Press enter after choosing selection

Clear Case Of Perjury

Clear Case Of Perjury image
Parent Issue
Public Domain
OCR Text

Judge Black is General Garfield's witness, for on the only two public occasions when Garfield attempted to defend his corruption in the Credit Mobilier jobbery he put Judge Black on the witness stand. In 1873 Garlield paraded in a pamphlet he issued Judge Black' s letter to Speaker Blaine, in which he defended Garfield's share in the bribery on the plea of ignorance. Garfieldused this letter again ih a speech to his constituents at Warren, Ohio, September, 1874. This extract is f rom Judge Black' s letter to the N. Y. Sun. I will set down thoir substance and glve my reply to each one In the order you put them: I. Did I mnan in my letter toMr. Umi, General Garlield aeknowledfied the receipt of stock and dividends from Oakes Ames? Unnestionably he ajfroed to takc the stock, and did reeeive dividends npon it. The letter plainly hnplies that he had not concealed, nor tried to coneeal, that fact from him. But his admission was coupled with a statement which showed him to be guiltless. Judge Black here says, on the "admission" of Garfleld to him, that " unquestionably he (Garfield) aqreed to takc the Credit Mobilier stock and did reeeive dividends on tí." Now let us see what was Garfield's testimony before the Poland Committee. On January 14, 1873, he went publicly before the Committee and swore upon the Gospels: " I never owned, reoeived, or agreed to receive any stock of the Credit Mobilier, or of the Union Pacilic Railroad, nor any dividends or pronta arisiníf from any of them." If this don't make Garfield out a perjurer then there is no distinctioa ! tween truth and falsehood. But Judge Black says Garfield's "admissioi?' to him that he agreed to reeeive Credit-Mobilier stock and did ! reeeive dividends, was "coupled witlij a statement that showed hini to be guiltless." What was this statement? Gariield declared that at the time he I agreed to reeeive the stock and I ceived the dividends, he was ignorant of the connection between the Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific Railroad. This convinced Judge Black that Garfield was guiltless. But it was a lie! Of that there is conclusive proof in the debates of Confress. In Decfimber, 1867, when Ames egan to distribute his stock, E. B. ! Washburne of Illinois, ex-Minister to j France, and his brothcr, Governor l Washburne of Wisconsin, exposed the whole operations of the Credit Mobilier in the House of Representativos, and showed the magnitude of the swindlc, how it was to be consummated, and its i connection with the Union Pacific Railroad, just as it is now known. The I debate was on a resolution iatroduced by E. B. Washburne to reduce the rates of freight and passengers on the Pacific roads. Garfield was present in the House sturing these diseussions and ; participated in them. Everybody knew then that the directora of the Union i Pacific were contracting with i selves to build the road, and that the j franchise of the old Credit Mobilier Corporation had been purchased for that purpose. To suppose Garfield ignorant of a knowledge which was common at the time in the House and elsewhere, and that, too, whsn the whole business had been clearly exposed in several debates, wherein he had taken part and voted, is to insult ' public intelligenee. In what a pitiful plight this leaves Garlield. He not only perjured himself before the Poland Committee, but he deliberately lied to Judge Black and betraved that astuto lawyer into gross error as to his motives by an infamous deception of his own conlideutial adviser and friend. And this is the sort of candidate the Republicans have put up for President ? The chanees are that there will still bo another letter from Judge Black as soon as the Judge gets hold of the Congressi nil Olote of 1867-'68, proving ' that Gariield, a preliminary to his i jury before the Poland Committee, lied


Old News
Ann Arbor Democrat