Litchfield enquirer., 1880-11-25

SUCH cases, LnOugn valuable, require the clos
est scrutiny, and must be based upon substan-
| tial reasons lying deeper than mere resenl-
blance The opinions of inexperts are often
captured by apparent but feigned resemblance
! In this case several experts on one hand have
given quite confident opinions that the Morey
| letter is not the handwriting of Gen. Garfield
and several experts, on the other hand have
given equally confident opinions that it is id
his handwriting. The reasons assigned by
the former class best commend their opinions
to my judgment, because they best concur
with extrinsic facts which show their opinion
to be correct. But none of the experts had
that opportunity for the examination aud COM
parisoa OF the original Morey letter with the
genuine letters of Gen. Garfield requisite to
enable them to pronounce convincing opinions.
They formed thsse opinions largely upon the
use OF photographic copies taken from the
newspaper Truth, or from some other news
paper: while their examination of the original
was limited and cursory II
The witnesses who gave testimony based
upon their knowledge of Gen. Garfeld's hand
writing were also divided in opinion The
principal of these on either side was the wit
ness Col. Rockwell, who pronounced the Mo.
rey letter not genuine, in his opinion and the
witness Mr.. Abram 8. Hewitt, who pronounc-
ed his opinion that 1t is genuine. Col. Rock
well had known Gen. Garfield for many years,
was his class mate in college, and ever since
his intimate personal friend, and Is indebted
to him for advancement and position. His
correspondence had been constant and fire
quent for many years. His opportunities of
knowledge and his candor and frankness gave
weight to his opinion which his friendship
and Intimacy with Gen. Garfield do not, in nv
judgment, impair. Mr.. Hewitt appears also to
have been on social relations of intimacy with
Gen. Garfield, though to less extent and for
a shorter period. The letters of Gen. Gar
field, which he produced, express and imply
most pleasant and friendly relations between
them He testified in Substance that in his
opinion, based upon his knowledge of Gen.
Gar6eld's handwriting aud to some extent
upon his experience in the examination of
writings, the signature to the Morey letter was
the genuine writing of Gen. Garfield, but that
the body of the letter was not his writing, nor
was the address upon the envelope. The
weight of this opinion aud the motive for Civ.
ing it are just subjects for consideration. The
opinion itself in respect of the difference be-
tween the body and the signature is in direct
conflict with that of every other witness in
the case who has spoken on the subject. The
experts on both sides all agree that the Morey
letter, both in body and signature, was writ
ten by the same handsome of them declar-
lbs
examination of the letter itself shows this fact
to every person who is free from obliquity of
vision of perversion of judgment Mr.. Hew-
tits connection with this letter, and transac-
tons that have grown out of it, are, to say the
least, of the most extraordinary character.
According to the testimony of Mr.. Hart, when
he received the letter in the very singular
manner in which it reached him, his suspi-
cious were aroused. He saw its Importance
if genuine, as weapon of deadly power in
the hands of Gen. Garfeld's political foes. fig.
He published the letter. but was not salts
fed to circulate facsimiles of it, upon the ex-
animation which he and his editorial staff
could make, and he therefore took the letter
and envelope to the Democratic National Com
mittee for inspection. He there saw Mr..
Hewitt, Mr. Barnum, Mr. Randall, and sew
eral others. Mr.. Hart showed them the papers
and said in substance that he did not want to
publish facsimies Of the letter if it was forg-
cry, but, if genuine. he did, and wanted no
other paper to get ahead of him in its publ
| cation. He says it was examined by all the
persons he named, but Mr.. Hewitt made the
closest and most careful examination, and
spent fully half hour in its examination, and
then pronounced the letter, both body and
signature, to be in the handwriting of Gen.
Garfield. Photographs were then taken for
the use of the National Committee, aud Mr..
Hart returned with the letter to his Office
But his mind was not fully satisfied, and so
late in the evening he sought and found Mr.
Hewitt again, and was again assured that he
Hewitt had examined large number of
| Gen. Garfelds letters, and that the Morey
letter was genuine; and this was clinched by
impressing Mr.. Harris mind with the idea
that 'he would have made it out forgery if
he could" It is not very surprising that Mr..
orr w no ntv of
publishers to be ahead of their neighbors,
should have published facsimiles without fur.
ther inquiry; but it is astounding that man
of known sagacity, of great experience in bus
mess and in public affairs, and who is suppos-
ed to have decent respect for truth and JUS
tice, and who speaks as an expert in writing,
with all the suspicious circumstances that at
tend the reception of the letter, with the en-.
velope and its erasures before him, with the
City Post Office and station stamp on its back
with the letter marked ''personGl and con fdez-
'tial, )" and addressed to some person whom he
certainly did not know with letter before
him the contents of which, if true would be
greatly injurious, and, if false, would do
wrong to his intimate friend as base and wick
ed as an assassin's stab should have thought
it just to press and cause its publication,
without first removing all doubt as to it's char
acter. ...
However much an equitable division may
leave for Others upon Mr.. Hewitt must rest
the larger share of responsibility for the
publication Of the base and shameful forgery
and his subsequent relations to the forgery do
not lift single shadow from his conduct He
was member of the National Committee.
He doutless knew the extent and purposes to
and for which it was taken and used by that
committee, and that it went forth to the
country with the sanction of his Endorsement
He knew beyond question that it met speedily
with the indignant denial of Gen. Garfield,
who denounced the letter as a "base and
stupid forgery, its sentiments as brutal"
Under our statutes the utterer Of forged
instrument with knowledge of it's falsity is
placed in the same rank of criminality with
the forger. Had the subject of the forgery
in this case been instruments purpOrting to be
obligations of Gen. Garfield, and he had pub
licly declared then to be forgeries, who could
thereafter send them forth and circulate them
throughout the community with his represen-
tation of genuineness withour mourning the
penalties of the law? The difference lie pure
ly statutory, and in q moral forum wholly
vanishes. s.. .H f..
1t does not appear from the evidence in this
case whether the denial Of Gen. Garfield or
some other cause toned down the conscience
Of this witness to simple belief in the genu-
lneness OF the signature and not OF the body
of the letter, nor whether it was under the
subterfuge that the denial was not broad
enough to cover both, but it does sufficiently
appear that he went on, with his associates,
scattering the forgery broadcast throughout
the country, with bold asseyeratlons of genu-
ineness And it also appears that so far as
the envelope is concerned the Autographs sent
forth as facsimiles were not true copies of so
much of the envelope as was given. The first
Autographs Published show truly. that the
Washington Post Office stamp did not contain
the abbreviation jan" nor the figures ''23.
In the Autographs and facsimiles afterwards
used those things appear in plain and clear
types and figures. The act of inserting them
was a forgery upon a forgery, for whoever did
it or caused it to be done knew that the inser-
tion falsifed the original for some purpose OF
fraud. 1t appears, besides that the back of