The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1880-11-19
/ reply to Judge Davis opinion. He says

in reply to Judge Davis opinion. He says
supposed to know the evidence which has
been given by witness. Certainly he should
examine it before he undertakes to make
statements rs to its nature and to draw con
cusions from it. Judge Davis has not per-
formed BIS duty Mr.. Hewitt then quotes
thatportion of the opinion given above which
refers to himself and says
Now, the simple and unanswerable reply
to all this statement and the extraordinary
comments in which Judge Davis has seen fit
to indulge in that the letter had already been
in Truth before had ever see Mr. Hart or
the original letter or any copy Of it This
fact Judge Davis must have known when
he penned the above lines because | had
sworn in his presence and after cross-exam
ination ofMr. Stoughton, in which Mr.. Bliss
intervened to verify the dates, that the in-
terview with Mr.. Hart and the examination
of the letter took place on the 10th OF Octo.
Der. after its publiration in Truth and not
before. | do not know whether Mr.. Hart
made a mistake in his testimony as to the
date, but if he did there is no possible JUS
tihcation for judge Davis to base a state
ment on this mistake in order to attsc6 from
the bench the character OF a citizen alter the
date had been fixed beyond the possibility of
all controversy.
While writing this statement / sent a
messenger to Mr. Hart to ascertain whether
he had ever made any declaration at variance
with the facts as have stated them. Mr..
Hart replies that he "never said, testified or
thought that Mr.. Hewitt or any one connec-
ted with the national committee saw the let
ter in advance ofth publication OF the text
of the letter in Truth on the 10th day of
October" Now as to the minor assertions
contained in the above extract. | 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 handwriting Of General Garfield, but that
| bsli sved the signature to be his autograph
do not think that Mr.. Hart has given any
testimony to the contrary, but il he has it is
an error, which can be shown by the testimo-
ny of all the gentlemen who were present. AZ
to the second interY lew in the evening, il took
place after my speech at Chickering Hall
| when was exhausted and took no Other
part in the discussion but to reatlirm my be
| lief in the genuineness of the signature.
did not tell Mr.. Hart that III would have
made it forgery if could" nor has he oil
| any one else testified that ever used this
expression. With this statement | leave i
to the public to Judge how utterly loose il
Judge Davis judgment.
fcrbear to make any commentary what
ever upon the extraordinary character of the
| opinion pronounced by Judge Davis. 1t IL
enough for me to point out that the founda.
tiou upon which he has built up the attack
upon my character is false in fact and with
this demonstration the consequences car
only be damaging to himself
In commenting on this case, the Philadel
phia Times says:
"lf the Morey letter was not written b!
General Garfield, and pretty much every
body new believes that it was a forgery
the language used by Judge Davis in re
gard to the gravity of the otfense is non'
too severe. There have been foigeries ai
tecting greater interests, perhaps, but nom
more deserving OF public as well as judicia
condemnation. Judge Davis, however, goe
to the extent of superservceab lie partisanr.
in attacking-we might almost say abusing
Mr.. Heweitt, whose good name was in nj
way compromised by the record OF the cas-,
in which this decision was rendered. MI
| Hewitt, like many others well acquain,e,
with General Garfield's handwriting, ant
knowing that the sentiments expressed il
the letter were those entertained Dy him
believed it to be genuine until General Gar
field denied it, and after the denial ,efran
ed from expressing any opinion on the sub
ject. 1t was not to be expected that on
| casual examination he should take IN al
| the fine points as to the crcu instances unde
which the letter was found, the envelope
post.mark and all those things which thor
ough investigation has impressed upon tn,
mind of Judge Davis, and the latters de
nuncistion of man whose reputation j
equal to his own for all that goes to max,
up good character is therefore gratuitous ant
to those who know both parties suggest
malice. As to the Philip case, to which thu
Judge seems to have paid little attention il
his decision, those who have followed tn,
testimony will not sgree that there is any
reason TO hold Philip on the charge of for
gerry, but to send him on for trial on tn,
charge of criminal libel was certainly justi
fable. 1t is doubtful whether we shall evel
find out who wrote that letter. but if we dc
there will be no danger that the for
ger will escape Justice.