The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1880-10-30
THE GARFIELD CHINESE LETTER.


letter on Chinese labor--thc latest democratic
. roorback -OHaTa Rrpublfcon.
Is 1t a "roorback ?" The editor of the New
). York Truh, to whom the letter was sent irou
! Lynn Mass, asserts that he knows positively
that 1t was found among the papers of ii. !.
Morcy and sent to him in good faith. IT,
worn appearance, the congressional envelope
in which it was enclosed, and the post STAMP
of the House of Representatives on it, are Il
positive demonstration that it Is not OF recent
manufacture.
But Garfield, beng advised of the pubica
ton of such q letter in the Truth, telegraphs
at once in reply that it is stupid forgery,
How could he know without seeing the letter
or knowing its contents? After seeing nth.
ograph copy of l, IN the T,1Hh he again ,clc.
graphs that "it is forgery, and every manly
democrat IN America familiar with my hand.
writing will dcnounce the forgery at sight"
Hon. Abraham S. Hewitt, Of New York is a
manly democrat" if there is one in America,
and he says;
II am familiar with Gen. Garield's sigma.
Iture. | have compared it with his letters IN
my possession and have no doubt 1t is gen
ulne If it be forgery it is the work OF "A
consummate artist; but if thought, after eX.
am natiOn, there WAS the slightest doubt of its
authenticity, should not refer to 1t. But it
accords with the course which Gen. Garfield
always took on questions affecting the inter
ests of employers"
Mr. Hewitt Is backed in his opinion by
several experts who compared the writing
with HIM. But why this drivel on the part
OF Mr. Garfield about 'forgery:" Why can't
he come out in plain. blunt, manly denial
and say, II never wrote the letter" That
would entltle him to as much credit at least
rs when he said, II never had u dollars worth
of Credit Mobiler stock from Cakes Ames, "
and swore TO it and was afterwards proved a
| liar.
But the republican managers, realizing that
the simple charge of forgery by convicted
perjurer can prove nothing, have got lot of
men IN Lynn, Mass, to swear that there never
was such man in that town as II. l.. Morey
nor such an ASSOCIATION rs the Employers
Union. But the evidence of one man who
does know is worth that of forty men who do
not know, and at least half dozen witnesses
have appeared who do know that there was
such man as II. l.. Morey in Lynn, Mass,
and that IN 1878 he was connected with the
Employers Union, association. or whatever
they chose to call it, when they were banded
together to resist the strike of the knights of
st. Crispin in 1877 and 1873. One of these.
is +. w. Fleet, now employed in Johnson's
shoe factory in Rochester, n. Y, who was en-
gagged in the strikes referred To in Lynn, and
who makes affidavit that he knew ii. l.. Morey
very well and that he was in the employ of
the bosses. Felix Lynch now employed in
Curtis & Wheely's shoe factory IN Rochester
makes the same statement William Nash,
of the Reynolds Brothers shoe factory at
Utica, New York, says he also was engaged
in the Lynn strike in 1873, had worked in the
factory of Morgan 81 Dore IN that city, and
knew II. L. Morey, who was in the employ of
the bosses and had charge of the machinery
and distributed the outside men whom they
could hire around to the factories. And so
every day new witnesses arc springlng up.
But then, says the postmaster at Washington
city, there was no such stamp used in the
postofiice at Washington as that which ap.
pears on the back of the envelope of this "pre.
tended" letter from Mr.. Garfield. Quick as
lightning, however, comes in reply the proof
that precisely that stamp 'cas in use on the
Odd of January IN the postotiice of the House
and there is where the letter was mailed
- l
that the Morey letter of Mr.. Garfield is genu-
Inc, comes the solid, substantial and crushingI
proof that whether he wrote the letter or not,
il accords exactly with his sentiments at the
time, expressed in frequent speeches and votes
in the House when he was leading the oppo
siton to the passage of the bill against
Chinese immigration which the democrats In
congress passed and which Hayes vetoed. It'll
is true, he pretended at the time to be opposed
TO the importation of Chinese coolies, bu,
Everybody knows that this was mere pretext,
for no Coolies were ever brought to California
"but" said Mr. Garfield III one of his speeches
"to say that any wel-behaved, law.abidingI
Chnaman should be kept away, when dcsir-
our of coming of his own free will, aside from
the coolie system, would be hard, and contra
nv to the intentions of our institutions"
Why do the workingmen of California op-
pose Chinese immigration? Because in five
years they threw out of employment 100000
workIngmen in San Francisco and Sacra
mento, by working for half and fourth regu.
lar wages and filled those cities with tramps
and "hoodlums." Why were the operatives
Of Lynn and other manufacturing points in
NJ Massachusetts, and New England so worked
up about Chinese immigration? Because in
1875 the extensive shoe manufacturers of
~ 4 Al 4 L Ill