The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1880-06-25

technically binding or not his integrity depended
| upon the question whether he acted wi IN his eyes
| open. II he had known the true character Of tha
| proposition made TO IN he would not have endure
| IL. much less embrace it,
Now, couple this with ,ir. Ame's admlssloi that
| ne gave no explanation whatever on the IN tar tn
proof exists to show that he learned anytime ahou
" previous! to his conversation with me and think
list of those who knowingly and wifuly Joined the
association % in question j.. BLACK
1.-THE Herald and the sun had any sense OF fair
they would let their read RS see this conyincnp
testimony OF lawyer distinguished for his acute,
ness In detecting gullt-inclpent or committed.
| JUDGE BLACK S LETTER is ONLY A CON-
| FEssIoN THAT GARFIELD COMMITTED
| PERJURY.
| From the Herald of June IS.
| Cur guileles republican contemporary, the
Etening Mail, printed in its leading editorial
column, yesterday, Judge Blacks letter ex-
culpating Mr. Garfield and subjoined at
the end. "lf the Herald had any sense of
fairness it would let its readers see this con-
vincing testimony of lawyer distinguished
for his acuteness in detecting guilt--incip
siderate and disco rteous in accusing the
Herald of a want of fairness. In questions
OF public interest we always practice the
fairness of giving both sides hearing in
our columns. We have not devated from
this rule il the case of Gen. Garfield We
could not ignore the accusations, because
they are part of the current history of the
day, but we have forborne to indorse them,
and have only insisted that they should
| be met and refuted
As to Judge Blacks exculpatory letter, we
are only half a day behind our jealous even
| ing contemporary in reproducing it. The
1Haf printed it last evening: we print it
this morning. We might, indeed, have
given it half day in advance of our
contemporary instead of half day behind,
but so slight difference as fraction of a
day affords no excuse for the discourtesy of
charging u3 with want of fairness Judge
Blacks letter came under our notice yester.
day, but it seemed so inadequate defence,
aud in some respects so damaging to Judge
Blacks client, that we preferred to wait
day in the hope that Gen. Garfield would ac-
cept the preferred courtesy of our columns
for defence which could not be 50 easily
riddled into shreds. We are confident that
MIR. Garfield could not make so lame an ar
gument for himself as Judge Black made for
his distinguished client. Our offer to give
Gen. Garfield all the space which he might
take for refnting the charges should have
exempted us from the hasty and unwarran-
ted imputation Of the Nail. The Herad
aims to treat everybody with justice In the
case of Gen. Garfield we have not only sup
pressed nothing which it would be for his
| advantage to publish, bat have Offered him
an acceptional opportunity for demonsra-
ting his innocence and putting his accusers
to shame.
We think it mistake for Gen. Garfields
friends to parade Judge Blacks letter as a
defensive document, 1t was written to serve
his client in most critical emergency, and
having tailed to accomplish its object then,it
is a boomerang now. Its date was Feb. 10,
lS7S-three days before the report of the Po
land committee. Although addressed to
Speaker Blaine, it was intended to influence
the committee and save Mr.. Garfield from
censure in its forthcoming report. AS often
happens to skillful lawyers, Judge Black
made an unsuccessful defense of his client.
To perceive the bearing of Judge Blacks
letter we must compare it with Mr.. Garfield's
sworn testimony before the committee on
which the charge of perjury is founded, jan
A. 1873, Mr.. Garfield sworn as follows
Mr.. Ames never offered TO give me any stock or
other valuatle thing as gift | once asked and OBJ
tained from him,and afterward repaid 10 him loan
OF $40. That amount is the only valuable thing
ever received from delivered TO him. l never
owned reeeiyeS or agreed TO receive any STOCK OF
road, nor any dividends or profits arising from eth
er OF them.
Judge Black virtually admits that this tes-
timony 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" connec.
tion. Garfield swore, most absolutely, that
he had never had anything whatever to do
with it, and the gst Of Blacks letter is to
show that, although he did have a connec-
tion with it, he did not understand its ma
ture. These two lines of defence are not
only distinct, but inconsistent IL Mr.. Gar
field told the truth when he swore that he
never had anything to do with the stock,
Judge Blacks attempt to show that his com
plicity was innocent, because he was ignorant
of the kind of transaction he was engaged |
in, is at least no vindcation of Mr.. Gar
fields sworn testimony. Judge Black said, |
81 believed that Gen. Garfield was free from |
all guilty connection with the business" +"
But his client had sworn that he had no
connection with it at all! 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
assert unhesiatlngly that, whatever Gen. Gar |
field may have done or forborne 10 do he acted In
profound ignorance OF the nature and character OF
the thing which Mr. Ames was proposing 10 SELL |
He had not the slightest suspicion that he 10 be
fraudng the public nor did he know that the stock
was In any way connected with anything which |
came, or could come within the legislative lnIis, |
scienter which alone constitutes guilt
What pertinence was there in pleading
that the client was ignorant of what he was
doing if it was true, as the client swore,
that he never had anything to do with the
stock in any way whatever Why set up
this elaborate ples Of ignorance (which is
the whole substance Of Counsel Blacks ex.