Iron County register., 1880-07-01

to influence the committee and save
Mr.. Garfield from censure in its forth
coming report. AS often happens to
skilful lawyer, Judge Black made an
unsuccessful defence Of his client.
To perceive the bearing Of Judge
Blacks letter we must compare It with
Mr.. Garfeld's sworn testimony before
the committee on which the charge of
perjury is founded. Jan. IA, 1873, Mr..
Garfield swore as follows:
Mr.. Ames never gave nor offered 10 give me
any stock or other valuable thing as q gift. I
| once asked and obtained from him, and sfter-
ward repaid to him, q loan of s3OO. That
amount is the only valuable thing ever re-
ceived from or delivered to him. I never
stock Of the Credit Mobilier or Of the Union
Pacific Railroad, nor any dividends or profits
arising from either Of them.
Judge Black virtually admits that
this testimony was not true. Mr.. Gar
field swore that he never had any con-
nection with the Credit Mobilier stock;
Judge Black merely contends that he
had no "guilty" connection. Garfield
swore, most absolutely, that he had
never had anything whatever to do
with it, and the gist of Blacks letter
is to show that, although he did have
q connection with it, he did not UNDER
defence are not only distinct, but in
consistent. If Mr.. Garfield told the
truth when he swore that he had new
er had anything to do with the stock.
Judge Blacks attempt to show that his
completely was innocent, because he was
ignorant Of the kind Of transaction he
was engaged in, Is at least no vindica-
ton of Mr.. Garfield's sworn testimony.
Judge Black said, 81 believed that Gen.
Garfield was free from all guilty con-
nection with that business But his
client had sworn that he had no con-
nectiOn with it, "guilty" or otherwise.
Why express belief that he had "no
guilty Connection" if, as the client
swore, he had no connection with It mt
all? Judge Blacks reasoning to prove
that the connection was not guilty Is
inconsistent with the oath of his client.
The following paragraph Of the coun-
seIs letter is Suggestive:
l assert unhesitatingly that whatever Gen.
Garfield may have done or foroorne to do, he
acted in profound ignorance OF the nature and
character of the thing which MIR. Ames was
proposing to sell. He had not the slightest
suspicion that ne was to be taken into a Ring
organized for the purpose Of defrauding the
any way connected with anything which came
or could come, within the legislative jurisdic
tion of Congress. The case against him lacks
the scienter which alone constitutes guilt.
What pertinence was there In plead
ing that the client was ignorant of what
he was doing if 1t was true, as the client
swOre, that he never had any thing to do
with the stock In any way whatever?
Why set up this elaborate plea Of ig-
norance (which Is the whole substance
of Counsel Blacks exculpation) IL his
client had sworn truly that he never
had any sort Of connection with the
Credit Mobilier stock? There Is an
irreconcilable inconsistency between
Judge Blacks letter and Mr.. Garfield's
testimony before the Poland committee.
If he had sworn truly that he never |
had anything to do with the stock, 1t |
was Irrelevant for his counsel to con- |
tend that what he did was done in ig- |
norance. If he did nothing the stress |
Judge Black laid on the plea of igno-
rance (which forms the whole tissue of
his defence) was ridiculous. Abiding !
to conversation between himself and
his client, Judge Black says in his letter:
do not undertake to reproduce the conver-
sotion, but the effect OF It all was to convince
me thoroughly that when he listened to Ames
he was perfectly unconscious OF anything evil.
watched carefully every word that fell from
him on this point, and did not regard his mar
~
with much interest, because I'm my view every
,hings else was insignificant. did not care |
whether he had made q bargain technically
binding or not: his Integrity depended upon
he question whether he acted with his eyes
open. III he had known the true character of
ne proposition male to him he would not
nave endured 1t, much less embraced IL.
This line Of defence abandoned as un-
enable the ground taken by Mr.. Gar
ield i'm his tes timony before the Poland
committee one month and one day pre-
1ious TO the date of Judge Blacks let
er. Judge Black was too cognizant of
he facts to attempt to save his client
IN his own plea. He knew very we'll
hat it "wouldn't wash" So he virtu-
lily admitted that Garfield 'listened
o Ames," but maintained that he was
perfectly unconscious Of anything
,vil." Mr.. Garfield's astute and wary
counsel professed that he
did not care whether he made bar
,ain technically binding or not. His
integrity depended on whether he act ,
Il with his eyes Open." This expert
Odge virtually admitted that Mr.,
sworn testimony before tie
'oland committee was indef1nsi bie.
that he did maxi an mr.,
angement with Oakes t.pe.. pro-
sssed i0differencc as to ~v,hetber he
ad made bargain t.ech.nically bind
,g or not" a'Id st..ke1 his whole de-
'nce on the /point. th.at the intelligent
no actiVe-mir.dsi Mr.. Garfield was
no veIo ant 20 nave known what ev-
yoc' Y ESQ xnew at the time. Butif
!, Lef spee is accepted, what are we
.b.nk of Gen. Garfield's sworn testi-
i.,ny that he had never any sort OF
with the Credit Mobilier?
BY a stretch of charity we may consid-
er him ignorant of the real character OF
the Credit Mobilier, which everybody
else perfectly understood, and which
the whole press of the country was ex-
posins; but when he testified before the
Poland committee, could he also have
been ignorant of the personal facts
W hich It was the whole drift OF Judge
Blacks letter to explain away. on the
ground that when Mr.. Garfield negoti-
ated with Ames he was the Innocent
victim of schemei? He may possibly |
have been ignorant Of Ames's designs.
but he could not have been ignorant OF
the fact that he entertained Ames's pro.
,ykt.h v,rocltrhad hiQ rounaQl Y