Year: 1878

The testimony given before the Potter Com
mittee on Saturday will undoubtedly interest
and impress the country. The story in brief
is this: The man who made the protest against
the returns from East Feliciana, and who has
since sworn to the correctness of his action,
testlfes that he was bribed to do this by the
promise of a suitable office that he again and
again demanded this office, but was not salts
fed with the places offered that he finally
lost his temper, denounced the monumental
fraud in the White House, and gave notice
that he was going over to the other side. In
pursuance of that threat he now declares that
East Feliciana and the whole State were law
fully carried by the Democrats, and attempts
to corroborate his new story by some quite
interesting correspondence.


So the first and chief witness in the Demo
cratic packed investigation proves to be con-
fessed perjurer That Anderson offered to
both parties to sell his official oath appears


from his own testimony. This alone would
discredit his evidence, even If he had not sworn
that what he swOre last year was false. 1t
is no wonder that Mr.. Morrison says,


what other Democrats doubtless perceive,
| that the evidence of such a witness is


worthless, excepting as it may be cor


rOborated. 1t is far to add that


the Democrats surely would not have chosen


worthless witness to lead off in a grave
| investigation, if they had been able to pro-
duce better. Their difficulty was that the
| documents which might be used as evidence
by them were of such a nature that they
might have been written i'll utter igno-
rance of any improper act or intent on
the part of Anderson. To show that he


was guilty of wrong acts which were known
to Secretary Sherman, some evidence was


wanted, and the confessed perjurer is produced


because no other evidence of that nature
could be found. Thus far the whole charge
against Secretary Sherman turns upon his
| knowledge of AndersOn's acts; and when
he swears one thing while Anderson
swears the contrary, at the same time
proving himself periurer, no jury would hesl-
tate which to believe. Even if Mr.. Sherman
were the humblest citizen in the land, and


person of no established character, his word
would be worth as much as that of Anderson,
| if the latter had not impeached himself under
| oath. For the testimony of q man who offers
to sell his official certificate is necessarily
worthless. A man of no known character


would be believed sooner than a man of known
| bad character


Counting the assertions of Anderson, in re-
gard to Mr.. Sherman's knowledge of his con-
duct, as entirely worthless, there is as yet not
a scrap of evidence that Mr.. Sherman advised
OF desired him to commit any fraud. The let
ter said to be his is in every word
consistent with a firm belief that the
official protest was true, and that the
only danger was that retraction might be ex-
torted by threats. If the Democrats have any
evidence whatever to the contrary, they are
| doing themselves and their case great injus-


tice in not producing that evidence, IN
stead of tho worthless assertions of Ander-
son. There is the strongest possible presump-
ton, however, that such q man as Mr.. Sher-
man is known to be, experienced, shrewd
and wary even to the verge of fault,
would not have written letter en-
couraging a fraud if he had known
that one had been committed. Thus
far, therefore, it does not seem OF the
slightest consequence whether Mr.. Sherman
did OF did not write the precise words which
appear in the pretended copy of copy pro-
duced by Anderson. His scrupulously care
full testimony that, though he should have
been willing to write much that appears in
the letter produced, he does not believe upon
his oath that he ever wrote that letter, will
therefore have the greater weight.


If it be true, as Anderson asserts, that his
character and the forgery Of the returns were
known to Senator Matthews, 1t will be great
surprise to those who have the longest known