Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-07-30

Of the language Of the brief which followed
the citation of the case of Burke VS.. Chlid Is
attributed to Justice Swaync, language
which he never used, for the case was never
before him, and as was tie counsel who
submitted the hricf it is just 10 General
Garfield, Ia Justice Swayne and to myself,
tina, | shnuld al once correct this mistake
An interesting fact not mentioned by MIR.
Dooli,ilc proves that thc dciama,ory remarks
concerning General Garfield were rot altrih-
utcd TO Judge Swaync by mistake, but with
knowledge that they wcrc not his. phrase
embodying a snccr al Garfield as profcsscd
Christian minister, which formed Part OF
the paragraph extracted from Mr.. Doolitllc'S
brief, WAS omitted, plainly because no judge
Of the Supreme Count would use such
langua rc in Judicial opinion, and the pes
eucc of those words wol!id therefore At once
have exposed the frind. As Mr. Doolit!c'S
statement is complete rcfuia'ion of the
story it might he supposed that the h0rf',
which pretcnds TO be an exponent of decent
journalism, would promptly publish it, and
apollo. lie for the deception praciiscd by lis
Washington correspondent. 1t las not tax II
that course The full exposure was male on
Thms,liy: on Friday the Ward said:
Some of our esteemed Rrplblicin con
temporarics are much exercised as 10 whether
it was in the case of Trist vs. ChllI in Cook
county, ILL.,, or in some case before th;, Su-
prcmc Court in Washington, that the lan-
g,lagr of .Jud.rc Swaync, recently cited by Il
Washington correspondent OF the World
and StismaiiZing the receipt OF eJ,OUJ lee
from the DE Golycr pavement contracts tN
a lawyer " no WAS also 4 congress- pnil chair
man, was applied 10 Gen. Garfield. There
seems TO lie rra ;onablc grounds for doubt on
this question, and the World is as
anxious as any of its esteemed cnn,empo-
raries can he TO ct at the truth On the sub
jcct.
Saturdays World contains a statement
fir )m the Worlds correspondent, in which H.
cndcavors TO make out that his offence was
the result of misunderstanding arising
from misuse of quotation marks by a
Pennsylvania paper called the Democratic
UdtcAmdn. Ills statement, however, is eN-
trrmcly blind and most of the Worlds read
crs probably failed TO make ont whether he
was confessing mistake, or justiiyins his
former statement. The World cdiiorially
still declared that ''it remains 10 he seen
whether judge Swaync did or did not use
the language attributed TO him. The course
of the World in this matter has been
thoroughly disrcputablc.
The Journal which after such proof that
| the language referred to was that of Lawyer
Doolittle, could still speak of ii as that OF
Judge Swayne, and represent the question in
dispute to be whether the judge used it II
deciding a case in Washington or Illinois, Is
open to the charge of deliberate Justification.
/ And any future alleged disclosures deroga-
tory to the Republican candidate, or to any
other Republicans, which may appear in The
| Word may be whistlcd down the wind, ai
probable forscries, unless corroborated hy
independent evidence.
p. S.-The World in its ISSUE of Monday
received since the above was in type, al last
admits that its correspondent was in error,
but affects to believe that he fell ''innocently
and no. unnaturally' into the error. Thu
circumstances of the case unfortunately g
| far TO forbid this view of the case as they do
to forbid the supposition that the Word
could have been innocently upholding hi:
fabrication" as Judge Swaync very proper
" called it, for four or five days after thu
appearance Of two authoritative contraGic
| tons