Morning journal and courier., 1891-07-30

On the contrary, the letter carefully de-
fends most of them from such charges
We think the developments since the pub
ication of the letter show that they did
act in good faith. Mr.. Greene acted con-
sistently from the beginning. He acted
upon legal advice which to US seems to
have been highly technical, but he seems
to have adopted in good faith the opinion
that the burden of proof was upon
DR.. Alsop and Mr.. Phelan and Mr..
Sanger to show that the reject
ed ballots were properly rejected,
or, if improperly rejected, that they were
not cast against them. If lawyer hon
estly holds such views of the rule that
should prevail in such cases, no one will
feel disposed to charge him with bad
faith or dishonesty. Therefore, Mr..
Greene is certainly acquitted of such
charges, and there is nothing in the letter
of Mr.. Harrison which makes any such
complaint of him. Mr.. Judson and Mr.
Tuttle have explained clearly the reason
why they signed the report, to wit: That
it was understood by them that the
House would carry on by its own
committee the investigation, and would
treat the minor officials fairly. That ex-
PLANTATION relieves them of all charge of
bad faith. The only person who is charged
with bad faith in the letter is Mr.. Porter,
who is told in relation to the change that
was made, that he, Porter, held very diff
ferent views until the evening of January
81, and he is told that he knew better, and
that in his case it was an offence
against light. But in another portion of
the letter Mr.. Harrison relieves Mr.. Por-
ter of the charge of dishonesty, for this
language is used:
'eYou are quite disposed to question
motives. 1t is of no consequence to
the injured parties if the effect of what
you do is wrong whether your motives
are good OF bad. For most men it would
have been dishonest to have taken the
course which you have followed"
This seems to us plain intimation to
Mr.. Porter that it is very possible his mo-
tives might have been good, but that good
motives do not avert the consequences to
the injured parties, if the effect of the ac-
ton is wrong. For some men, that is, for
men of large experience and legal training,
it might have been dishonest to have
agreed to a material change in the report
without further evidence, but Mr.. Porter
is young man, not a lawyer, impression
able, somewhat easily Influenced, and with
a disposition to accommodate people, and
it seems to us that his action was the re-
suit of inexperience and good nature, rath-
er than dishonesty. Certainly no such
direct charge is made in the letter.
This seems to dispose of the charges
against the Republican members of the
House collectively and individually. The
letter contained no charge against Gov
ernor Bulkeley, or any other individual,
and it is not probable his name would
have come into the controversy if some of
his friends had not injudiciously asserted
that Governor Bulkeley knew nothing
about it and was not responsible. If DR..
Alsop, Mr.. Phelan and Mr.. Sanger were
not elected, and the report and its facts
are all right, then no man needs defence
for having changed, by influence or other
wise, the report of January 81. If they
were elected and have been unwisely kept
out of their offices, then the vital question
is not who did it or why it was done, but
how can the wrong be best remedied. This
is the practical question to which the at
tention of the public is directed.