The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1878-06-20
From the N. Y. Times.l
The Attitude Of the Party.

| 1uG AGtlGuu6 VI IUe 1drCy.
1t is not the duty of the Republi can
Party to identify itself with every man
who may be put upon the defensive by
the proceedings of the Potter investiga-
ton. Partisan zeal is very well in its
sphere, but judicial impartiality is inf
nitely better when regulations are at
stake, and when the usefulness not less
than the character of the party depends
upon the verdict. We are not required
to maintain that accusations are untrue
simply because they are directed against
party friends, nor to ignore documentary
evidence because the witness who produ-
ces it is q confessed perjurer.
There is evidently some danger of these
| truisms being forgotten under the inhu-
ence of the excitement which the open
| ing of the Democratic case at Washington
has occasioned. The indecency of Dem
ocrats who accept one version of story
as absolute proof of guilt has a parallel
| in the eager haste of certain Republicans
to champion members of their party
whom the testimony compromises. The
theory on both sides seems to be that the
inquiries of the committee must through
out reflect its partisan origin, and that
while the faithful Democrat is bound to
swear that every charge is substantiated,
the good Republican is equally bound to
declare that the persons damaged by ex-.
posures are martyrs to the cause The
same idea is apparent in the treatment of
the witness, Anderson. Democrats ac-
cept his story as gospel. His own ad-
missions are conclusive as to his general
untrustworthiness, and the conflict be-
tween statements made now and state
ments made months ago in Louisiana
renders it diff cult to believe that he ever
speaks the truth. Nevertheless, Demo
Gratis assume that however much he lied
in the past he speaks truth now, and
they insist that the effect Of his testimony
is fatal to some prominent opponents and
damaging to the Republican Party as
whole. On the other hand, injudicious
Republicans imagine that the bad char
acter of the witness justifies them in ig-
noring evidence which does not depend
upon his character, and in picking flaws
in his statement as demonstration of
the innocence of the accused They would
conduct the case as sharpalawyer would
defend his client in a police court,-car-
ing very little for the methods that Sc
cure acquittal provided only that result
be effected.
So far, however, as this investigation is
concerned, the public will pay much less
attention to the technicalities of legal
procedure than to the broad, moral bear
ings of the evidence adduced. Evidence |
may be insufficient to convict this person
or that of specific offense, or to prove
that he acted corruptly, or otherwise |
wrongly, as minutely as a charge would |
have to be proved in a criminal court
And yet the evidence may create an in
eradicable impression both as to the fact |
of misconduct and the discredit reflected |
on ha 1artu in inf
the person acted. Anderson's credibility
as witness is easily demolished. The
testimony that rests upon his word must
be corroborated before it can be accepted
as having any real value. But the docu-
ments he supplies cannot be disproved or
explained away by showing from his own
mouth that he is liar, actuated from
first to last by base motives. Mr.. Sher
mans authorship of the letter attributed
to him is not disproved by the revelation
of Anderson's guilt. Mr.. Sherman's
equivocation, with the document in his
hand, contrasts so painfully with his pos
tive declarations to newspaper CORES
pondents and his valiant challenge to the
that he must now establish
the falsity of the paper or submit to the
unfavorable Interpretation which the cir
cumstances suggest. Mr.. Stanley Mat
thews' position is worse. The more clear
ly Anderson is proved to be q scoundrel,
the more the Ohio Senator is damaged by
the confidential relations that are exem-
plifed in his letters. The Nash agree
ment, infamous on its face, was in Mr..
Matthews possession. Other things grow
ing out of intercourse with Anderson
must have familiarized him with that
mans true character. Yet Mr.. Matthews
introduced him to Gen. Harlan as worthy
ol to
reward, and exerted himself
strenuously, again and again, during
period extending over months, to satisfy
demand. The offer of the
Funchal Consulate was the product of
Mr.. Matthews influence with the Presi-
dent or Mr.. Evarts, or with both. We
are not required to believe one sentence
that Anderson has uttered to form a
Judgment as to the part played by Mr..
Matthews. Unless he can prove that
these documents are forgeries, protesta-
tions in his behalf will be in vain. The
attempt to explain them away is an in
suit to common sense. And the public,
while branding Anderson as he deserves !
to be- will not suffer legal quibblng to
change the judgment in regard to Mr..
Matthews for which his letters furnish I
ample foundation.
But Messrs Sherman and Matthews
are not the Republican Party, and they
have no right to expect that the party
will assume the responsibility of their
sins. 1t owes to them and to itself the I
exercise of all proper care to guard
against an unjust Judgment. 1t will see
that they have fair play. 1t will listen
attentively to their explanations. 1t will
carefully weigh any counter evidence
they adduce. And it will correct its un-
favorable impression so soon as the doc
uments from which these impressions are
derived are proved to be spurious, or are
shown by other documents to be suscept-
ible of a construction different from that
now put upon them. If these proofs are