contradict himself
under oath. The truth must be established, if
at all, by other evidence than any he can give.
4 DEAD MONSTER
1t is all over. Yesterday, i'll the House
of It's friends and with the author
nf its beinR at its bedside, the Wood