Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1880-09-15

tories were pleo. In the printing, they
were printed instead Of the original. /
talked with Swayzee. I saw his testi-
mony was not very full, and after my
conversation with him i~nterrogatories
were ~propounded to him necessarily to
bring out his evidence in full, and that
evidence, in answering the interrogato-
ries, was the evidence OF Swayzee that
was printed. The next man, Napalus, |
remember well, for he had a very strlk-
ing story OF having been partly hung,
and having been dragged with a rope
around his neck. He was one OF those
to whom i~nterrogatories were PROFOUND
ed after the filing OF the first OF these
afidavits.
Now, gentlemen, he mentions as the
most remarkable case in which he pre-
prepared the questions for the witness
es, the case of Amy Mitchell, so ! will
read what Garfield swore to in regard to
that case:
Q-ts regards the case OF Mrs. Amy
Mitchell which made an impression on
you, can you tell whether it vas before
or after you were furnished with a copy
of her affidavit that you had this con-
versation with her?
Alt was afterward. 1t was the
reading Of the affidavit that impressed
me, and | asked to have her sent to
me.
OIL see that the affidavit appears to
have been sworn to the 30th OF Novem-
Der?
Al advised them to take a fuller
statement by interrogatories from Amy
Mitchell, and think | ~propounded a
portion OF the i~nterrogatories. The pre-
liminary statement, the simple affidavit,
was earlier.
IL ERJUR CONFESSED.
Now, gentlemen, l will turn over a
page and see what the case of Amy
Mitchell was. Turning the leaves OF a
book She first made an affidavit in
the Custom House where she was ex-
amined privately by James A. Garfield.
That affidavit was not full enough. He
prepared additional interrogatOries to be
propounded to her; and she answered
those ~interroyatories, and in her testi-
mony before the same Committee she
afterward herself swore that there wss
no truth in the statement given in re.
Spouse to Garfield's i~nterrogatories. In
answer to a question ~propounded by
Governor Cox, OF Ohio, who is a Repub-
lican. Amy Mitchell said-she repeated
her direct testimony--that every state
ment contained in the affidavit was
false; that she did not say anything be.
cause she knew it, but said what they
told her to say. Her testimony also
showed that she had been trained in
the Custom House to testify before the
Committee. | don't say that Garfield
was present when she swore to the ans
wers 20 interrogatOries, but he prepared
the i~nterrogatories that were answered,
and he prepared the int%errogatorles
after he had an interview with that col
ored woman, when there was no person
besides themselves present; and the
same woman comes before the Commit
tee Of Congress, not in an inner room,
not when the light OF Gods day is shut
| off, but she comes before the Committee
of Democrats and Republicans, and in
that testimony, given under oath and
under the test OF q cross examination by
the Republican members OF the Com
mittee, she says there was not a word OF
truth in the testimony which she gave
in answer to Garfield's questions. lAI-
plause.
The next purpose, gentlemen, | have
in my mind is to ask why did General
Garfield spend eighteen days in the in
ner room OF the Custom House? Why
did he have private interviews with the
colored and white people whose testl-
mony was to be taken TO be used before
the Returning Board? And why did he
prepare Undergraduates for the witness
es? | will answer in his " words:
Q.-But don't you understand thai
in the cases where you suggested that
nte,rogatories should be prepared in
stead OF evidence, they were to go before
the Returning Board?
Ayes.
And when his work OF taking the tes-
timony was completed he turned his at
| tention to the preparation OF a brlet.
\ brief, as you all know, is a lawyers
argument in writing. will show you
what he says upon that subject, on page
797 Of the report:
Q.-Was that brief furnished to. the
Returning Board2
A.-No, sir. That brief was never
furnished to anybody but the President
| of the United States. In fact, a consid-
cradle portion OF the brief was written
on the cars after | left New Orleans on
my way home.
Q.-Writtena after you left New Or.
leans?
A considerable portion OF 1t |
had written a summary OF the evidence
before that. but a considerable portion
of the brief was written in pencil on the
cars after | left New Orleans on my way
home.
You see he completes the evidence.
He is the only man that prepares it Tor
West Feliciana after the evidence had
been turned over to him, and when he
has done that work on his way from
New Orleans to Washington he prepares
an argument in the case.
GARFIELD KNEW TILDBN CARRIED THR
| wish to connect directly this trans
action with the duties OF the man who
takes the solemn oath TO deal fairly. Ii
was his duty as a member Of the Com
mission to deal fairly.
The next question is. what did Gar.
field know in regard TO Louisiana? We
find that on page sos. ! say he knew
that Louisiana was Democratic by s.
0J0 majority when he sat in that nne
room and had private conversation with
the witnesses and prepared interrogato-
ries to guide and control their testimony,
when he was at that work, and when he
was writing a brief to make it appearthe
other way, he knew that Louisiana had
cast a Democratic majority OF 5000, and
here is his sworn testimony on that sub
ject:
Odd you get any idea how the
vote OF Louisiana stood from the face OF
the returnsH
Al had all those ideas that could
be got from the newspapers and the
leaders OF the different parties. Wehad
had, OF course, very full information OF
that sort.
Q.-Presuming that there were not
some Parishes to be thrown out by the
Returning Board, it was very clear that
the State had gone Tor Tllden, was 1t
not?
Alt was very well understood by
the time l got there, and, indeed, be.o c