The daily gazette., 1880-06-18
/, gully Sasstts.

inadequate D '' ,,.o p,acL,s
!. '',e 50 damaging to JUDGE SACKS ',ae ks
that we preferred to o'.s,.,S Wa wa.la uas ID
0ps :. ,n, nroaered col rtesy of our col
wv wv = defence which could not be
I'M riddled into shled'' -, oo....,
', s,iDk II a mistake for General
AZ. ,D'1d friends to parade Judge Blacks
'. defensive document 1t was a
n 10 serve his client in a most CRU
{p.rency, and having failed ~ 70 &C
l,h i, object then, it is a boone
'v a It's date was February ID,
Three days before the report Of
|,rommitlee. Although addressed
I,tsr Blaine, it was intended t" in
| ,be committee and save Mr.. Gar
from censure in its forthcoming re-
A, often happens to skllifnl law
Judge Black made an unsuccessful
s Of bis client
perceive the bearing Of Judge
|, letter we must compare IL with
b,rseld's sworn testimony before
nmittee on which the charge Of
/, founded. January IA, 1873,
,rfeld swore as follows:-
Ames never gave nor of red to
NJ apy stock or other valuable
ia ein. | once asked aud OBJ
from him, and afterward repaid
loan Of $500. That amount
oply valuable thing | ever receiv-
bm or delivered to him. l never
received or agreed TO receive any
Of the Credit Mobilier or of the
Pacific Railroad, nor any dlvi-
or profits arising flom either Of
n Black virtually admits that
stImoDy was not true. MIR. Gar
wore that he never had any con-
D with Credit Mobilier stock
Black merely contends that he
"guilty" connection. Garfield
most absolutely, that he hat
bad anything whatever to dc
and the giSt Of Blacks letter II
w that although he did have 1
Elton with it he did not under
bio nature. These two lines o
are not only distinct, but incon
lfMr. Garfield told the trutl
he swore that he had never haC
ng TO do with the stock Judg,
attempt TO show that his com
was limo cent because he wa
nl Of the kind Of transaction h,
bgaged in is at least no vindica
Ar. Garfeld's sworn testimony
Black said, 81 believe that Gen
irfeld was free from all guilt,
Ftlon with that business" Blu
ent had sworn that he had n,
Ftlon with IL, guilty" or other
y express a belief that he hac
guilty connection" if, as tn
Swore, he had no connection
at allS Judge Blacks reason
prove that the connection wa
putty is inconsistent with the oat
client. The following para
OF the counsels letter is suggei
ssert unhesitatingly that, what
'eneral Garfield may have don
OoTne 10 do, he acted in oun
'aCe ol the nature and cLaracle
thlng which Mr.. Ames was prt
70 sell, He had not the Sigh
Aplclon that he was to be take
lny organized for the purpos
isaualng the public, nor did b
'aaI the stock was in any wa
aea with anything which cam,
~ come, within the legislati,
lcIlon of Congress. The cas
nlm lacks the scienter whiC
constitutes guilt.
= per'lnence was there in plea,
,'' 'ne client was ignorant
nc was doing if it was true,
iiei' swore, that he never hs
iag to do with the stock in a,
na'ever' Why set up this elab
''S Oh ignorance (Which is Il
'uoSt"nce of Counsel Black
pa'lOn) if his client had swo
'l'a' ne never had any sort of CO
y with the Credit Mobilier stoc
" an lrreconcilable inconsiste
~ C"een Judge Blacks letter Al
y 'tne'ds u testimony before t
nd Committee.
u amazing that the friends of 4
'uOuld parade Judge Blacl
us'ence' Instead of a defeu
"n'e''lon, 1t was a confss.i
" most 'kilful counsel he cou
would not venture to defend /,
!, own sworn statements. II
!. ..a o. defence was abandoned
a% 'aa Judge Black was reduced
!. me baby act," Mr.. GARFIELD .w
a' n, had never touched the q,
:, DIaek pleaded that when .
! 'so 1t, II ne did not know tha. It ,
NJ ,a' ~ 9 plain contradiction betw,
''a &c Of the defendant and the 's ar
e,'Ion us counsel makes the
~ s',,on OF Judge Blacks letts,
g boomerang. NN ''''''
Oh IppO'e ~ nobody is quite or
p o. :" Imagine that Ind. o, q,