The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1878-06-12
nIR. sHERMAN,s LFrrER.


The vague, hating and 1--WE regret TO be COM
PEELED to use so strong word shutting testi-
InOny of Secretary sherman before the Potter
committee on Saturday produces painful inn
the alleged letter that excites this feeling of
doubt and distrust az the previous defiant de.
claTations of Mr.. sherman. He stated not
long since to the special correspondent of the
Herald in Washington, in language as positive
and emphatic as il was possible for outraged
innocence to employ. that If such q letter as
forgery and fraud He based this emphatic
the defiant disclaimer on his clear and posi-
tive recollection that he had never written
any letter st all to persons connected with the
Louisiana returns. Now, If that statement
made to our special correspondent at Wash
ington was true, il is amazing that Mr.. Sher-
man did not repeat II with the same strong
emphasis in his testimony before the commit
tee. Why did he halt and shuttle in a matter
wherein MS unswOrn statements had been SO
positive and absolute?
We will not now discuss the question wheth-
er the alleged letter, if genuine, is consistent
with Mr.. rherman's innocence. II his whole
sale denial to our correspondent Were not so
recent and so pointed the drift and bearing of
the alleged letter would afford occasion tor
candid construction: but his sweeping denial
that he ever wrote sny letter at all astounds
and perplexes US: We are justified in com
piaining that Mr.. Sherman has not been
square with the Herald. Regarding him as
man of honor, we accepted his denial with
full belief, and on the strength of il we assert
ed, without hesitation, our impression that
the democrats would be disappointed when
they came to close quarters with their witness
es. Believing on Mr.. ShermanS strong aSseV
erations that the alleged letter was down.
right forgery, aud knowing that this was one
of the main points toward which the inquiry
was to be directed, we inclined to Judge the
cargo by this sample Our faith Is shaken by
the failure of Mr.. Sherman to repeat before
committee what he had said with such sweep
ing breadth of statement to our correspondent.
II it be true that he never wrote any letter at
all and that the pretended letter is "a malig
nant forgery, why did he not swear 1t before
the committee W tn the same emphasis that
he asserted il TO our correspondent? Was he
afraid that he might he confronted and con-
founded with the original? AS il laying the
foundation for different line of defense, Mr.
Sherman swearS that there are things in the
alleged letter which he would have been war
ranted in writing. If the letter is a forgery, if
he never wrote any letter az all, what interest
has he in defending or justifylng its con-
tents?
r II is not so much the cantents of the letter
as the painful contrast between his previous
statements and his testimony that eXcites our
doubts and approximations. 1t looks too much
as If he had attempted a game of bluff. It is
difficult to reconcile his recent tone of defiance
and his absolute denials with the "bated
breath" with which he delivered his testimo-
ny, and his attempts 10 Justify the contents OF
letter which he had so strongly denounced
as an absolute forgery.
We imagine if John Sherman has any
sensitiveness left every word of the above
will cut into him as if with a Scorpion s lash.
Good bye, Sherman.