Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1880-11-25

Q;l'e eIrortttr,
GRAND RAPIDS, WIS.
From Washing ton.

&c lcauSI5 uStcI III udtlCu W secure
electoral votes enough to declare Gen
eral Hancock elected without any
regard as to the measures adopted to
secure them, and Messrs Barnum,
Hewitt & Co. of the Democratic Ma
tional Committee supposed they had
made General Hancock'8 election GER
tain when they sent copies Of the
forged letter Of Gen. Garfield on the
Chinese question broadcast over the
country, which they never would have
been guilty of doing had they had the
least doubt Of It's doing successfully
the dirty work they intended to ac-
complish and that after the election its
instigators would be brought to light
and held up to the public condemna-
ton. The albany Journal says in
relation to Mr.. Abram S. Hewitt who
had been so closely connected with
the forged morey letter:
Mr.. Abram S. Hewitt has hitherto
been credited with honorable intent
ions in politics. He has been cIassed
among the leaders of the best elements
in the Democratic party, and popular
ly regarded as a man who would scorn
to score a point against his opponents
by the employment of mean and dis
reputable means.
But the Morey letter we regret to
say, reveals him in other colors. In
the light of the evidence touching the
circumstances that preceded its publ
cation he stands convicted before his
countryman OF assisting to the best Of
his ability in the wretched work Of
endeavoring to ruin the fair reputa-
ton and defeat the laudable aspirations
of a man with whom he had been as
ISOLATED on the friendliest of terms, by
employing against him the low weapon
of forgery. This indictment on
which SIR Hewitt is arraigned at the
bar Of public sentiment is one which
he is now making frantic attempts to
quash but all to no purpose. The in
dictment stands. Mr. Hewitt did
countenence the Mercy forgery. He
did consent to its publication. He
did more than consent; it was largely
because Of what he said in regard to
it that induced the publisher Of Truth
to print it in that paper.
We are aware that Mr.. Hart the
publisher, and Mr. Hewitt, contradict
each other. bIr. Hart swears that
Mr.. Hewitt saw the letter and examin-
ed it before it was published in TRUTH
We quote from Harris evidence: eve
we're not prepared to publish it until
tho handwriting had been examined by
some one familiar with Garfeld's hand
writing We communicated with the
Democratic National Committee.
There were in the rooms Speaker Ran
dali, Mr. He1citt. Mr.. Barnum and
about ten others. In consequence Of
what was said by persons representing
themselves familiar acjh Ir GGfeId's
handwriting we decided to publish it. "
That is Harris evidence. MIR. Hewitt,
on the other hand, in his note to the
Tribune writes: '.The letter had
already been published in Truth be-
fore | had ever seen Mr.. Hart or the
original letter or any copy of it. J"
Now, if Mr.. Hewitt is correct it fol
lows that although he was in the
rooms of the Democratic National
Committee when Mr.. Hart brought
the letter there, he did not see it; and
it also follows that when Mr.. Hart
swore that the publication of the let
ter was in consequence of what was
said by persons representing themselves
familiar with Mr. Garfeld's hand
writing, he did not refer to what 5ir.
Hewitt, among others, said.
But was Mr. Hewitt correct? Is it
true that he had never seen the Morey
letter until it had already been pub
lished in Truth? Unfortunately for
his reputation, Mr.. Harris evidence is
substantiated, and his own assertion
in the premises is brought to naught,
out of his own mouth On the even
ing of October Goth, Mr.. Hewitt
delivered political address in New
York city. The portion of it which
had reference to the Morey letter. was
extensively circulated. What he
said about the letter was-we quote
from the Albany argus, good Demo
cratic authority, of October 22nd
''Some people may incline to pronounce i a
forgery. have seen it. L am familiar with
GENERA Garfield signature. l have compar-
cd it with his letters in my possession ana /
have no dtnbt it Is genuine
When was it he had thus seen it ?
When was it that, being familiar with
General Garheld's handwriting, he
had compared the Morey forgery with
the letters of Gen. Garfield which he
he had in his possession? 1t was be,
fore the letter was published in Truth.
Hart, as we have shown, swears that