The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1880-11-18


hnqasb praassias tAas The pulsicasiaa
u he s.Aaln~s letssr ioss ilse sttses q
lAlaiorna aaa NesSaA, ard l-sssihly Ac~
ssssey $50 - she Repahlieans TIE
I Dssaoeralls naasorsfy in ~ siirer states i,
ass a.ta sod the changing # i.aaa votes
ifon COS ssAs 10 sbe other voaid hsrv sc.
oosarla@bsd Is
( Phlp hss loen 60 trial In Nss York,
hos Ser iOrgiag siss letter bas Tor criSni.
hal hhel 10 writing SER and Publishing tn
the 5rssA newspaper after uen. Garfield
asnisd writing the letter. an article euti.
iiod Lying aud sticking - Is In this
tsaAl the question a vbssher the letter
vAa ESnairs Or not becasne important
lson lhe iaei that II the letter wsa really
genuine then UAsAsld ~ denying is an-
shorslaip dad l,e and she pulAiestion Of the
asticle referred - would be no libel.
The experts called 10 examine the lester
Aad oosap@sc ID wsth genuine letters u
CARRIED sers din idcd in opinion IN regard
70 1t. bat other evidence produced on tie
trial reader % almost oastAin that the let
Ter vasa bAss forgery II was shown that
there had lsen certain erasures and writ.
laR orer on the envelope which were not
lskrly 10 have beesi made n il had been
genaane, and Alao that the post marks
wera not Wllst they would have been If Il
bad bcen sent through the mails as claim
oil This person 20 whom I, purpors 10
have leeh written can neither be found
nor has II been shown thai such person
ever e1isted. Two witnesses who made
affdsvi,s shat they knew such person
have been shown 10 be periurers and have
confessed that they were procured 70 give
such false testimony by prominent mem
bors 81 The Democratic party. One OF
them was paid $50 by the National Dem
oorasic Committee. and both have been In.
dioiod for perjury. Philip has been held
for trial and placed under 50, 900 bonds.
The National Democratic Committee
have issued statement claiming that
they aided in circulating the letter, believ-
ing II be genuine, but that they had no
hand Ia inducing the two men 10 swear
falsely. This statement will hardly re.
lisve them from responsibility in the mat
ter. though nothing criminal may ever be
proved against them
In the hrst place the letter was received
in suspicious manner and they should
have exercised the utmost canton in as
containing whether II was genuine or not
before publishing II as such Especially
after Garfield denied it they should have
taken his denial a. conclusive without the
strongest evidence TO the contrary As it
turns out they had no evidence whatever
except certain resemblance TO Garfeld's
hand writing which many skillful pezmon
could have accomplished Hewitt in pub
lie speeches announced his belief that the
letter was genuine and Barnum telegraph
ed throughout the country that he had
ample proofs that II was genuine and it
would be useless TO deny il. But for the
weight which these prominent men and
the National Democratic Committee gave
TO il the forgery would have had little eff
feet. While il might be possible thatIan
obscure newspaper would stoop to so low
a trick as the publishing Of a forged letter
il was thought THAI such men as Hewitt
and Barnum would b above IL. But it
seems they we're not, and they ought 10
suffer. at least, tho contempt Of all decent
men il no other punishment No news
paper with any regard for decency would
publish letter received as that was, with
out first finding out 10 an absolute certain
" that it was what il claimed 10 be, but a
newspaper would be more excusable than
men eAosen TO direct The campaign OF a
greaA party. They can only get out Of
The serape by saying they were imposed
apon but il was such clumsy forgery
and attended with 80 many suspicious
circumstances that no man with sense and
with his eyes open ought Ia have been inn
posed upon by it. Tildcn was imposed
upon by the persons who wrote the cipher
dispatches, and the Democratic leaders APP
pear 10 he very unfortunate in this respect