The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1880-07-06

Credit W00<1leF. D1E3y8u un4k 49, - -
sns ~ Thh cD,nios wss fousaed noE msxely
on my confidence In his Integrity. but % some
special knowIelge Of his case may have too
you al about ts n convessation, but desire NOW
10 repeat Il BY way Of resninder.
feld nav have done, q lotbcrne 70 dn, he acted
In profound ignorance u The nature and charac-
ter Of the thing which Mr.. Ames was trying 20
sell He had not the sllGhtest suspci0n thas be
was to be taken into ring organized for the
purpose Of defauding the public. nor did he
with anything which came or could como within
the legislative jurisdlction Of Congress. The
case against him lacks the scsenfer, which alone
In The winter Of lseo-7o told Gen. Garaeld
Of the fact that his name was on Amee list |;
that Ames charged him with being one Of his
distributes; explained 10 him The character,
origin and objects Of the Credit Hobiler; pointed
out the connection Il had with Congressional
legislation, and showed him how impossible Il
was for member OF Congress to hold stock 10 Il
without bringing his private interests IN conflict
with his public duty. That al this was TO him
perfectly new revelation am - sure - I can
be of such fact or Of any fact which b capable
Of being proved only by moral circumstances
He told me then the whole story Of TrEln,s offer
to him and Ames' subsequent solicitation and his
own action in the premises, much IS he details 1t
to the committee. / do not undertake 10 repro
duce the conversation, but the effect Of il all was
TO convince me thoroughly that when he listened
to Ames be was perfectly unconscious Of any
thing evil. watched carefully every word that
fell from him on this point. and did mot regard
his narrative of the transaction in any other re-
spect with much interest, because in my view
everything else was Insignificant. did not care
whether he made bargain technically binding
or not his integrity depended upon the question
whether he acted with his eyes open. 1t he had
hat
TO him he would not have endured it, much less
embraced it.
Now, couple this with Mr.. Ames' admission
that he gave no explanation whatever of the mat
ter to Gen. Garfield, then reflect that parti-
Gle Of proof exists to show that he learned any.
thing about II previous to his conversation with
me, and think you will say that it is altogether
unjust to put him on the list Of those who know
ingly and wiliuly joined the fraudulent associa-
ton in question. j. 8. BLACK.
Hon. j. G. BLAINE. Speaker Of tie House q
Representatives.
The New York Herald is of the opinion thai
Judge Blacks plea for Garfield is what the law.
yers call a plea in confession and avoidance. u
II says: We think it mistake for General
Garfeld's friends 10 parade Judge Blacks letter
as a defensive document. 1t was written 10 serve
his client in a most critical emergency, and hav.
ing failed TO accomplish its object then, it is q
boomerang now. It's date was February Is, 1878
three days before the report of the Poland com.
mi,tee. Although addressed 10 Speaker Blaine
il was intended to influence the committee and
save Mr. Garfield from censure in its forthcoming
report. AS often happens to skllful lawyers
Judge Black made an unsuccessful defence.
To perceive the bearing of Judge Blacks let
ter. We must compare il with Mr.. Garfeld'f
sworn testimony before the committee on which
the charge Of perjury is founded. January IL
1873, Mr. Garfield swore as follows
Mr.. Ames never gave nor offered to give me
any stock or other valuable thing gift
once asked and obtained from him, and ufterward
repaid 10 him, loan of $500. That amount ID
the only valuable thing l ever received from OF
delivered 10 him. l never owned, received, OF
agreed TO receive, any stock of the Credit Mo
bilier or of the Union Pacific Railroad, nor any
dividends or profits arising from either of them
Judge Black virtually admits that this testi-
mony was not true. Mr.. Garfield swore that be
never had any connection with the Credit Mo.
bilier stock; Judge Black merely contends tina,
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 understand its ma
ture. These two lines of defence are not only dis
| tinct, but inconsistent If Mr. GapGeld told the
| truth when he swore that he had never had any
thing 10 do with the stock, Judge Blacks at.
tempt TO show that his completely was innocent
because he was ignorant Of the kind of transac-
ton he was engaged in, is at least no vindication
of Mr.. Garfeld's sworn testimony. Judge Black
said, q" believed that General Garfield was free
from all guilty connection with that business.
| But his client had sworn that he had no connec-
ton with it, guilty" or otherwise. Why ex-
press belief that he had no guilty connec.
ton it, as the client swOre, he had no connec-
tion with it at all, Judge Blacks reasoning to
prove that the connection was not guilty is in.
consistent with the oath of his client. The fol-
gesive:
assert unhesitatingly that, whatever General
| Garfield may have done or forbOrne 10 do, be
acted in profound ignorance of the nature and
character of the thing which Mr.. Ames was
| proposing to sell. He had not the slightest sus-
! piciOn that he was TO be taken into Ring or
gained for the purpose of deffauding the public
nor did he know that the stock was in any way
connected with anything which came, or could
come, within the legislative Jurisdiction of Con.
gress. The case against him lacks the seienter
which alone constitutes guilt.
What pertinence was there In pleading tina,
the client was ignorant of what he was doing Il
it was true, as the client swore, that he never
had anything to do with the stock in any way
whatever! Why set up this elaborate plea Of
ignorance, which is the sole substance OF coun
sci Blacks exculpation, if his client had sworn
truly that he never had any sort of connection
with the Credit Moblier stock! There is an ir
reconcilable inconsistency between Judge Black't
letter and Mr.. Garfeld's testimony before the Pc
land committee. If he had sworn truly that b.
never had anything to do with the stock, It wa.
irrelevant for his counsel to contend that wha
he did was done in ignorance. II he did nothing
the stress Judge Black laid on the plea Of igno
rance, which forms The whole tissue of his de
fence, was ridiculous
Abiding to a conversation between himself
and his client, Judge Black says In his letter:
do not undertake to reproduce the converse
ton, but the effect of Il all was 10 convince me
thoroughly that when he listened TO Ames be
was perfectly unconscious OF anything evil
watched carefully every word that fell 1rom him
on this point, and did not regard his narrative oil
the transaction In any other respects with much
interest, because In my view everything else va,
insignificant I did not care whether he had
made bargain technically binding or not; hii
integrity depended upon the question whether be