The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-08-10
JACKSON AND MORROW ATG GRAFTON,

JACKSON AND MORROW AT GRAkToN.
An Incident I'm the Way OF Interruption
One OF Jim Morrow's Catch:penny
Tricks Exposed.
GKlFros, August 9.
Special Correspondents Of the lutelhsensss.
1 desire to have little hearing in your
paper which is partly personal and partly
political. q" t
I, Colonel Jacob B. Jackson and Hon. Jas.
Morrow made speeches here last Saturday
night in the interest Of the Democracy
While the latter was speaking and trying
to prove to his hearers that Genetal Gar
field was guilty OF receiving a bride In the
De Golyer pavement matter, he said Is
there Republican present who dares de-
nv that Garfield did receive the S., 900?
II there is want him to show himself.
And, after short pause, he continued: .!
am not much given to challenging, but y
there Is any Republican present who will
dare deny that James A. Garfield received
the S., 900 for the purpose OF influencing
his vote in Congress, want him TO come
up and show himself" Your humble ser.
want being unwilling to show by his mac.
ton that he dared not deny this, stepped
up in front OF the speaker and, and said:
If am one who dares deny it" Mr.. Nor
row said: swell, my friend Latham de.
MES that Garfield received the S, 900" ]
replied "IIdo not deny that, but / deny
the purpose you allege. Mi. Morrow then
said, "Colonel Latham, " colonel don't be.
long to my nance does not deny that
Garfield received the 5000, but he does
deny that he received 1t as bribe;", l
said: ."That's it." Mr.. Morrow replied,
personally: II will be glad to hear from
Col. Latham at some other time on this
subject" and Immediately the Democratic
party raised a prolonged yell, which pre-
vented me from asking Mr.. Morrow what
Judge Black said about Il, 80, Of course, in
the language OF Democrat present, |
"was saueIched," but not by argument;
and | don't blame Mr.. Morrow for init.
mating that had his permission to say no
more. 1t was his meeting, and l certainly
would not have interrupted the course Of
his speech II he had not given me the ex.
Ceedingly pressing invitation.
/ wish to say right here that 1t Is the
usual style for Democratic speakers to use
banters Of this sort 10 strengthen the con.
victions Of their hearers.
But as MIR. Morrow said, he would like
to hear from me some other time. /
propose that he hear now and here.
His argument TO prove General Gar
field was bribed in this De Goyler matter
was based upon the judgment Of the
OF the Circuit Court, OF Cook coun-
ty, ILL.,, on the demurrer TO the plea
by the defendants, De Goyler, & Co., to
the declaration by the plaintiff, De Coy.
ler's agent, or lobbyist, in his suitin said
Court for 500, 900, for services etc. Mr..
Morrow said in substance, that in this
plea De Goyler, & Co., set up that the
money sued for was used for corrupt pur-
poses, and was contrary to public policy
and could not be recovered by law, and
that Garfeld's name was among those
mentioned in the plea as having been cor
rupted by this money. He said that the
fact that a demurrer to plea, admits the
truth OF the matter in the plea, and the
further fact that the Court sustained the
demurrer, is a judgment conyictng Gar
field.
Now let me notice the ingenuity OF the
lawyer in this argument, and expose its
sophistry.
Il is not true that a demurrer admits the
truth OF the plea as matter OF fact. 1t
admits it only in law, that is, when q party
demurrs, he Is precluded in law or by law
from afterwards denying the truth Of the
plea Mr.. Morrow knows this, but very
lew OF his hearers knew It; and herein Is
the.ingenuity OF the lawyer. Now to IL
lustrate J will suppose my neighbor shoots
my horse, I sue him for damages, he
pleads that he was drunk when he did it,
when be may have been, in fact,
perfectly sober, and / demurr to the plea.
Now II the Court should think that drunk.
enness would excuse the wrong, and
should override the demurrer, 1could not
afterwards deny the allegation Of drunk
enness, because In law l had admitted II
by my demurrer. And on the other
hand, II the Court should think that
drunkenness was no excuse, and sustain
the demurrer It would be no proof oil the
fact OF drunkenness.
Neither Mr.. Morrow nor Mr.. Jackson
said that they believed Mr.. Garfield guilty
OF the charges that they both, in their
speeches labored so hard to prove to their
hearers. They gave the people to under
stand that these charges areall the stock in
trade now, and that they rely upon them
alone for the success Of Hancock. Yours,
john T. LATHAM.