Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1880-12-04
MR.. HEwIrTs RBJo1NDBR.

MR.. HEWIFTS REJOINDER.
He Charges Judge Davis with Mis-.
stating The Evidence in At
lacking Him.
To a World reporter Mr.. Hewitt
last. might said: 81 wrote a state,
ment as soon as possible after read
Judge Davis's attack upon my char
acter, aud it contains all l care to say
III the matter at present. The uh-
provoked and unwarranted nature
OF the ATTACK, coming as it docs from
q Judge On the bench, l leave to the
comments of others. In my stale
mant l have conclusively shown the
falsity of the statements OF the v
dence in the case on which he seeks
to base his censure of me. My Ian
guageini the statement, as you Will
see. is courteous, but I would no be
at all surprised Oh Monday to be ar
rested for contempt OF court. Mr..
Hewitt's statement is as fellows:
To the Editor of the World Sir
have Just read the opinion OF Judge
DAVIS i'll reference to the so-called
s.Morey" or "Chinese" letter.. A
considerable pOrtiom-Of this opinion
is devoted to my evidence given un-
der oath, OH subpenas served upon
me both by the prosecution and the
defense. The judge who sits upoi
the bench is eupposed to know the
evidence which has been given By q
witness. Certainly, he should exam
Inc it before he undertakes To make
statements as t. its nature and to
draw conclusions from 1t. That Judge
Davis has not performed this duty.
the following comparison Of his
statements with my testimony will
serve to prove:
Judge Davis says that Mr.. Hart
"was not satisfied 20 publish it (,he
letter. upon the examination which
he and his editorial staff could make,
and he therefore took the letter
and envelope to the democratic ma
tional committee for inspection. H
there saw Mr.. Hewitt, Mr.. B,rnum,
Nj. Randall and others. Mr.. Hart
showed them the papers. and said ii;
substance that be did not want to
publish the letter if it was q forgery,
but if genuine, he did, anu wanted
no other paper to get ahead of him
in the publication. He says it was
examined by all the persons named.
but Mr.. Hewitt made the closest and
most careful examination, and spent
fully q half honr in its examination,
and he pronounced the letter. both
body and signature, to be in the
handwriting of General Garfield.
Photographs were taken fer the use
of the national committee, and Mr..
Hart returned with the letter to his
e. D,t rs, - -paa ,N fr1lp
satisfied, and so late i'll the evening
he sought and found Mr.. Hewitt
again, and was assured that he
(Hewitt) had examined a large mum
ber of Garfield's letters, and that the
Morey letter was genuine, and this
was clinched by imprsssing Mr..
Harris mind with the idea that he
would have made it out u forgery il
he could 1t is not very surprising
that Mr.. Hart, with the usua ankle.
ty Of newspaper publishers to be
ahead of their neighbors, should have
published the letter without further
inquiry /; but it is astounding that ,
man of known sagacity, of grea: ex
perience in pub:ic affairs, Ii who i!
supposed to have a decent respect foI
truth and justice though
it just to press and its publication
without first removing all doubt q
to its character"
Now, the simple and unauswerabl
reply to all this statement and til
extraordinary comments in whicI
Judge Davis has seen fit to indulgg
is, that the letter had already bee
published in the Truth before l ha'
ever seen MIR. Hart or the orig;na
letter or any copy Of it. This fac
Judge Davis must have known whe
he penned the above lines, because
had sworn in his presence, and afte
cross-examination by Mr.. Steughtoi
in which Mr.. Bliss interviewed t. vel
ify the dates, that the interview wit
Mr.. Hart and the examination Of til
letter took place Oh the Goth of Octe
Der, after it's publication i'll Trutl
and not before. l dc not knu,
whether Mr.. Hart made a mistak
in his testimony as to the date, bu
il he did there is no possible justif
cation for Judge Davis to base
Abatement on this mistake in orde
70 attack from the bench the charat
ter of q citizen after the mistake ha
been pointed out and the dates ha
been fixed beyond the possibility
all controversy. While 1 was wri
ing this statement | sent q messengs
to Mr.. Hart to ascertain whether
had eve made made any declaratio
at variance with the facts as l hay
stated them. Mr.. Hart replies tn;
he "never said, testified or though
that Mr.. Hewitt or any one connecte
with the national committee saw IL
letter i'll advance of the publicatio
of the text of the letter in Truth @
the Goth of October"
Now, as to the minor assertion
contained i'll the above extract,
pronounced the s.body al
signature" of the letter to be in u
handwriting of General Garfield. c
the contrary, i'll the presence OF NJ
Hart aud all the gentlemen present
declared the body OF the letter o
be in the handwriting of Gener
Garfield, but that 1 believed the 81
nature to be his autograph. l
not think that Mr.. Hart has Civ,
IN testimony to the contrary, but
he has, it is an error which can
shown by the testimony of all t
gentlemen who were present.
As to the second interview in t
evening, it took place after L
speech at Chickeriug Hall, when
was exhausted and took no 9th
part in the discussion but to reatfil
my belief in the genuineness of t
signature. / did o tell Mr.. Hs
that 81 would have made it aforge
If I could" nor has he or any Q
else testified that [ ever used Il
expression.
With this statement l leave it
the public to judge how utterly ba
less Is the following judgment of
. court: "However much an equi
ble division may leave for othe
upon Mr.. Hewitt must rest the lar!
share Of responsibility for the fl
publication of the base and shame
forgery" And also how far Jut
Davis is justified in his apology
attacking a witness who was
upon the stand against his will
"teIl theitruth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth" He sa,
"Aud whenever a person connec
with the offense is sworn as a with
OIL it's investigation his testimony
subject to the criticism that belo
o, nooaen1rs