Daily Los Angeles herald., 1880-07-01

lulUR 10 40 WIN the STOCK, IL was
irrelevant for his counsel to con-
tend that what he did was done in
ignorance. If he did nothing, the
stress Judge Black laid on the plea
of Ignorance (Which forms the
whole tissue of his defence) was
ridiculous. Abiding to a CONVEX
sation between himself and his eli
ent, Judge Black says in his letter:
do not undertake to reproduce the
conversation, but the effect OF it all was
to convince me thoroughly that when he
listened to Ames he was perfectly uncon-
scious of anything evil. 1 watched care
fully every word that fell from him on
this point. and did not regard his nara
tive of the transaction in any other re-
spects with much Interest, because in
my view everything else. was insignifi-
cant. did not care whether he had
made bargain technically binding or
not; his integrity depended upon the
question whether he acted with his eyes
open. If he had known the true cha1ac-
ter of the proposition made to him he
would not have endured it, much less
embraced IL.
This line of defence abandoned
as untenable the ground taken by
Mr.. Garfield ia his testimony be-
fore 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
on his own plea. He knew we'll
enough that it "wouldn't wash ,,
So he virtually admitted that Gar.
field "listened to Ames,D but
maintained that he "was perfectly
Unconscious of anything evil.n
Mr.. Garlield's astute and wary
Democratic counsel protested that
he ibid not care whether he made
bargain technically binding or
not. His integrity depended on
whether he acted with his eyes
oren." This expert dodge virtu-
ally admitted that Mr.. Garfield's
sworn testimony before the Poland
Committee was indefensible; adj
mitted that he did make an ar
rangement with Cakes Ames; pro-
fessed Indifference as to "wbether
he had made u bargain technically
binding or not" and staked his
whole defence on the point that the
intelligent and active.minded Mr..
Garfield was too verdant to have
known what everybody else knew
at the time. But if this defence is
accepted, what are we to think of
Gen. Garfield's sworn testimony
that he had never any sort of con.
nection with the Credit MobiIier?
Bya stretch of charity we may
consider him ignorant of the real
character of the Credit Mobilier.
which everybody else perfectly un-
derstoOd and which the whole
press of the country was exposing;
but when he testified before the
Poland Committee, could he also
have been ignorant of the personal
facts which 1T was the whole drift
of Judge Blacks letter to explain
away, on the ground that, when
Mr.. Garfield negotiated with Ames
he was the innocent victim of u
schemer? He may possibly have
been ignorant of Ames's designs,
but he could not have been ignor-
ant of the fact that he entertained
Ames's proposals, which precluded
his counsel from expressing an
opinion as to "whether he had
made a bargain technically bind
ing or not"
1t is amazing that the friends of
Mr.. Garfield should parade Judge
Blacks letter as q defense. In.
stead Of a defense it is a confession.
1t was confession that the most
sklllful counsel he could employ
would not venture to defend him
on his own sworn statements.
That ground of defense was aban.
doned entirely, and Judge Black
was reduced to plead tho baby act"
Mr.. Garfield swore that he had
never touched the gun; Judge
DiaoIe pleaded that when he
handled It he did not know that il
was loaded. The plain contradic.
lion between the oath of the de
endant and the argument of his
counsel makes the republication of
Judge Blacks letter a perfect
boomerang.
We suppose that nobody Is quite
green enough to imagine that
Judge Black volunteered his defen.
i've letter. Mr.. Garfield found
in desperate situation
ana applied to a great Dem ocratic |
awyer 10 extrieste him. The Rel
publican client must have felt that |,
no was hard pressed when he had !
to such ala. But the
Poland Committee was then ore. |
pairing lts report, and MIR. Garfield |
.eIt that he was in the crisis OF bis |
brilliant career. Vhree days sitter |
Judge Biach'8 letter the Poland |
Committee made Is report to Con.
srass. The report, like Judge |
letter, discredited Mr.. Gar. /
aeld's testimony and certified that
ne did make bargain with Cakes
4 ines aud did receive money on
1ie Credit Mobilier stock. The
.omnittee--a friendly Republican
,ommittes--in spite Of Mr.. Gar.
ieid's sworn statement 20 the eou-
irary, reported SIS follows
The ACTS IN regard 70 NJ. Garfield "a
ouun ny the committee, aye taat he
t9ifeI WITH MI Aines TO take leu shCres
= seedit Aobilier stock bat did not pay
orthe sgn4s. Mr.. Ames received ihe %
.ar cent. dividend Ia bonds aud saff
hem for "a per cent, ahd also received
ne 60 pei cent. cash dividend, ghiei, To-
ether viii Ibe prieo OF The 5tGck ard IA.
srest, Lott balance cf 500 This ann,
ras paid oyer TO Mr.. GaFaela ~ a sheok
n the kergfen1rat- Arms ana Mr. Chr. y.
cid t1s1 understood this. an 10 yyas the I,
q f3ilcs or dividends alter pEytas Tor fhe