Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-10-23
GARFIELD'S EMBARRASSMENT.
HIS FAILURE TO DENY.
THE HERALD PRoSouNCEs 1T FATAL.



His Vice OF TerEiversation.
The New York papers are publishing
lithograph copies of the following:
Personal and Confidential.
House OF REPRESENTATIVE,
WASHINGTON, D. c., Jan. 23d, 1880.
Dear Sir:
Yours in relation to the Chinese
problem came duly to hand.
take it that the question of employees
is only question of private and corporate
economy, and individuals or companies
have the right to buy labor where they
can get it cheapest.
We have treaty with the Chinese gov
ernment, which should be religiOusly kept
until it's provisions are abrogated by the
action of the general government, and l
am not prepared to say that it should be
abrogated until our great manufacturing
interests are conserved in the matter Of
labor. Very truly yours.
J. A. GARFIELD.
II. L. MoREr,
Employers Union, Lynn, Mass.
Editorially to-day the New York Herald,
which has lately been supporting Garfield,
says: On Wednesday evening Mr.. A. S.
Hewitt, a gentleman of character, a per-
sonal friend Of General Garfield, with
whom he had served in Congress, said in
speech in this city concerning this let
ter:
Some people may incline to pronounce
it a forgery. have seen it. am familiar
with General Garield's signature. have
compared it with his letters in my posses
sion, and have no doubt it is genuine. If
it bc forgery, it is the work Of consum
mate artist; but if thought, after exam
ination, there was the slightest doubt Of
its authenticity, should not refer to it.
Mr.. Hewitt is Democrat !; he is strong
partisan but he is a gentleman, and
while Of course his opinion is not final on
4 question of handwriting what he said
has certain weight.
On receiving a report of Mr.. Hewitt's
speech the Herald on Wednesday evening
telegraphed General Garfield at Mentor.
stating what Mr.. Hewitt had so positively
asserted adding that he( General Garfield)
would probably think it advisable to deny
over his own name the authorship of the
letter, offering, if he had not seen the
letter, to telegraph it to him at once, and
opening the Herald columns to him for a
denial. To this dispatch we have up to
this present writing received no reply.
There has appeared in the associated press
dispatches brief report, unauthenti-
Gated in any way, that General Garfield
had declared the letter "stupid forgery"
From Republican sources in Boston came
yesterday the further assertion that no such
man as I" H. L. Morey" has lived in Lynn
since 1873, to which the Democrats reply
that he lived outside of Lynn, which may
be and they are ready to prove his exis-
tcnce il General Garfield denies writing
the letter.
We have waited some days to see if Gen.
eral Garfield would make such denial
of the authorship of this letter as we are
convinced he ought to make if he did not
write it.
His denial over his own name would, in
our opinion settle the question. 1t would
in any case throw tho burden of proof
upon the Democrats, who, for political
ends, have made it public, and would leave
them, until they brought such proof, un-
der the just suspicion Of having uttered a
forgery.
But it is "a mistake in General Garfield
to hesitate about q frank and explicit de-
NAL in his own name if he did not write
the letter. Some of the sentiments in it
are atrocious and indefensible. II he en-
tertaincd them last January, or at
any time, he is not fit to be president, or
senator, or to hold any public Office what
ever. If he did not entertain them and
did not write tho letter, he ought to say
so, not at second or third hand, but over
his own name. Even ifhe were not a can
date for the presidency he should repudi-
80 knI 30 H.
and no notion of sham dignity ought to
bar his way.
Because here in this letter is no ques-
tion Of immigration or the right Of asy-
lum, on which there may be and are fair
siders the importation, not the migration
the United States, but only small part,
the employers of labor; it does not con-
slider the rights of workingmep, be they
Americans or Chinese, but encourages the
greed of those who seek to make money
out of their labor. The letter says: 1--WE
have treaty with the Chinese govern
ment which should be religiousiy kept
until the provisions arc abrogated by the
action of the general government" and
this is not merely harmless but indubitably
right. The next clause of the sentence,
however, contains what We have called an
sentiment. 1t is in these words
"and l an not prepared to say that it
should be abrogated until our great manu-.
featuring interests are conserved in the
matter of labor
This is simply defense Of the coolie
system, or of new slave system. Tho
s. great manufacturing interests =" are,
to this statement, to have the
special privilege of conserving" them
selves by importing Chinese, and to in
trOduce here a new form of servile labor
under the guise of immigration. We re-
peat that Gen. Garfield, accused by such
men as Mr.. A. S. Hewitt, and later Speak
er Randall, of having written this, wrongs
himself if he does not hasten to deny the
charge in the most positive and explicit
and over his own name. He has
delayed too long already.
The Republican organs are evidently dis
mayed at his silence. After waiting for
some days several of them have reprinted
a passage from his letter of acceptance, in
which he speaks fairly enough on the Chi
nese labor question, saying:
"The recent movement of the Chinese to
our Pacific coast partakes but little Of the
qualities of such an immigration either in
its purposes or it's result. It is too much
like an importation to be welcomed with
out restriction too much like an invasion
to be looked upon without solicitude. We
cannot consent to allow any form of SER
vile labor to be introduced among us under
The guisc ofimmigration.''
Unfortunately for their candidate this is |
in his case not conclusive, for he mas been
in severa! other cases SO glaringly guilty |
Of the vice of tergiversation that what he |
made public after he was nominated has |