Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-10-22

=
re Philadelphia Press having pub
11Aed . statement that Controller Hirst
~ oommitted forgery, the Philadelphia
zumss followed after with detailed
1totement OF the transaction, which 1t
40 denominates forgery, and now Mr..
HiEst comes forward with an explana.
Nm Of the matter. II seems from all
1heso authorities that Senator Joseph Z.
Eounedy started the story. Mr.. james b.
ENttison, whose name Is alleged to have
hoon forged by Mr.. Hirst to two notes,
~ for $50 and one for $l25, 1t appears
eosides with Mr.. Kennedy. Senator
Kennedy communicated the charge to
Col. Mcclure, Of the Times, who sent for
NJ. Hirst and confronted him with Ken
nedy. Mr.. Hirst explained that he had
signed the notes with Pattison's name
II the absence of the latter from the
city, they being renewals OF
IKE notes then coming due, and
he, Hirst, considering that he had
PAttison's authority to sign his name
10 their renewal and do anything needful
30 protect the originals and save them
from protest. Col. Mcclure and Sena-
TOR Kennedy did not accept the explana
tion rs satisfactory, and demanded Mr..
Hirst's withdrawal from the ticket on
pain of exposure in the Times. He was,
however, given day or two to consider
what his action would be.
He determined, on the advice of his
friends, that he would not withdraw, as
that would be u confession Of guilt
Gov. Pattison is understood to have thus
advised him.
It was eminently good advice, for Mr.
Hirst's sake. No innocent man would
withdraw from candidacy under threat
OF exposure of his deeds.
Is Mr.. Hirst innocent ? The facts in
the case are few and simple. The act
charged Is admitted. The question is
with what intention it was dore. Were
the notes fraudulently made, or was Mr..
Hirst authorized TO do what he did.
This is the only question involved in the
decision as to his guilt or innocence.
1t would seem to be fairly determined
In his favor by the fact that Mr.. Patti
son, the person who is supposed to have
been wronged, has written to Mr.. Hirst
declaring THAI he did not wrong him by
his act, which Mr.. Hirst was fully war
ranted in doing by their personal rela-
tions and understandings.
That letter was submitted to Col. Nc
Clure, and seems then to have satisfied
him, az he did not make the Threatened
publication, and Mr. Hirst says that III
shook hands with him at parting ant
gave him the impression that he believed
him innocent. Certainly Col. Mcclure
had sufficient reason to accept Mr.. Hirs'
and Mr.. Pattison's statement as con
elusive in the matter. He is a lawyel
and knows that it is not forgery to sigI
another mans name TO a paper. Forger.
is defined TO be 4" the fraudulent maxim,
and alteration of a writing to I'll
prejudice of another mans right :
and again. as "a making, wit
evil intent, of any written instru
ment for the purpose of fraud and de
ceit.'
Neither OF these definitions say any
thing about signing another mans name
or call that forgery. 1t is the fraud
ulent writing that makes the offense. L
Is necessary that it should be done will
evil intent for auother's hurt. Now il
this case the party charged to have been
hn nd xgh
Knows better He further says that Mr.
Hirst was warranted in writing his name
as he did and Mr.. Hirst says he wrote
it with that impression, without intent
to injure Pattison, or to do anything that
he did not believe himself authorized Il
do. Now who knows about these inten
tioDs and this warrant better than Mr
Pattison and Mr.. Hirst ? Who stand:
ready to contradict them ? No one il
the world can do it.
The case goes before the jury, who arr
the people, AS it stands demanding thei
acquittal and demanding from then
more I; demanding reparation to Mr.
Hirst in his election. This charge ha
been made against him by the Republi
can organ, the Press, to defeat him. /
1t Is true, and the people think hin
guilty, he will deservedly be beaten
But II it is false the boomerang should
recoil ON its authors in Mr.. Hirst'I
triumphant election.
Col. Mcclure with the Philadelphii
Times, has followed along at the tail o
the Press, in support of its charge We
do not believe that he has done it mali
ciously, as Mr.. Hirst charges, but simpl,
through an error of Judgment, such a.
be Is apt to be betrayed into. lie pro.
badly considered that the people woult
hold Mr.. Hirst's act to be forgery, an(
he possibly was rusty enough in hi
law to think that they might be justified
In doing so. He has no prejudic,
in favor of Mr.. Hirst, or Gov
ernor Pattison, his friend, and s.
naturally drifted into that con
demnation of him which it appeare
likely would be the popular verdict
Col. Mcclure would have done himsel
more credit ii he had controlled hi
prejudIces sufficiently to be entirely jus
to Mr.. Hirst, and to weigh the evidenc
in his case as it would be weighed in th
scales of court of justice by whic
he never could be condemned. If Co
Mcclure has ,,ayer written the mama n