The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-12-16

ance of the letter to excite suspicion. Il
was written on the regular Congressional
paper, with which / was necessarily IA.
miliar. 1t was not at all fresh in an.
pearance, and the handwriting of the
oody otthe letter did not seem to be an
imitation of General Garfeld's. The
signature alone seemed to be his, and 30
far as the dot over the letter "r" in lieu
OF the letter II" was concerned it served
to strengthen my belief in its genuine
ness, because counterfeiter would have
been careful to put the dot in the right
pace. The opinions expressed in the
letter, as have already stated, were in
entire harmony with the sentiments
which | had always supposed General
Garfield to hold prior to his letter of ac.
ceptance, when the Morey letter bore
date. And so, not having any suspicion
of forgery, came to the conclusion that
the letter had been written by an amsn.
uensis and signed by General Garfield.
But for greater caution, as soon as l
reached my Office took from the file
three letters which / had received from
General Garfield shortly after the Morey
letter was dated, and thus refreshed my
memory as to his signature. These let.
ters | subsequently compared with the
photograph which meanwhile had been
taken of the Morey letter. This COM
psrlson did not leave a doubt in my
mind as to the signature, and hence de-
cided to refer to the letter in my speech,
and accordingly did 80 in what then
regarded and still regard as cautious Ian.
guage. IL these facts, which were sub.
stantially embodied in my testimony,
convict me of having formed too hasty
Judgment | must accept the censure due
to an unintentional indisCretion,
But the question is no longer whether
forgery has been committed, but
whether at the time when | examined
the letter, when the latter developments
had not been made, the presumption Of
authenticity was fairly deducible and
fairly deduCed. l think it was especial
ly in view of the fact that on the Philip
trial the testimony of the experts left
the authenticity of the letter In 80 much
doubt that Judge Davis was obliged, as
he says, to resort to "extriusic facts" in
order to make up his mind on this point,
This brings me to the question which
you proposed in your last number. You
ask, first, Did Mr.. Hewitt advise it (the
publication of the Morey letter. in good
faith and believing the letter to be genu.
inc? ?"
/ answer that I gave no advice what
ever either to the publisher Of the Truth
or to the National Committee in regard
to the publication of the letter, which
had, in fact, already been published
before | first saw it. But l did be.
lieve it to be genuine, an referred to it
accordingly in my speech at Chickering
Hall on the very evening of the day
when l saw it in print.
In your second question, did he ad-
wise its publication and circulation for
the purpose of damaging General Gar
field while himself holding the opinion
which is attributed to General Gar6eldW
| answer that quoted the letter not for
the purpose ofinjuring General Garfield
personally, but for the purpose of show.
ing the hollow nature ofthe claims made
by the Republican orators that they were
in favor of protecting American labor
against lower rates of wages. And l
further answer that l did not and do not
approve of the doctrine with which the
letter closes, as will appear by the follow.
ing extract from the contemporaneous
speech delivered at Chickering Hall,
when l do not suppose there would be
any controversy as to the authenticity
of the letter.
Now have no wish to play the part Of
demagogue in this matter, but of one
thing have been persuaded ever since
l began to observe the structure of 30.
Ciety, and that is the first object and the
highest duty of craftsmanship is to SO.
cure for the mass of the people the
highest possible standard of comfort.
This standard cannot be maintained
without good wages, and is higher in the
United States that in Europe because la
Dor is better paid and can earn more
here than there. l shall rejoice if the
European standard can be raised but I
do not wish to see ur tard I'd lowered.
This is no new doctrine with me. 1t is
announced and defended at great length
in nv report on the French Exposition
of 1867, and the interest have taken in
freeing our commercial legislation from
it's restrictive features is because l be.
lieve that labor will be the principal
gamer by striking the ShaCkles from
trade as fast as it can be done without
disturbing existing interests; but l
would sacrifice my views and and any
existing interests if l supposed that this
course wonld diminish and not increase
the rewards of labor
"HenCe do not desire to see our man.
ufaCturing interests conserved in the
matter of labor by any cheaper labor
the workingmen Of this country have to
dispose of in order to get living for
themselves and families"
Wi this statement | submit my con.
duct to the candid judgment of your
readers, but not without expressing the
deep regret which l feel that uulucky
chance should have brought me where
my opinion was asked in regard to the
of letter which, so far as l
was concerned, was matter of profound
indifference, and in regard to which /
never supposed that any controversy
could arise. This regret is intensified by
the fact that l, rather than General Gar
field, have been the victim of the for
gerry, for he has, notwithstanding, been
elected President, while have had the
of denunCiation from the
bench in a case to which was not a
party, in which l had no hearing, before
a Judge who seemed to confound the wit
ness with the alleged criminal. l have
therefore more reason than General Gar
field ito hunt the rascal down." and to
insist that due punishment shall be
meted out to those who have violated
the law. ABRAM. S. HEWITT.
New York, November "a, 1880.