The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-11-18
HEWITT TALKS BACK.


AbrAm s. Hewitt makes a reply to- the opinion
Of Judge Davis in the Philip case, In so far as it
relates to himself. Hewitt says the Judge who
sits upon the bench is supposed to know the evi.
dence which has been given by witness. Ger.
tainly he should examine 1t before he undertakes
to make statements RS to Its nature and to draw
conclusions from 1t. That Judge Davis has not
performed this duty, the following comparison of
his statement With The testimony will serve to
prove. A passage is quoted from the opinion, in
which 1t is made to appear that the Morey letter
was not published until after MI, Hart had tick
amined by Hewitt.
Mr.. Hewitt makes this rejoinder: Now the
simple and unanswerable reply to all this state
ment and the extraordinary comments In which
Judge Davis has seen fit to indulge, is that the
letter had already been published in Truth before
l had seen Mr. Hart, or the original letter or any
copy Of 1t. This fact Judge Davis must have
known when he peDned the above lines, because
had sworn in his presence, and after cross ex
animation by Mr. StOughton, in which Mr. Bliss
inteTvened to verify the dates, that the interview
with Mr. Halt aud the examination Of the letter
took place on the Goth Of October, after the pub
lcation in TRUTH and not before. do not know
whether Mr. Hart made mistake in his testimo'
ny as to the date but II he did there is no possible
Justification for Judge Davis to base a statement
on this mistake In order to attack from the bench
the character Of a citlz9n after the date had been
fixed beyond the possibility Of all controversy
While writing this statement sent messenger
to Mr. Hart to ascertain whether he had ever
made any declaration at variance with the facts
orT 7 hoy, cd Mr. Hart Fnnlipg he
said testified or thought that Mr.. Hewitt or any
one connected with the National Committee saw
the letter In advance of the publication Of the
text Of the letter in Truth on the 20th OF October.
never pronounced the body and signature Of
the letter to be In the handwriting Of General
Garfield. On the contrary, In the presence Of Mr.,
Hart and all the gentlemen present, declared
the body Of the letter not to be In the handwri'
ting OF General Garfield, but that believed the
signature to be his autograph. AS 10 the second
interview In the evening, 1t took place after my
speech at ChickeriDg Hall, when was exhP listed
and took no further part In the discussion but to
resfirm my belief in the genuinenesS Of the sig.
nature did not tell Mr., Hart that would have
made it a forgery II could, nor has he or any
one else testified that ever used the expression
To Judge Davis's assertion that Hewitt went on
with his associates scattering forgery broadcast
throughout the country Hewitt replies, $50 far
ab am concerned. 1t would perhaps be sufficient
answer to say that never circulated any ltho.
graphs or fac sinies of that kind, but in order to
show with what reckless eagerness the charge is
made state that am assured by the person who
did send out fac Sin,iyeS that Only first or accu
rate ones were circulated and that second or
amended fac Similes were only published in the
Truth over which 1t 10 not pretended the Com
mittee has any control. l iorbear to make any
commentary whatever upon the extraordinary
character Of the opinion pronounced by Judge
Davis. 1t is enough for me to point out that the
foundation upon which he has built up his at
tack upon my character is false in fact and with
this demonstration the corsequences can only be
damaging to himself was prepared for this
attack by the evidently prearranged preliminary
statement Of Mr.. stoughtOn in the Tines of yes.
terday, aud am now forced to believe that
there is a concerted scheme to attempt to break
me down in this community wheIe l have lived
for lty years, and to which can more safely
trust for just judgment than to Judge OF the
Supreme Court who iorgets that when he becomes
a Judge he should cease to be partisan.