Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1878-06-05

for Louisiana. The main body bad Jam,
+. Anderson before them in Washinctc
Saturday and Tuesday and will o.
through with his examination in a dav {
two.
This Anderson is man thirty-fou
years old, journalist by profession an
IN unmltigated rascal by confession. Ate
the war he was employed in the govern
ment printing office in Washington, some
how drifts to Louisiana and is now resi-
dent in Philadelphia. being night an,
news editor of the North american news
paper.
In the election of1S76 he was SUPERVISE,
in the parish of East Feliciana. Louisiana
and friend of his, d. H. Weber, was su.
pervisor in West Feliciana. The votes
cast in Anderson's parish were 1886 fo-
Iilden and for Hayes. The vote of the
parish was thrown out by the returning
board on protest that had Anderson's
signature and charged intimidation.
So far as this is concerned Anderson
now says that he never swore to this pro.
test, and that it was d" doctored by filling
In blanks after he signed it. He also at
tempts to deny the fact of intimidation but
IN this part of his story appears to be very
lame; as it is reported that even in his
present examination he tells of acts of tb,t
kind that happened.
But the main hope of the democrats
does not appear to be centered on proving
fraud which became operative" bnt
In showing that leading republicans had
hand In carrying out corrupt agreement
to reward Anderson for the fraud after he
had committed himself to it. Anderson
sWears TO an interview with John Shor.
man on the Goth of November, ten DAYS
after his protest was signed, in which he
alleges he made Sherman aware that
forgery and perjury were elements of that
protest. lie claims that he and Weber
after this talk received letter from Sber-
man promising they should be taken care
of if things were left to go along as thew
were.
This letter he has produced n COW Of
whether there ever was an original does
not yet appear. Sherman says he does
not think he ever wrote the letter. Whether
he ever wrote it or not is immaterial Tho
material thing is whether the interview in
the restaurant is truly reported by Ander-
son. The pretended Sherman letter. if
written after an interview in which Ander-
son told Sherman the protest was false
and fraudulent, would be the end of Mr.
sherman as a statesman" But if writ
ten after claim by Anderson and Weber
that they were in danger in Louisiana he.
cause they had made q truthful protest, ,
there IS nothing out of the way about it. ,
Anderson claims that Weber heard the
conversation, and that f. w. Stouchton :.
sat by but did not he thinks, hear the talk, 7
Weber went back to his parish and was :,
afterwards killed; the very thing which =.
he apparently feared if he dared to make :,
the protest against democratic intimidation =
in his parish. .
Anderson brings forward a written
agreement with Nash, negro republican :,
congressman, by which Nash agreed to T
give Anderson certain office if the vote l.
OF the parish should be thrown out. This -,
agreement is shown into the hands Of
Stanley Matthews, and the only real tbino .
yet proved by Anderson's testimony is a -
curious willingness on Matthew'S part TO
try and get Anderson an office after havino
the proof of his rascality in his hands. :,
Anderson had several interviews in y
Washington with Sherman, who snubbed >,
HIM from the first, and with the president.
VINO at first recommended his appoint ;,
ment to consulship in warm place " h
ana afterwards revoked his recommends.
tlon on learning more of his character. ;,
Since last summer he has been threatening =
what he would do and now comes forward
with his story fully developed.
Of course, if this story is true, including :,
the restaurant interview, Mr.. Sherman
and other republicans prominent in politics :,
are badly hit. 1t is never best to Judge of !,
a case till both sides have put in their evil :,
dence' and IN this matter many witnesses E.
have been summoned by the republicans :,
to contradict Anderson and on the other u
hand the democrats unless they are both :,
born and graduated in idiocy, will support ",
MIN by corroborating witnesses. We say n
this because the story is not one that bears :, :,
internal evidence to its truth, being in
many parts inconsistent with itself: be- -"
cause 1t does not fit with other events ;,
known to have happened; because Andcr- a'
son has once sworn as he admits, to an O,
entirely different state offacts; and because =,
ne has when not under oath, and presuma-
bly, of his guard and open to the possibility y y
OF speaking withouta particular object to =,
be gained by lying, told things inconsistent "
with 1t. of course, being the periured liar -
he confesses himself, belief in his story '''
must rest on his being supported by docu- 90
mental evidence and the word of decent -. ~
men. 1t is far too early, when cross VI
is not yet concluded even w.
md when no witnesses in confederation or
'ebuttal have been examined to character. 1 -,
re as false or truthful the stuff in mass p r
hat Anderson has sworn to.
The only danger from the whole matter T nv
that OF Jumping to conclusions on the =.
me side or the other and the refusal to ~
Weigh evidence which does not accord p'
With preconceived notions of THINGS Nv
leantlme tho sentiment of the country for wv
'eace and quiet, is forcing the democrats eau
declare that they mean no interference ~
With the presidents title, but merely to s
vindicate the truth" 7
mo