Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-11-15
Aanraster fntell.gencer.
MONDAY EVENING, NOV. 15, 1880.
What Judges |!

tTy, 10 Dc sure IL Is uOC only LduCdStcI
that is afflicted. Sometimes, indeed, in
seeing what they can do in other places,
We incline to approach contentment with
our condition. New York especially is
wonderful in it's dispensation of justice.
Justices Of the peace there condemn peo-
pie offhaEd to long terms in Jail at their
own sweet will and pleasure, and justices
of the supreme court inquire whether
sufficient ground exist for binding over
alleged offenders to answer at court.
And it is not often that anybody that
wants particular motion granted can
not find in New York state somewhere a
judgeto grant it and that his opponent
cannot come after him and scare up
judge of equal authority to enjoin the
proceeding. For a long while the ways OF
administering justice in New York
have been wonder to outside barba-
rians but one OF the judges of the SUI
preme court named Davis, has just taken
the cap and bells away from all his
brother judges by his decision in the
matter of Philip, charged with the dou-
ble offense Of forging the Morey letter
anda libel upon Garfield in declaring that
he wrote it after Garfield said he did not.
Davis holds Philip to answer for libel
only; and the trial of Philip will be the
trial of at least half the people of the
country: being that half which consider
that Garfield, having been guilty of per
jury, is not worthy of belief. This is the
doctrine of the law. A man convicted
of perjury has no standing in court af-
terward rs Il witness. No one would ask
that he should have. And yet it comes to
pass that this Daniel sitting in judg-
ment declares that Il man who refused
to take Garfield S word that he did not
write the Chinese letter to Morey is
guilty of a criminal offence. OF course
the only way of reconciling this decision
with the judges sanity. is to consider
that he did not believe that Garfield per-
jured himself in his testimony before the
congressional committee in the Credit
Mobilior matter No doubt he does not
believe this. There is as little doubt
that at least half of the American people
do believe it. This, then, obviously was
the first matter to be legally inquired
into in the effort TO whiten Gariield's
reputation. 1t was necessary to prove
that he was not guilty Of perjury before
he could ask TO be adjudged innocent of
the lie that Philip is held to answer for
charging upon him. This ought to be
obvious to every one. Surely the perjury
is the greater us it is the first
ofrcnse, and Garfield and his friends were
called upon to summon those who
charged this crime upon him to answer
for libel before they took up the cudgel
against Il man who only called him q
liar.
There are plenty of subjects for prose-
cution for calling Garfield a perjurer.
There are many who believe him to be
untruthful. All these will look with in
terest upon the attempt to show that any
man is punishable for holding these cpin-
ions of Garfield and expressing them. 1t
is a matter OF great congratulation that
the opportunity is afforded of deter
mining in judicial proceeding
the question Of Garfield'S We
racity. lie is the man who is
really on trial. The grace of his partisan,
Judge Davis, has done this for him. We
wish him a safe deiiycrance. We should
like to be able TO think little better
than we do of the new president of the
republic. The question TO be decided is
whether Garfield should go to the White
House or the penitentiary and when
he leaves the witness stand it is an even
chance whether he enters the gates
of the one or the other. He can hard
ly lie grateful to Judge Davis for
putting him in this box, though he did
it with the best intentions in the world.
Indeed SO strong was the judges desire
to recommend himself to Garfield that
he vent urcd Into denunciation of Mr.
Uewitt-a witness who swore that he be-
lievcd the Morey letter signature to he
that of Gariicld-whOm he declared to
have given an assassin 5 stab" " to his
friend Garfield. TO abuse witness for
testifyins to the opinion that he is COM
PEELED to give is novel performance for
4 Judge even in New York it seems; and
this one, to get in his denunciation, felt
compelled to declare that Mr.. Hewitt
was 4 co-conspirator in the publication
of the letter, when the evidence testified
to before him showed that Mr.. Hewitt
had not seen the letter until after the
publication. OF course the simple state
ment Of this fact disarms the judges
malice and makes him a very ridiculous
figure. But still the fact remains that
judge could be found to make such an
ass of himself, and it is a notable one;
nothing could bring more contempt upon
the judiciary than to find judge
thus intent upon making decis-
ion to suit his partisan feel
ing. The obliquity of vision and per-
version of judgment which he charges
against Mr.. Hewitt are conspicuously
present in himself. 1t is a pointed illus
tration of the biblical injunction concern
ing the beam and the mote. Mr.. Hewitt
would not have been subject to animad-
version if he hadcounseled the publication
of the Morey letter, believing it to be
genuine. 1t would have been his duty
as member Of the Democratic COM
mittee. If his judgment Of handwrit-
ing was wrong, it would so to affect his