The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1880-07-06
IRREFUTABLE TESTIMONY.
Ex-Attorney General Jere. e. Black
Acquits Garfield of Completely in
the Credit MObilier Swindle.
From the N. Y. Evening MALL

VINO uaS COuStttutiOunl udttcu VI ail
public officials who show the slightest
tendency toward corruption, it is Judge
Jeremiah s. Black, Democrat Of Dem
ocrats. With full knowledge, after thor
ongh Investigation, he wrote the follow
ing letter, which we commend to the
careful study OF all intelligent and disin-
terested readers:
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. Is, 1873,
Mr. DsaR SrR:t From the beginning of
the investigation concerning Mr.. Amps'
use of the Credit Mobilier, I believed
that Mr.. Garfield was free from all guilty
connection with that business. This
opinion was founded not merely on my
conf lence in his integrity, but on some
special kno owledge of his case. may
have told you all about it in converse
ton, but l desire now to repeat it by way
of reminder.
/ assert unhesitatingly that, whatever
Gen. Garfield may have done or forborne
to do he acted in profound ignorance Of
the nature and character of the thing
which Mr. Ames was proposing to sell.
He had not the slightest suspicion that
he was to DO taken into ring organized
for the purpose of defrauding the public,
nor did he know that the stock was in
any way connected with anything which
came or could come within the legisla-
tive jurisdiction of Congress. The case
against him lacks the scieater, which alone
constitutes guilt.
In the winter of 1S69-70 told Gen.
Garfield of the fact that his name was on
Ames' list; that Ames charged him with
being one of his distributes explained
to him the characte-, origin and objects
Of the Credit Mo5ilier; pointed out the
connection it hal with Congressional
legislation, and showed him how impos-
sible it was for member of Congress to
bold stock in it without bringing his pri-
vate interests in conflict with his public
duty. That all this to HIM was per.
fectly new revelation am as sure as /
can be of such fact, or of any fnct
which is capable Of being proved only
by moral circumstances. He told me
then the whole story of Trains offer to
him and Ames' subsequent solicitation
and his own action in the premises much
as he details it to the committee. do
not undertake to reproduce the CONVEX
satien, but the effect Of it all was to con-
vince me thoroughly that when he lis
tened to Ames he was perfectly uncon-
scious of any thing evil. / watched care
fully every word that fell from him on
this point, and did not regard his narra-
tive of the transaction in any other re-
snect with much interest, because in my
view everything else was insignificant. /
did not care whether he made bare ain
technically binding or not; his integrity
depended upon the question whether he
acted with his eyes open. If he bad
known the true character of the propo
sition made to him he would not have
endured it much less embraced it.
Now couple this with Mr.. Ames' ad
mission that he gave no explanation
whatever of the matter to Gen. Garfield.
then reflect that not particle of proof
exists to show that he learned anything
about it previous to his conversation
with me, and think you will say that it
is altogether unjust to put him on the list
of those who knowingly and wilfully
Joined the fraudulent association in ques-
tion. j S. BLACK.
Hon. J. G. Blaine, Speaker of the House
OF Representatives.
COMMENTS OF TEE N. Z. HERALD.
To perceive the bearing of Judge
Blacks letter we must compare it With
Mr.. Gar6eld's sworn testimony before
the committee on which the charge oil
perjury is founded January IA, 1873,
Mr.. Garfield swore as follows:
Mr.. Ames never gave nor offered to give me
any stock or other valuable thing as gift. I
once asked and obtained from him, and after
ward repaid to him. loan of $500; that
amount is the only valuable thing ever re-
ceived from or delivered to him. never owned
received. or agree d to receive any stock of the
Credit Mobilier or of the Union Pacific Rail-
road. nor any dividends or profits arising from
either of them.
Judge Black virtually admits that this
testimony was not true. Mr.. Garfield
swore that he never had any connection
with the Credit Mobilier stock; Judge
Black merely contends that he had no
"guilty" connection. Garfield swore,
most absolutely, that he had never had
anything whatever to do with it, and the
gist of Blacks letter Is to show that al
though he did have connection with it
he did not understand its nature. These
two lines of defense are not only distinct.
but inconsistent II Mr.. Garfield told
the truth when he sWore that he had
never had ANYTHING to do with the stock
Judge Blacks attempt to show that his
completely was innocent because be was
ignorant of the kind of transaction be
was engaged in at least no vindication OF
Mr.. Gar6eld's sworn testimony. Judge
Black said, 81 believed that Gen Garfield
was free from all guilty connection with
that business. But his client had sworn
that he had no connection with it, "guil-
ty" or otherwise. Why express belief
that he had "no guilty connection" if, as
the client swore, he had no connection
with it at all3 Judge Blacks reasoning
to prove that the connection was not
guilty is inconsistent with the oath of his
client. The following paragraph of the
counsel's letter is suggestive:
I assert, unhesitatingly that, whatever Gen.
Garfield may have done or forbore to do, he
acted in profound ignorance of the nature and
character of the thing which Mr.. Ames was
to sell. He had not the slightest
suspicion that he was to be taken into ring
organized for the purpose Of defrauding the
public, nor did be know that the stock was in
any way connected with any thing which came,
or could come, within the Legislative jurisdic-
tion of Congress. The case against him lacks
the scienter which alone constitutes guilt.
What pertinence was there in pleading
that the client was ignorant OF what be
was doing il it was true, as the client
swore, thatshe never had anything to do
with the stock in any way whatever ?
Why set up this elaborate plea of igno-
rance which is the whole substance of
Counsel Blacks exculpation) il his client
had sworn truly that he had never had
any sort of connection with the Credit
Mobilier stock2 There is an irreconcil-
able inconsistency between Judge Blacks
letter aud Mr.. Garfeld's testimony be-
fore the Poland Committee. If he had