Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-06-23
BLACKS DEFENSE OF GARFIELD.
Only a Confession that Perjury Was Conn
nlitted.
New York Herald, June 10. /

IGNOW AOIh hcIdlu, JUNE
g Our guileless Republican contemporary, the
evening Mail, printed in its leading editorial
| column, yesterday, Judge Blacks letter excul-
pating Mr.. Garfield, and subjoined at the end.
IF the Herald had any sense of fairness it
| would let its readers see this convincing testi-
mony of lawyer distinguished for his acute
ness in detecting guilt-incipient or commit
ted" The Mail is inconsiderate and discour-
teous in accusing the Herald of want of fair
ness. In questions of public interest we al
ways practice the fairness of giving both sides
a hearing in our columns. We have not devil
ated from this rule in the case of Gen. Garfield.
We could not ignore the accusations, because
they are part of the current history of the
day, but we have forbOrne to endorse them,
and have only insisted that they should be met
and refuted.
As to Judge Blacks exculpatory letter, we
| are only half day behind our jealous even
ing contemporary in reproducing it. The Mail
printed it last evening; we Print it this morn
ing. We might, indeed, have given it half
day in advance of our contemporary Instead of
half day behind, but so slight difference as
the fraction of day affords no excuse for the
discourtesy of charging us with want of fair
ness. Judge Blacks letter came under our no
tice day before yesterday, but it seemed SO in
damaging to Judge Blacks client, that we pre-
ferred to wait a day in the hope that Gen. Gar
field would accept the proffered courtesy of our
columns for defense which could not so easily
be riddled into shreds. We are confident that
Mr.. Garfield could not make so lame an argu-
ment for himself as Judge Black made for his
distinguished client. Our offer to give
Gen. Garfield all the space which he
might choose to take for refuting
the charges should have exempted us
from the hasty and unwarranted imputation of
the Mail. The Herald aims to treat everybody
with justice. In the case of Gen. Garfield we
have not only suppressed nothing which it
would be to his advantage to publish, but have
offered him an exceptional opportunity for
demonstrating his innocence and putting his
accusers to shame.
We think it mistake for Gen. Garfeld's
friends to parade Judge Blacks letter as de-
fensive document. 1t was written to serve his
client in a most critical emergency, and having
failed to accomplish its object then, it is
boomerang now. It's date was February Is, 1878
three days before the report of the Poland
committee. Although addressed to Speaker
Blaine, it was intended to influence the COM
mittee and save Mr.. Garfield from cepsure in
its forthcoming report. As often happens to
skillful lawyers, Judge Black made an unsuc-
cessful defense of his client.
To perceive the bearing to Judge Blacks let
ter we must compare it with Mr.. Garfeld's
sworn testimony before the committee on
which the charge of perjury is founded. jan
uary ID, 1878, Mr.. Garfield swore as follows:
Mr.. Ames never gave nor offered to give me
any stock or other valuable thing as gift. !
once asked him and obtained from him, and
afterward repaid to him, loan of $780, That
amount is the only valuable thing ever re-
ceived from or delivered to him. I never
owned. received, or agreed to receive any stock
of the Credit Mobilier or of the Union Pacific
Railroad, nor any dividends or profits arising
from either of them.
Judge Black virtually admits that this testi-
mony was not true. Mr.. Garfield swore that he
never had any connection with the Credit Mo-
bilier stock; Judge Black merely contends that
he had no guilty" connection. Garfield swore
most absolutely that he had never had any
thing whatever to do with it, and the gist of
Blacks letter is to show that, although he did
have a connection with it, he did not under
stand its nature. These two lines of defense
are not only distinct, but inconsistent. If MIR.
Garfield told the truth when he swore that he
mad never had anything to do with the stock,
Judge Blacks attempt to show that his COM
plicity was innocent, because he was ignorant of
the kind of transaction he was engaged in, is at
least no vindication of Mr.. Garfield sworn tes-
timony. Judge Black said: 81 believed that
Gen. Garfield was free from all guilty connec-
tions with that business" But his client had
sworn that he had no connection with it, gull
ty' or otherwise. Why express q belief that he
had mo guilty connection" if, as the client
swore, he had no connection with it at all,
Judge Blacks reasoning that the connection
was not guilty is inconsistent with the oath of
his client. The following paragraph of the
counsers letter is suggestive:
assert unhesitatingly that, whatever Gen.
Garfield may have done or forborne to do, he
acted in profound ignorance of the nature and
| character of the thing which Mr.. Ames was
proposing to sell. He had not the slightest
suspicion that he was to be taken into ring
public, nor did he know that the stock was in
any way co injected with anything which came.
or could come, within the legislative jurisdic-
tion of Congress. The case against him lacks
| the scienter which alone constitutes guilt.
What pertinence was there in pleading that
| the client was ignorant of what he was doing
if it was true, as the client swore that he never
had anything to do with the stock in any way
| whatever ? Why set up this elaborate plea of
ignorance (Which is the whole substance of
Counsel Blacks exculpation) if his client had
sworn truly that he never had any sort of CON-
nection with the Credit Mobilier stock
There is an irreconcilable inconsistency be-
tween Judge Blacks letter and Mr.. Garfeld's
testimony before the Poland committee. If he
had sworn truly that he never had anything to
do with the stock, it was irrelevant for his
counsel to contend that what he did was done
| in ignorance. lie he did nothing the stress
Judge Black laid on the plea of ignorance
(which forms the whole tissue of his defence)
| was ridiculsus. Abiding to conversation be-
tween himself and his client, Judge Black ssys
in his letter:
do not undertake to reproduce the CONVEX
| sation, but the effect of it all was to convince
me thoroughly that when he listened to Ames
he was perfectly Unconscious of anything evil.
I watched carefully every word that fell from
him on this point, and did not regard his nara
tive of the transaction in any other respects
with much interest, because in my view every
thing else was insignificant. did not care
whether he had made bargain technically
binding or not; his integrity depended upon
the question whe her he acted with his eyes
open. If he had known the true character of
the proposition made to him he would not have
endured it, much less embraced it.
This line of defense abandoned as untenable
the ground taken by MIR. Garfield in his testi-
mony before the Poland committee one month
and one day previous to the date of Judge
Blacks letter. Judge Black was too cognizant
of the facts to attempt to save his client his
owa plea. He knew well enough that it
''wouIdn't wash So he virtually admitted
that Garfield "listened to Ames," but main
tanned that he twas perfectly unconscious of
anything evil Mr.. Garfield astute and wary
Democratic counsel professed that ne Ibid not
care whether he made bargain technically
binding or not. His integrity depended on
whether he acted with his eyes OPEN" This
expert dodge virtually admitted that Mr.. Gar
fields sworn testimany before the Poland COM
mi ttea iudefenaihle. admitted that ha did