The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1880-06-25
THE COLUMBIAN AND DEMOCRAT OMsBURG, COLUMBIA co

Mobilier stockY There is an irreconciable
inconsistency between Judge Blacks letter
and Mr.. Garfeld's testimony before the 70
land committee. II he had sworn truly that
he never had anything to do with The stock
it was irrelevant for his counsel to contend
that what he did was done in ignorance. II
he did nothing the stress Judge Black laid
on the plea of ignorance (which forms the |
whole tissue Of his defencel was ridiculous
Abiding to n conversation between himself
and his client, Judge Black says in his
letter:
do not undertake to reproduce the conversatloh'
but the effect of II all was 10 convince me thorouRn-
unconscious OF anything evil | watched carefully
every word that fell from him on TINS polnt, anu ulu
not regard his narrative OF the transaction IN any
other respects with much interest, because IN my
view everything else was insignlncant eaiv uiH ny
binding or not his integrity depended upon the
question whether he acted with his eyes open II ne
had known the true character OIL ,ne p1poslnCh nnCh
less emDrHcedlt.
This line of defence abandoned as untena-
BILE the ground taken by Mr.. Garfield in his
testimony before 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 well enough
that 1t "wouldn't wash" So he virtually
admitted that q Gifeld "istened to Ames,
but maintained that he was perfectly uncon-
scious of anything evil" Mr.. Garfed's as.
tute and wary Democratic counsel protested
that he did not care whether he made u bar
gain technically binding or not. His integ-
rity depended on whether he acted with his
eyes open" This expert dodge virtually
admitted that Mr. Garfed's sw orn testimo
ny before the Poland committee was indie
fensble; admitted that he did make an ar
raugtmeit with Oakos Ames; rroie;scd in
difference as to whether he made bargain
cchnically binding or not" and staked his
whole defence on the point that the intelli'
gent and active. minded Mr.. Garfield was too
vrrlant to have known what everybody else
knew ut the time But if this defence is &C.
cepted what are we to think of Gen. Gar
fields sworn testimony that he had never
had any sort of connection with the Credit
Moblier? BY stretch of charity we may
consid, him ignorant of the real character
of the Credit Moblier, which everybody else
perfectly understood, 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 per-
sonal facts which it was the whole DRIFT of
Judge Blacks letter to exp.ain away, on the
ground that when Mr.. Garfield negotiated
with Ames he was the innocent victim Of a
schemer? He may possibly have been gno-
rant of Ames designs, but he could not have
been ignorant OF the fact that he entertained
Ames's proposals. which precuded his coun-
sci from expressing an opinion as to "wheth-
er he made a bargain technically binding
or not"
1t is amazing that the friends of Mr.. Gar.
field should parade Judge Blacks letter as
defence. Instead of defence it is a con-
fessipn that the most skillful counsel he
could employ would not venture to defend
him on his own sworn statements. That
ground of defence was abandoned entirely
and Judge Black was reduced to "plead the
baby act" Mr.. Garfield swore that he new
er touched the gun; Judge Black pleaded
that when he handled it he did not know
that it was loaded. The plain contradiction
between the oath of the defendant and the
cation Of Judge Blacks letter perfect
boomerang.
We suppose nobody is quite green enough
to imagine that Judge Black volunteered his
defensive letter. Mr.. Garfield found himself
in a desperate situation and applied to a
great Democratic lawyer to extricate him.
The Republican client must have felt he was
hard pressed when he had recourse to such
aid. But the Poland committee was then
preparing its report, and Mr.. Garfield felt
that he was in the crisis of his brilliant ca.
reer. Three days after Judge Blacks letter
the Poland committee made its report to
Congress The report like Judge Blacks
letter, discrediled Mr.. Garfield's testimony
and certified that he did make bargain
with Oakes Ames. and did receive money
on his Credit tsobiier stock The commit
tee-a friendly Republican committee--in
spite of Mr.. Garfield's sworn statement TO
the contrary, reported as follows:
The facts In regard to Mr. Garfield, as found by
the committee are that he agreed with Mr.. Ames to
take ten shares Of Credit Mo6ler stock hut did not
pay for the same. Mr. Ames received the eighty per
cent dividend In bonds and sold them for ninety
seven pr. cent, and also received the sixty per
cent cash dividend, which, together with the price
of the stock and interest left balance OF s329 This
sum was paid over TO Mr. GARFIELD by check on the
Sergeantat-Arms, and Mr.. Ga Held then understood
this sum was the balance OF dividends after paying
for the stock.