New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-28
THE COURSE or A LIE.

pronounced i'm the Supreme Court by Judge
Swayne, has undergone so many transforma-
lions and shifted so many DISCUSSES since III
made its first appearance ten days ago, that 1t
may be worth while to trace its course up to the
present time, and enumerate some OF the
subsidiary lies by which it has been embel-
lished. We have waited with curiosity to see
how long and how low the propagation OF this
outrageous tale would sink but as the depth
appears to be unfathomable, and every days
falsehoods add to the blackness of the original
untruth. we ask the public to review the case
just here, before it is hOpelessIy Obscured by
the tangle of intentional misreDresentatioDs
On the 10Th of July The World published,
under sensational headlines, Judge Swayne
"on Garfield" "General Garfeld's Acceptance
"of the Fee held to be A Sale of Official In
"fuence which no Veil can Cover" ETC.,
statement that Judge Swayne, IN decision
pronounced from the bench OF the Supreme
Court, had applied the words in quotation
marks to the conduct Of General Garfield.
"The case in which this opinion of Justice
"Swayne was rendered." it went on TO say,
"was that of Chittenden against Mcclellan
4" and Others. 1t was tried in Cook County ILL.,,
ain May, 1875 and was decided on appeal in
"October 1879, in the United States Supreme
"Court. The Supreme Court opinion was de-
"livered in the case of Burke against
"Child, the case of Chittendon against
@McClellan being submitted on the argn
"ments and briefs filed in the former suit"
Then followed, at some length, the alleged
judicial censure; and the writer Ga Washing
ton correspondent added: The effect of this
disclosure on the men here who have en-
"deavored In one form OF another to palliate
General Garfeld's offence cannot be over
ESTIMATED. 1t is Il shock so severe that they
are as yet unable to meet it," This last
touch, of course, was an essay In decorative
fiction, for the disclosure" had not then been
made. In its editorial columns The World laid
emphasis upon the fact that this alleged cen
sure emanated from the highest Court in the
land, and was spoken by the mouth of Judge
who was himself an Ohio Republican.
The next day ex Senator DOOlittle, counsel
for the defendants in the suit referred to, pub
lished a card announcing that he was the
author Of the language falsely attributed to
Judge Swayne. The charge against Gar
field was quotation from his brief; it was
part of the plea upon which his clients tried to
get lid of the payment of money to Chittennen;
Justice Swayne never used any such language,
and the case was never before him. This
statement from q well-known Democratic
lawyer ought to have put an immediate end to
the SANDER; but the only notice The World
took of it was in the following extraordinary
sentence from its editorial page of July %:
Some of esteemed Republican contemporaries are
much exercised whether ii in the of Trst
I'm or n
case before Supreme Court ia Washington that the
language of Judge Swayne. recently cited by Washing
ION correspondent Of The World and stgmatzing the
receipt OF "A S. 900 fee from the De GOlyer pavement
contracts by a lawyer who was also Congressional
chairman, was applied 10 General Garfield. There
TO be reasonable grounds for doubt this question,
etc.
The missatement of the Washington CORE
spondent might have been made in good faith.
The impudent Justification by the editor, in
the lines above quoted, cannot be excused on
any such suppositiOn. He reasserts the
original untIuth after it has been exposed ana
he adds another lie by pretending that there
is no dispute except as to'the particular case III
which the opinion was delivered. Both these
assertions he knew to be false when he made
them.
But in the meantime Judge Swayne spoke
He declared, in The TRIBUNE of July 23
q So fai as | am concerned, there is an entire
g misstatement. never wrote word of what
u is attributed to me with quotation marks.
q. General Garfield is personal friend
q of mine, and l have the highest confidence
u in his integrity. The statements in The
q World are an entire fabrication, and without
q a particle of truth to sustain them" 1t was
impossible to pass over such a denial as this,
written IN judge Swayne's own hand. Some
of the Democratic papers frankly and
promptly accepted it as conclusive. Not so
The World. In commenting upon this new
aspect of the case, The World said July 24)
q Whether Judge Swayne did OF did not
q use this language of General Garfield re-
u mains to be SEEM" Remarking, furthermore,
upon'the statement of Judge Swayne that the
case was certainly never before the Supre me
q Court in any shape" The World observed, on
the same date: "TheIe are excellent reasons
q for belle wing that the matter charged against
General Garfield has in some shape been be-
I fore the Supreme Court" Acco IN, anying
these editorial falsehoods was Icing dispatch
from Philadelphia, with the folo wing head
L lines: sSwayne and Garfield. Was the
4 case Of Chittenden and Mcclellan before the |
= Supreme Court Apparent Likelihood that
the Language was attributed to Judge Swayne
q by Misuse of Quotation Marks" Ofth
production IL is enough 10 say that the DELHI |
ate intention TO bewilder and misead the |
Il adeI, and convince him that in spite of all |
ienials thee must be something In the story |
Of Swayne and Garfield after all, is apparent |
in every paragraph.
On the 26h, The World resumed The |
attempt at deception, first making an indie
cent attack upon Judge Swayne fol his |
statements In THE TRIBUNE, and then pro-
ceedng to argue that while it might be true.
= technically speaking" that the conduct |
charged against General Garfield was never |
before the Supreme Court, as directly Affect |
ing General GarAeld.n It was also true that |