The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-06-22

committee. In It's issue Oh TUG ios" va
lane. which We had not seen until after the
article We laid before our readers on yester'
day was written. that fact Is presented witn
far greater force Of argument and fuiness
OF illustration than Ia the mere Outline pre-
seused BY Us. The Hsraid's editorial APP
pears to have been inspired by the repuoii.
cation Of a letter written by Judge
BLACK (which we print eisewhereb
intended, 40 far as bis opinion woula sc-
compDish it, to aequit Mr.. GARFIELD OF cor
rupt design In reference TO the CredieMo-
bilier stock. The letter was written few
DAYS before the committee reported. Their
report accords with its conclusions in ac-
quitting Mr.. GARrIELD OF corruption. But
n the letter was Intended to absolve him
from the sin OF untruthfulness the commit
tee did not agree with the writer. On tue
contrary, they rendered verdict altogether
adverse 10 It's conclusions, IL indeed Judge
BLACK tor whose character and ability we
entertain profouad respecD meant 10 pass at
nil upon the question OF credibility. IL Is
remarkable, to say the least, that he who
wields, perhaps, the most Eenchant pen IN
the countrywide for plain aud vigorous
Auglo.Saxon passages, for directness OF
statement, for terseness and point, has no
superior should have left It doubtful whe'
ther he meant to say that Mr.. GARFIELD told
the truth, and he believed him In reference to
his interest Ia the bonds and his receipt OF
the dividends, II such was his purpose IN
writing this letter. This unusual lack OF
precision subjected the letter to most
searching and striking criticism from the
Herald We quote: "Judge BLACK said,
. / believed that General GARFIELD was free
from all guilty connection with that busl-
ness But his client had sworn that he had
no connection with it. guilty or otherwise.
Why express belief that he had no
guilty connection, II, as his client sworc,
he had no connection with ii at all
What pertinence was there In
pleading that the client was ignorant
OF what he was doing, II 1t was true, as the
client swore, that he never had anything to
do with the stock in any way what
eyer?n "There is an ire
concilable inconsistency between Judge
BLACKS letter and Mr.. GARFrELD's testi.
mony before the POLAND committee. ii be
had sworn truly that he never had any
thing to do with the stock it was irrelevant
for his counsel to contend that what be did
was done in ignorance. Mr.. GAR
FIELD swore that he had never touched the
gun; Judge BLACK pleaded that when be
handled it he did not know that it was
loaded"
Promising that we think the Herald Is in |
error in assuming that Judge BLACK was |
Mr.. GARFIELD's counsel, not having OBJ
served that he was so recorded in the report,
we must say that its deductions seem TO be
unanswerable. 1t Is impossible to conceive
that such lawyer as Judge BLACK, who is
almost without peer in the defence OF in
iured or outraged innocence, whose great
big heart and great big brain are instinct
with the love Of truth and straightforward
ness, should have put the defence Of Mr..
GARFIELD, who was charged with the cor
rupt reception Of the stock and dividends
OF the Credit-Mobilier, upon the ground that
his intentions were not corrupt, when he
was certain, in point Of fact, that he had
never received either stock or dividends.
This is not only utterly illogical,
inverting the maxim that the ma
jor always includes the minor premise,
but 1t weakly surrenders the fortress Of his
defence, lets down the draw-bridge, throws .
open the gates to the foe, and permits a
doubtful battle to be waged within the very
citadel itself. Would an old soldier like
Judge BLACK have thus forgotten the rudi-
ments Of bis science? Can we suppose that
he means to follow the lead Of that hero OF
anti.climax ia the professional joke who
pleaded that the wheelbarrow was broken
when he borrowed it, was mended when he
returned it, and that he neuer had IT.?
1t is barely possible that his mind was d.
rected exclusively to the precise matter OF
inquiry before the committee. But so to ,
infer would be to do violence not only TO
his renown as the foremost among lawyers,
but TO his reputation for ordinary sagacity.
Could anything be more simple than to
deny, II he believed the fact was so, thai
Mr.. GARFIELD ever received, or agreed
to receive, stock or dividends Such would
be the natural, the spontaneous, answer to
the allegation. This Mr.. GARFIELD had
done in tue most solemn form. But
does Judge BLACK mean in his let
ter to back him in that denial +? .
That is the question. The letter leaves 1t ;
at least q matter Of grave doubt, and we ,
shall wait until Judge BLACK says so, in :
unmistakable words, before We give force +,
to bis letter in this particular. II he should !,
think Mr.. GARPIELD's denial supported by ,
the proof, we shall then he obliged to call !,
upon POLAND and BANKS aud McCRARY to :
answer him, jnasmuch as they have in ,
scribed upon the records OF the country /,
their conclusion upon these facts, and have /,
stigmatixed Mr.. GARFIELD as unworthy Of !,
credit In matter involving his own per- 7
sonal conduct.
There is something very noticeable in the
character OF the tributes 10 Mr.. GARFIELD's =
integrity winch come from bis political ep. !.
ponents, and which Of course will be quoted =,
with much zest by his partissns. We have y
! sample OF this In reported conversation
n the Herald with Mr.. PAYNE. Of Ohio, h
whose name has been mentioned among the 7
'spirants at Cincinnati. He says: cit is d
lot likely that would continue to respect 6,
nd admit to my intercourse any man whom q
believed guilty OF deliberate dishonor. Al
70. / have never examined the speei6e g.