Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1880-11-19
Judge Davis on the MOrey Letter and
Its Author.


Kenward Philip, charged with criminal
libel on General Garfield:
In this state the lib erty OF speech and Of press
are declared, protected, and 10 some extent re-
strioted by the Constitution Of the State, and
i'm certain specified cases by statute. Under
these provisions, during the political canvass,
every person has n right to speak, write and
publish his sentiments and opinions, and to
discuss the character fitness, qualifications,
habits, opinions, defects, merits or lack OF
them, of any candidate for office in such form
and manner as to him shall seem prop
er, subject in law only to responsibility
for an abuse of that right. For such dis
cusslons the law sets up no standard Of
morality, taste, humanity, or decency, but
leaves those matters wholly to the censorship
or moral sense of the people, except that when
such writings or publications are libclous in
their character, and are not privileged, tho
publisher must be able, on criminal prosecu-
tion, to show to the jury not only that they are
true, but that they were published with good
motives and for justihable ends. But these
provisions will be searched in vain to find any
right to publish as genuine any false or forged
letter or instrument purporting to be the act
of another although he be candidate for Of
fee. In such case neither the forger nor the
publisher of the forgery is writing or publish
protection Of the Constitution, or discussing
any question within the range of his Lawful
rights and privileges. He is both avowedly
and in fact, putting forth to the community
as true the writing and act of another, and, If
the publication is injurious within the law of
libel he is bound in such case to know its
truth or to take the consequences of its falsi-
ty. In respect to the rorger, and of the pub
Usher with the knowledge of the forgery,
there is simply a casus omissus in the law of
felony which the conscences of all decent
people must recognize and legislation
should hasten to supply Unhappily, un-
der the present condition of the law,
such an act cannot be reached except as GRIM
inal libel, but | think it cannot be doubted
that If the contents of such forged letter be
such as to expose the alleged writer to censure
or injury, or public hatred, contempt, or ridi-
cule, or such as might reasonably provoke
him TO breach of tie peace, they will be
clearly libelOus and the venom of libel is only
the more poisonous because the forger has
put it into the mouth OF the party intended to
be injured. If there were no precedent, the
common law is elastic enough to cover and
redress such public wrong. In any view of
the guilt or Innocence of the accused in this
case the question of the forgery of the
/ letter is of vital importance, because
| first, if the accused actually wrote the
| letter and caused it 10 be published as gem
| uiue, those acts constitute libel for which he
! could be held TO trial; or, secondly, il he did
not write the letter and cause it to be pub
/ lished yet as he wrote and furnished TO the
newspaper the article entitled Lying and
! Sticking to It," in which, with the knowledge
| that General Garfield had denounced the let
| ter as a forgery, he reasserts its genuineness,
/ and declares General Garfield to be
"liar" for having denounced it, he must be
held to answer unless he has shown that in
fact the letter is genuine and that General
! Garfield is, therefore, liar in having denied
| it; and also show that he wrote and published
| the article calling him Il liar with good mo-
| tives and justitiable ends" 1t is settled that
| to call a man in public newspapers Il liar is
libelous.
The Judge here recites the facts of the
| case and reviews the evidence, and
says:
Collatins all the facts, wh ch are in no ma
! terial part contradicted or impugned, we are
| brought to discern with almost the highest
! degree of certainty that evidence can attain
! TINT the envelope in which the Morey
letter sis said to have been received was
never mailed stamped. sent and re-
! ceived through the Post-ofice but once; that
it was mailed that once in Washington on
some day later than the 18th of February, 1850,
and when the steel stamp was in use; that it
was received in New York and stamped in the
| receiving department on the l2th or I'D day of
the same MONTH IA those are the only dates of
which the figure ''2' can be the terminal num-
ber; thntit was sent to the station and deliver
TO the person to whom it was addressed, whose
name, beyond all doubt was not H. L.
| Morey," for in that case no erasure would
have been necessary; that this envelope
hng lnin oN1 dalf
| in New York, been taken and used by some
person bent on a criminal purpose, who erased
| thcrefrom the name of the person TO whom it
was originally addressed and delivered, and
every date of the month and day that would
clearly show when it was in fact mailed and re-
ceived, for the purpose of putting into it a let
ter antedated to day prior to the nomination
ofGeneral Garfield, and on which he was known
to have been in Washington; and that such per
son wrote or caused TO be written thereon the
address, H. L. Morey Lynn, Mass" for the
purposeof deceivinE the publisher of the news
paper TO whom it might be delivered into the
belief that the letter it should inclose was the
| genuine letter of j. A. Garfield. Doubtless IL
was not supposed that the envelope would be
the subject of much scrutiny. The letter it.
self was the great subject of his thoughts, and
the envelope, he probably presumed, having
served its purpose, would fall unheeded into
the publishers waste-basket.
All the facts above enumerated, which dis
close so clearly the character of this envelope
bear with no less force upon the question, Is
the letter Il forgery2 1t is next to impossible
that they can be true and the letter be gen
uine; but they are reinforced by other facts
which remove from my mind the last shadow
of doubt. There was no such person as
"John w, GOOdall, of Lynn, Mass" by whom
the letter which accompanied the Morey
letter to Mr.. Hart purports to have
been written. II is proved most clearly
that no such person as II. L. Morey, rs being
the person to whom the letter purp0rts
to be addressed, ever existed. The experts on
both sides agree that the Morey letter, both in
body and signature was written by the same
hand, some of them declaring there can be nc
doubt about it. An examination of the letter
itself shows this fact TO every person who is
free from obliquity of vision or perversion OF
Judgment.
Mr.. Hewitts connection with this letter, anC
the transactions that have grown out of il, arc
TO say the least, of the most extraordinary
character. According 10 the testimony of Mr.
Hart, when he HART received the letter. tn,
very singular manner in which it reached hin
aroused his suspicious. He saw its impor
lance, if genuine, as a weapon of deadly pOwe
in the hands of Garfeld's political foes. Ht
|
nation which he and his editorial staff ooulC
make, and therefore took the letter ant
envelope to the Democratic Nationa
Committee for inspection He there saw
Mr.. Hewitt, Mr.. Barnum, Mr.. Ran
dali and several others. Mr.. Hart SHOWED
them the papers, and said, in substance, tina
he did not want TO publish the letter If &
was forgery, but il genuine he did ant
wanted no other paper to get ahead of hin
in its publication. He says it was examines
by all the persons named, but Mr.. Hewitt
made the closest and most careful eXamina
ton, and spent fully half AN hour in its eX
animation, and then pronounced the letter
both the body and signature, 10 be In tn
handwriting OF General Garfield. Photo
graphs were then taken for the use of tn
National Committee, and Mr.. Hart rcturne'
with the letter 10 his Office. But his mind wa
not fully satisfied, and so, late in the evening
he sought and found Mr. Hewitt again
and was again assured. Hewitt had ex
! anH la.a q