The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-10-28
JOHN SHFRMIN's LETTER.
The Final Verdict SIN titnr,ng james o.
hndcr.en- Averm cuts.

WASHINGTON, Oct Recent publications
mako 1t clear that the llna and public verdict
upon John Bhorman's connection with the can
vass after tho election o. 1876 in Louisiana stll
hinges upon the statements. past. present. and
future. Of Jumcs Il. Anderson. AndcrsOns past
statements have had attention because thny
were corroboratcd 10y documentary evidence.
The fun text Of n recent interview in lndiau-
apolis. whose importance WIS somewhat nxng
gcratcd in an abstract widely published. denies
mono Of Anderson's previous utt"ranGeS. II. as
Is widely charged. he has made n sworn stn'e-
ment dealing with his testimony heretofore
made. 1t is in the hands OF John Shrrmnus
friends or quasi representatives. and is Of
character to make II valuable 10 them. Such
stntcment would como m tho natural result ~
tho prolonged negotiation with Anderson. he-
gun hy the Administration aftcr the Inaugural
tion. continued by John sherman. through his
agents 10 the week IN which Anderson gave hs
testimony. and resumed whom Andcrsons dis
charge in Philadelphia deprived him Of sup
port. The men who began thesc later negptia-
tons ara now In OIL - IN the Treasury Depart
mcnt Thes. negotiations were continued last
September by an officer Of tho Trensury De-
partment in intimate aud coniidcnta rotations
with John sherman himself. Their progress
has been steadily reported 10 John Shcrman's
counsel OF these things therc is proof
The nowT attention drawn 70 Anderson's tesli;
different relations with Anderson. This owl
dence will blow 10 thin air the vague aud flont
ing charges Of the last six months that 4 bar
gain and agreement were made with Anderson
by Democrats. charges published IN the Cncn-
mutt Gdsete. and false there and elsewhere.
Anderson fret sought Democra,s and Dcmo-
crntic correspondent with his story IN July.
1877. He then hold his draught of tho sherman
letter. to which he has since testified. He held
the confidential letters Of Stanley Matthew'S
then the personal representative OF tho Admin
istratipn, showing tho personal attention An
d"rson had received. Neither the story nor
these letters saw the light until they hnd be-
Potter Committoc-tcstimOny given after An
derson had addressed n letter TO the Chairman
Of tho Committee asking TO be called. That
story and those letters were volunteered in the
first instance. and Anderson's ilnal appearance
was equally at his own instance. II might have
been easy to anticipate such appearance by
vngue newspaper charges; but such publca-
| ton would have becn Mother decent nor Just.
The statement Is now made. apparently by
| authority. that "A forged original Of the Sher-
man letter. or photographs OF it, were in the
| possession Of persons alleged to be concerned
in the conduct OF the inquiry and that an eiiort
| was made to impose this forged orig
inal or its photograph upon the committee Or
| mcmbors Of the committee. This il false. II
| there ever was n forged original of the Sherman
| letter or photographs Of II. thcy were never
seen. held. nor presented to or by any one even
| remotely connected with the investigation or
personally Interested in It's management. They
| had another source. which the future VIII show
such documents. IL they exist. arc forgcrics
| lshcd. II any such sworn testimony exists. is
| pcrJurrd. Tho place 70 mike such statements.
| and To- try such ISSUES. Is not in news paper,
but before Grand Jury IA criminal court.