St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-03-29
GARFIELD'S MOREY LETTER.
John I Davenport Declares That it
Was Not Forgery"
After Spending Years Of Labor and Fortune
in Money He Abandons the Hunt for
Morey, the Mythical FOrger.

MOrey, Uuc MyGnlcdl pOrSer.
In the presidential campaign of 1880, and
not many days before the election, the Re
publicans of this city and of the whole coun-
try were Mortified by the publication in
Truth of a so-caled fac smile of a letter from
General James A. Garfield to Mr.. Henry L.
Morey, in which the Republican candidate
took strong ground in favor of Chinese labor.
General Garfeld's denial, which was some
what tartly, considering the gravity of the
charges against him, satisfied the leaders of
his party apparently that the letter was for
gerry, and search for the forger was begun
forthwith, and lasted until long after the
election of Garfield had rendered the solu-
ton of the mystery practically useless Ken
ward Philip, one of the editorial writers for
Truth, was arrested, and several others were
suspected; but the search amounted to moth
ing, and to-day the unsettled question is,
''who wrote the Morey letter?"
Early in kthe Morey excitement John l
Davenport was delegated by the leaders of
the party to take charge of the search for the
forger. He worked earnestly for a long time
but his labors failed of any satisfactory result.
Now, when the question is nearly four years
old, Mr.. Davenport, who has presumably
spent all the funds appropriated for the dis
covery of the forger, comes out with the fol-
lowing document:
New YORK, March Is, 1884.
To the members of the legislatures of the
several states:
GENTLEMEN-You will all recall the forgery
perpetrated upon General Garfield during the
last presidential campaign, in letter pur-
porting to have been written by him to one
Henry L. Morey. Early in the investigation
respecting that letter, it was found that in
most, if not all, of the states of the Union
the forgery of General Gartield's name to that
letter was not forgery in law, and that those
connected Herewith could only be punished, if
at all, for a criminal libel. l have, therefore,
prepared short bill making offenses of the
character committed in $780, in connection
with the Morey letter, forgeries, and provid-
ing for their punishment, and take this
means of directing your attention to the OBJ
ject sought to be accomplished, viz. the fu-
ture prevention and punishment of offenses
similar to those by which, in 1880, the at
tempt was made to elect president of the
United States. The bill which follows, I have
carefully considered, and it has been approved
by many prominent members of the New
York bar, to whom l have submitted it,
among whom may be mentioned Francis n.
Bangs, Esq, late president of he association
of the bar in this city; Elihu Root, Esq,
United States district attorney; Hon. Daniel
G. Rollins, late district attorney and present
surrogate of the county of New York; Colonel
George Bliss, late United States attorney, and
Henry C. Gardiner and George w. Lyon,
Esqs.:
An Act declaring certain acts to be forgeries,
and providing for their punishment.
Section 1. Every person who with intent
to injure or defraud, shall falsely make, alter,
forge or counterfeit, or shall cause, aid, abet,
assist or otherwise connive at, or be a party
to the making, altering, forging or counter
feiting of any letter, telegram, report or other
written communication, paper orinstrument,
by which making, altering, forging or coun-
terfeiting any other person shall be in any
manner injured in his good name, standing,
position or general reputation, shall be ad-
judged guilty of forgery, and upon convic-
ton shall be punished by fine of not less
than $500, or Imprisonment for not more
than three years, or both.
Sec. 2. Every person who shall utter, or
shall cause, aid, abet or otherwise connive at,
or be party to the uttering of any letter,
telegram, report or other written communi-
cation, paper or instrument, purporting to
have been written or signed by another per-
son, or any paper purporting to be a copy
of any such paper or writing where no orig
inal existed, which said letter, telegram, re-
port or other written communication, paper
or instrument, or paper purporting to be a
copy thereof, as aforesaid, the person utter
ing the same shall know to be false, forged
or counterfeited, and by the uttering of which
the sentiments, opinions, conduct character,
prospects, interests or rights of other persons
shall be misrepresented or otherwise injuri-
ously affected, shall be adjudged guilty of a
forgery, and upon conviction shall be pun
ished by fine of not less than $500, or i'm
prsonment for not more than three years, or
both.
Sec. 3. This act shall take effect imme-
diately.
Very respectfully yours,
JOHN L DAVENPORT.
An effort to find Mr.. Davenport yesterday
at his office was unavailing. Mr.. Josh Hart
of Truth was found in his Office. When his
attention was called to Mr.. Dayenport's cir
eular, he said:
ooh, yes; saw a copy of that this morn
ing"
Doyou know what amount of money
was spent in the search for the forger, OF
from what appropriation the money was TAX
en?"
''No, don't. heard, not long, ago, that
Marshall Jewell, Chester A. Arthur and other
leading Republicans formed pool by contri-
buttons to trace the crime to its source, but
do not know how much was contributed,
or what was done with it. Do 1 think the
money came out of the secret service funds
Why should 1? I tell you I know nothing
about it.''
"What do you think of the bill Mr.. Daven-
port proposes?'
II think it is good bill and that it ought
to pass. The responsibility for. things like
the Morey letter ought to be fixed on some
body, and the sooner it is done the BETTER
said Josh with a grin.
1t is estimated that the cost of Mr.. Daven-
ports little investigation was anywhere from
$40, 900 to $40, 900, as he employed detectives
and experts without limit. He leaves the
mystery as deepas it was four years ago.
Queen Sophia Charlotte.
Sophia Charlotte Frederick's second wife,