Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-11-02
THE CHINESE LETTER.
Mr.. Hewitt's Reasons for Thinking the 81:
.lAture is Garfield's.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUx-.Sir: d: In
your issue of to-day you say: "Mr.
Hewitt, according to the reports, and GER
taiEly according to his own acts, persists
in lis assevcrat;on that he believes the
Chinese letter attributed to Gen. Garfield
to be genuine. Will Mr.. Hewitt give q
reason for the faith that is in him -
This reason l gave at length in my
speech at Irving hall on Thursday night.
Your reporter was present and took it
down. as | know. because he asked me a
question in regard to it ; but for some
reason. you did not see fit to publish that
portion of my remarks. A copy of these
remarks was. moreover. furnished to your
reporter last night at Terrace Garden. l
now append 4 third copy, containing the
explanation you ask for.
Now, if you have the patience, l will ex
plain to you the exact extent and the ma
ture of my statements in regard to this
alleged forged letter and my connection
with it. On Wednesday last l was to
speak at ChickeIing hall. In the morn
ing, when went to the national commit
tee rooms, a copy of newspaper was
handed to me containing printed letter
signed James 4. Garfield and addressed to
II. L. Morey. read it. Inever heard of
it before or saw it before. Nobody con-
nected with the national committee knew
anything about it. 1t came out as any
letter may be published tomorrow morn
ing on any subject in any paper. | was
asked what thought OF it. Well, l read
| it and said: :" 1t sounds like Mr.. Garfield.
1t is his style. and, more than that, it is in
full accord with his votes upon the Chi
nesc question. But" said /, Il know moth
ing aboutthe letter. Then some one came
and said, "but the original letter exists
'.Ah," said, "Sliow me the original let
ter: will look at it, 1t was brought to
me. examined it. The signature seemed
to me that of Gen. Garfield-a signature
with which l was perfectly familiar.
said to the man who showed it to ME, ~
think the signature is genuine. AS to the
body of the letter do not think 1t is the
handwriting of Gen. Garfield. l think it
was written by his clerk or amanuensis.
Subsequently, before had made up my
mind even to refer to it. hunted up the
. field. ] have three letters written three
days apart, from him, and all little prior
! to the date OF the Morey letter. l took
the letters and compared them with the
! photograph Of the original letter, be-
cause, in the meantime, the original let
! ter had been taken away. Now l
| defy anybody, taking those three sigma
! ture and comparing them with the sigma
| t;rc OF tho Morcy letter, to come to any
! other conclusion than that that signature
is genuine. believed it then, believe it
now. l want to recall to you what said,
because the Republican newspapers have
taken the trouble to misrcprcsent the facts,
! and | want you to sec how cautious l was
/ After reading the letter, said ''SOme
people NAY incline to pronounce this letter
q forgery. | have seen it l am familiar
with Gen. Garfic!d's signature l have
compared it with his letters i'll my posses
sion, and have no doubt that it is senu-
inc. If it be a forgery, it is the work of
4 consummate artist. But if l thought,
after examination, there was the slightest
doubt Of it's authenticity, l should not
refer 10 it, do not think it is 4 very
serious thing for 4 man to say that, on
comparison, lie thinks 4 signature is genu-
inc. On the contrary, if had not said
so, should have been untrue to my con-
victionS.
The signature. as well as the body OF
the letter, may be forged, but in passing
Judgment Oh the signature, i'll the absence
Of any suspicious indications in the body
OF the letter, l could only be governed by
my belief, and belief is not i voluntary
act, but is tho result Of evidence, which i'll
this case consisted OF the undOubted si'a-
ilarity q: the signature to Gen. Garfield s
genuine autographs in my possession.
There was, indeed. one point Of difference
which only seemed to confirm my belief III
the authenticity OF the signature. In the
three letters in IN! possession the letter
1,..t Ill <l.>ft I'M
of them there is no dot at all. in the Mo-
rey letter the dot is over the "r'' in the
first syllable. The reference in my mind
WAS that the. dot had been placed there
either by accidental dropping ofthc ink or
by hasty movement Of the pen. If it
had been Il forgery, it seemed to me that
! the rorgor would have carefully avoided
such an error. The dot was, therefore,
coEiirmatory evidence in forming my judg-
ment.
Now, as to the spelling OF the word
"Companys" in the body Of the letter.
Having concluded that the body of the let
ter was i'll the handwriting of an ananucn-
! sis, as were two out Of tho three letters in
my possession, attached 10 Importance to
; the spelling. But if had thought that
! tho letter WIS in Gen. Gariield's hand
writing, the error in spelling would not
have made any impression to the contrary,
because in one Of the sentences in Gen.
Gar:ielIs letter to me. written in his own
! hand and not by an ananuensis, he spells
"pcdigrcc - ''pedi'rec," turning the let
ter 81, into the letter 3D.
! have answered your question more at
! length than would have been otherwise
necessary first, because l wish you and
the pub!ic to have the full grounds Of my
opinion rs to the signature and, secondly,
because think that the criticism OH nc in
the Republican papers has been most un-
just and uncallcd for. My belief may be
erroneous, and the sic nature may bc u
| forgery: Eut until it is demonstrated 20 be
| So, / cannot honestly change judgment
formed after careful comparison of his sig
natures.
OcT. 80, 1880. ABRAMS S. HEWITT.
3EiE CHINESE PROBLEM
sI:it"r I'aiip Denies the Authorship, OF thc
Garfield Chinese Letter.