The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-06-09
SHERMAN's DENIAL.
He Does Not Believe Re Wrote That An
dersOn Letter.
IChicngo Times tInd).I

iChieago Times und).I
There was an approach to n dramatic seen"
when Sherman entered and was confronted
with what purpOrted 10 be his letter. Shcr-
man came in with rush, dressed In black,
with silk hat in one hand and an ivory
topped MaIaCCa stick In the other He made
a formal bow and the committee presented
arms by solemn silence, Sherman was quiet
and cold upon the surface, rCprcssng with n
strong hand the inevitable embarrassment of
being confronted with any charge. Potter
presented the alleged letter and asked him in n
low voice II he recognized it. Sherman took
it from POtters hand, borrowed Cox's eye
glasses, and read it through three times.
man drew n long breath and then said slowly
that he did not believe that he had written it.
IN Y. Herald. UndJI
The vague, haltinR and (w0 regret to be
compelled to use 50 strong u word ShufflinG
testimony Of Secretary Sherman before the
Potter committee on Saturday produces n
painful impression. 1t is not SO much the con-
tents Of the alleged letter that cxcite8 this
feeling Of doubt and d8trust as the previous
defiant declarations Of Mr. Sherman. He
stated not long since to the special CORES
pendent OF the Hrrnid in Washington, in Ian
R1ago as positive and emphatic rs it was pos
slble for outraged innocence to employ, that
II such q letter rs he was accused Of writing
existed ut all it IS forgery and II fraud He
based this emphatic and defiant disclaimer
DH HIS ti'bE ana positive EGtbIitFLIDn
that he had never written any letter
at all to persons connected with the
Louisiana returns. Now, II that statement
made to our special correspondent at Wash
inRtOn was true, it Is amazing that Mr. Sher-
man did not repent It with the Same strong
emphasis in his testimony before the commit
tee. Why did he halt and shuttle in Il matter
wherein his unSWOrn statements had been 80
positive and absolute? If his whOle8ale denial
TO our correspondent were not so recent and
H.,
letter would afford occasion for candid con
struCtiOn; but his sweeping denial that he
ever wrote any letter Mt all astOund9 and per
plcXcS us. We are justified in complaining
that Mr.. Sherman has not been square with
the HcrGid Regarding him us man Of
honor, we accepted his denial with full belief,
and on the strength Of it we asserted,
without hesitation, Ou' impression that the
Democrats would be disappointed when they
came to close quarters with their witnesses.
Our faith Is shaken by the failure Of Mr..
Sherman to repeat before the committees what
he had said with such sweeping breadth Of
statement to our correspondent. II it be true
that he never wrote any letter at all, and that
the pretended letter Is q malignant forgery,
why did he not swear it before the committee
with the same emphasis that he asserted 1t
TO our correspondents Was he afraid that he
might be confronted and cOnfOLnded with the
original? AS il laying the foundation for u
different line Of business Mr.. Sherman Swnars
that there are things III tf1t alleged letter
which he would have been warranted in
writing. If the letter is q forgery; If he
never wrote any letter at all, what interest
has he in defending or ju5tfying its contents?