New-York tribune., 1878-06-11
4 Rad BLUNDER.

Mr.. Stanley Matthews has been the Jonah
of this Administration from the beginning
and his latest blunder is his worst. He is
gentleman of refinement and courtesy, q
lawyer of marked ability, strong speaker
and vet in connection with public affairs, a
dismal failure. 1t has turned out very unluciy
for him that the President, with the partiality
born Of personal friendship, favored the cleo
ton to the Senate of Mr.. Matthews instead Of
General Garfield. 1t has also proved unfortu-
nate for the Administration. The Toledo con-
test over the Office of postmaster placed Mr.
Matthews in an unenviable light for the next
friend of q reforming President by his course
in regard to the Silver Bill, and his singularly
confident but mistaken assertions as to the
purpose of the President, Mr.. Matthews
managed to create a great deal Of alarm
among friends of public honor. His part
in the Louisiana business stands much In need
of explanation, and the discovery of his let
ters probably went very far to cause the
investigation which has so disturbed the
country. Now he puts the cap-sheaf to
this stack of blunders by refusing
TO testify, when invited to explain the
purport of his letters and the circumstances
under which they were written. He is charged
with a dishonOrable and corrupt completely
with fraud. and his letters are produced which,
a witness asserts, were written with full
knowledge that fraud had been perpe-
trated and with intent to reward that
fraud. straightforward testimony under oath
by Mr.. Matthews would doubtless dispose Of
this accusation completely. We can readily
understand that, though laundering in con-
duct, Mr.. Matthews was entirely free from
wrongful intent or completely with any sup
posed fraud, and his oath would far
outweigh, in the estimation of candid and
intelligent men, anything that score
of Andersons could say. The friends
of Mr. Matthews had right to expect that
he would be impatient TO brand the accusa-
ton as false and calumniOus. And yet, Un-
der these circumstances, he declines to testify.
Mr.. Matthews damages his friends, but still
more himself, by this error in judgment. We
have not the least doubt it is only an error in
Judgment. He cOncelves that it will be bet
ter for the public interest," and for him, TO
give his testimony in connection with the
evidence which may be elected by the
Senate Committee. But the truth, in such
case as this, ought to be made known in every
way, and at the earliest moment. Ii Mr. Mat
thews had committed no fault in his cOrre-
spondence with Anderson, speedy reparation
for that fault would not be necessary TO him,
nor a matter of justice, to his friends
but his letters were such that he owed
to those friends and TO himself q
prompt and emphatic denial, under oath,
of the construction placed upon them by An
derson's testimony. Ii is not enough to make
statements TO newspaper correspondents, but
in long kilograms published by The Cincinnati
Commercial from its Washington correspond
ent there appears evidence that Mr.. Mat
thews realizes the need of some immediate
explanation. 1t is a sad mistake that he did
not take the earliest moment to make his ex-
PLANTATION under oath before the Committee.
In the interviews reported by telegraph,
Mr.. Matthews says Q) that he was not in
Louisiana during the sessions of the Return
ing Board (2) that he presumes protection
was promised to election officers only in case
they did their duty truly and faithfully, but
had no knowledge of any such promise; ;
(3) that he saw Anderson first after the
Inauguration, and was told and believed
that he had sacrificed much and risked his life
d" in the faithful lawful and honest discharge
"of his duty;' (4) that the Nash and Weber
agreements, then six months old and never
acted upon, were surrendered without condi-
ton, as he sunDosed. only as "proof that the