Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-12-27

NEW ORLEAfs. Dec 26.-To the Editors of
the Democrat: hand you herewith for publ
cation synopsis of the evidence taken before
the Acklin committee, Of which I was q mem
Der. This synopsis was written at the time for
publication, but for reasons I have heretofore
stated, and which then acquiesced in, it was
withheld. have no desire to pursue Mr.. Ack-
lin, but his action in seeking yindication at
the hands of others, has raised an issue of fact
which can only be determined BY submitting
the evidence to the public. If the decision of
our committee is not based upon sufficient tes-
timony, then Mr.. Acklin is entitled to the bene-
fit of it. If, on the other hand, it is justified,
let the imputation rest where it belongs
Respectfully, D. B. PENN.
Here follows statement made by the com
mittee showing that their decision was adverse
to Acklin's innocence. They notified Acklin
that their decision would be made public.
Acklin entreated us not to make this decision
public until after IL N. Sunday, the 18th inst.
In order to determine, he said, after more calm
reflection, whether he would withdraw from
the canvass or not. To this delay we consent
Pending this delay Mr.. Acklin asked favora-
BILE opinion from second committee composed
OF prominent Representatives, headed by ex-
Gov. Hahn, and late on Saturday night sent this
second and favorable opinion to the city press
for publication in the Sunday papers. This
extraordinary conduct, with the fact that the
second decision was directly the opposite of
the one we had rendered, though professedly
based on the same evidence, compels us to give
brief synopsis of the evidence on which we
gave our verdict, to show, as we think it will,
that our decision was not dictated by prejudice
or ill-will.
The history of this very shameful affair as
developed by the evidence adduced during our
Investigation is as follows: column of a
synopsis OF the testimony follows reciting that
Acklin engaged the girls father to manage his
plantation. Som; time after an intimacy
sprang up between Acklin and the girl. In
August 1877, he accompanied the girl and her
mother to New Orleans, and was active in per-
tectlng marriage between the girl and a man
named Wright, who had been hostler on his
plantation. From others we learned that
Wright deserted his wife and went to Texas
few days after his marriage. The girl was de-
llvered of an infant in February, 1878, and
after that sank lower and lower in social life.
She died of yellow fever in September, 1878.
We will now call attention to two affidavits
professedly made by the unfortunate young
woman. One of these affidavits was
presented to us by MIR. Acklin. We will call
that one affidavit No. l.. The other affidavit
was found among the effects of Mr.. Fl. N.
Smith after his death. We call this one affida-
Wit No. 2. Affidavit No. is very i'm portant and
very favorable to Mr.. Acklin, as the girl
testlhes IN it to his entire innocence Of any
criminal intercourse at any time with her.
This affidavit iSi Nc l. was signed Matte
ture was evidently that Of person accustomed
to writing. The name was written in rum
ming hand and no hesitation manifested in the
formation of letters. The name was not writ
ten in the handwriting Of beginner, or of a
person pc nnaccustomed to writing their name.
This affidavit was sworn to before Mr.. Alfred
Ingraham, notary public In August, 1873, who
attested the signature and it was in the form and
nature of questions and answers, and
when Mr.Acklin presented Tito us he called our
attention to the fact. We were told that the
questions We're prOpounded by the notary and
the answers written down by the notary as
spoken by the girl, and that she signed it in
the notary's presence. We requested Mr.. Ingra-
ham to give his testimony on this matter. He
met our committee and testified that one
morning Mr. Acklin came into his Office accom-
panied by young woman, and presented him
the affidavit questions and answers all written
out and already signed, and that he
only read the caption to learn if
affiant was the person mentioned in the affida-
Wit. Mr. lngraham asked the young woman if
that was her signature, and that was all Mr..
Ingraham did in the matter. He was asked
specially if he had propounded any of the
questions set forth in the affidavit. and had
taken any of the answers down? He said he
had not, and that he knew nothing of the con-
tents of the affidavit.
We have very grave reasons to doubt the
genuineness of affidavit No. l. We have most
positive proof that the girl could not write.
We have evidence that pencil was placed in
name and she could not make the first stroke
Of the letter NJ. Moreover, Mr.. Acklin admits
and states in his card published on Sunday,
October 18th. that the girl could neither read
nor write. She certainly did not sign the
affidavit bearing the signature of Matte P.
Wright, because she could not write.
Now this question presented itself to the
this affidavit? We could only conjecture, but
had no evidence to determine the question sat
lsfactorily to ourselves. Mr. Ackl1n based his
claim to innocence in great measure on this
affidavit No. 1.
Affidavit No. 2, made by the girl, is as dam
aging to MIR. Acklin affidavit No. was ia
vorable to him. His story of affidavit No. is
this: The girl made the acquaintance
of Mr.. II. N. Smith ard told her tale
He rendered the statement to writing
induced her to come to his house, where she
appeared before Judge O'KourKe, a Justice of
were not read to her, swore to the truth of the
contents, and made her mark, which was at
tested by the justice in August, 1878.
This affidavit, No. 2, gives full and detailed
statement of the whole matter between Mr..
Acklin and herself, alleges the seduction. the
manner OF the seduction, the pregnancy, which
she attributes to Mr.. Acklin, her visit to the
New Orleans physician, what took place there,
the attempt on her part to produce an abortion
by taking medicines and by the use of instru-
ments, her marriage with Wright, his suhse-
quent desertion, the part Mr. Acklin took in
arranging the marriage, and his meeting her
subsequently.
This affidavit, No. 2, relates all the facts with
SO much minuteness of detail that it carries
much weight with it.. Although we did not
rely on Its statements to materially influence
our Judgments. we believed much of it to be
true, particularly where there was corrobora-
tive testimony to sustain what she believed.
The question of II. N. Smiths motives wheth-
er that of revenge or matchmaking, did not ill.,
terest us. Eight respectable witnesses testified
that the girl related to them the
facts mentioned in affidavit No. at
the time Of her marriage, when she
did not know of the existence Of Smith, But
what was of interest to us to know was that
Smith had not concocted statements. OF this
we were fully satisfied.
OF the affidavits furnished by Mr. Acklin,
which be procured on his visit to his planta-
ton in the last few days. we attach but little
or no credit. They are all in the handwriting
OF Mr.. AcklIn. and made by his negro carriage
driver and wife, by his negro blacksmith and
wife and other negroes, all of whom are
now or have been employed on his plantation,
most of them affixing their marks not know
ing how to write and sworn to before negro
justice of the peace.
The above, dated October 10Th, but not here
tofore published. was signed by the committee.
tSigned) DUNCAN F. KENNER,
D. B. PENN.
ALBERT VOORHEES,.
PAUL e. THEARD