New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-27
DELIBERATE FALSIFIER.

1t is time to fix where it belongs the re-
sponsibility for one Democratic lie. In number
and in mearness, the Democratic lies of this
campaign have been remarkable, but one OF the
basest of them has been brought home to
responsible source. Some days ago The Neo-
York World stated, with much display, that
Justice Swayne, in decision rendered in 1873
by the United States Supreme Court, had char
acterized an employment of General Garfield
to act as temporary counsel for paving COM
pany as "a sale of official influence which no
"veil can cover" 1t turns out that Justice
Swayne never used any such language in re-
spect to General Garfield, In the case profess
edly cited OF in any otherJ that the matter
was never before him or the Supreme Court
and that Justice Swayne publicly expresses, in
a most emphatic manner, the very highest re-
spect for the candidate whom he was said to
have judicIally branded as guilty of "a sale of
official influence" The untruth was imme-
diately exposed; by Justice Swayne himself,
whose indignant language THE TRIBUNE has
printed, and by the distinguished Democrat,
ex- Senator Dooittle, who was counsel against
the paving company, but who felt that in self
respect he could not see so gross falsehood
circulated without contradiction, and therefore
stated, in published card, that the case was
never before Justice Swayne nor the Supreme
Court.
There has been ample time for The World to
retract the falsehood thus exposed, and to
make the apology which decent self-respect
would have prompted. Instead, it has resorted
to dishonest evasiOns which match the original
forgery in shameless nfamy. When Senator
Dooittle's card appeared. The World pretended
that the only question was whether Justice
Swayne had used the language.quoted, in ref
erence to General Garfield, in the precise case
named by The World or in some other case.
The original assertion might have been thought
an error, but this, in view of Nh. Doottle's ex-
nlicit statement was deliberate Justification.
When Justice Swayne Indignantly denied the
story, The World raised a doubt as to the
ye1acity of the report of his language, and a
doubt as to his veracity in asserting that he
had never made any such statement rs was
quoted with respect to General Garfield, whom
he highly respected. When it was fully proved
that the words quoted were taken, not from
any decision of any Judge, but from an argu-
ment of counsel, The World then deliberately
lied again, in asserting that the language had
been used by Justice Swayne in matter pre-
csely parallel TO that of General Garfield.
These dishonest evasions, these shameful at
tempts to keep alive lie after its utter untruth
had been exposed put The World precisely on
q level, as to honor or veracity, with the man
who originally invented the malignant false
hood.
The Democratic party appears to find extra
ordinary difficulty in this campaign. In no
other contest for many years has Democratic
fertility of Justification been so recklessly in
dulged. Clear headed Democrats see that this
WI riot of mendacty is hurting the party, and
a Democratic journal at the West observes that
u the fool-kiern would do great service to
Democracy if he would exterminate the men
who set on foot such talsehoods as those about
Justice Swaync and the intention OF General
Grant to support General Hancock. OF course
the party would gain more votes ii it would rely
less upon lies. But the matter ought to be con-
sidered on n plane much higher than that of
political expediency. 1t is hurtful to party
TO resort to dishonest ana scandalous state
ments; but 1t is also disgraceful to the country
that Presidential election should not be CON
Quoted without degrading editors and orators
by the score, who hold positions which gen
tlemen only fit to fill, TO the level Of the
bascst blackguards. In both parties, there
ought to be manhood enough TO put down any
creature whose behavior tends 10 dishonOr
American citizenship BY decent men of all
parties, the use of deliberate lies about an OPP
ponent ought to be resented as personal in
suit.
The Democratic party will not gain anything
by its personal attacks upon the Republican