Glass JL l^Ss-O 
 
GARFIELD IN LOUISIANA 
 
 The r)lsrPY>v'ahle Part talen by the BepuUican Candidate 
 
 for President in the Great Fraud of 1876. • 
 
 . '~7d//:>^ 
 
 . — OF — 
 
 EA-GOV. T. A. HENDRIG 
 
 Indianapolis, Sept. 6, 1880. 
 
 Gen. Garfield Convicted by his Own Testimony of being one 
 of the Chief Conspirators in the Great Grime that 
 
 Bobbed the People of their Lecjally . . ,, . , 
 
 Chosen President. '■'•'. :./''"'' 
 
 A RECORD OF HYPOCRISY AND SHAME! 
 

 The following is the text of the speech 
 delivered at Indianopolis, by ex- Gov. 
 Hendricks, Monday night, Sept. Gth,18H(), 
 a speech that produces the complete evij| 
 denceiof facts^that cast lasting disgrace 
 on James A. Garfield: » 
 
 My Fellow- Citizens: When I ate 
 my breakfast, this morning, I had no 
 thought of addressing my fellow-dem- 
 ocrats and other citizens,"]; of the city of 
 Indianapolis this evening. But, on 
 reading the Indianapolis JoiU'nal, I 
 found that the proprietor of that pa- 
 per had called my personal veracity 
 in question. I have nothing to say to 
 the subordinate writer of that paper. 
 I choose to hold the proprietor of that 
 paper responsible for Avhat ai3i3ears in 
 it. What I shall say to-uight will be 
 mainly in reply to that article. I shall 
 expect the owner of that paper, with 
 whom I am on personal good terms, to 
 be the gentleman to-morrow morning 
 to see to it that this reply is as fully 
 reported in that paper for his readers, 
 as his cahimny of this morning was. 
 I shall see that a copy of n>y remarks 
 which I submit to you are presented to 
 that paper for publication. I now 
 challenge, before the citizens of this 
 great city who support that paper, that 
 it shall appear. A mouth nearly ago 
 I made a speech at Marion, in tliis 
 state, and in the course of that speech 
 I spoke of the very questionable con- 
 nection that James A. Garfield, the 
 candidate of the republican party, had 
 with the great presidential fraud of 
 1876-7. I spoke of his connection as one 
 double in its character, and worse 
 than that of any other man now living. 
 I spoke of him in connection witli the 
 preparation of the case at New Orleans 
 for his party, and in connection with 
 the fraudulent examination of it at 
 Washington; and in that double respect 
 I considered him more responsible for 
 the great outrage upon the American 
 ballot than any other living man. ^Jay 
 I call your attention very briefly to the 
 article as it appeared .iij.^he Journal: 
 
 ity 9f law," as if any law were necessary to 
 authorize a man to no to New Orleans, and that 
 while there he took charge of the returns from 
 West Feliciana parish, and 'in one of the inner 
 rooms of Packard's custom-house,' manipu- 
 lated the returns, and prepared affidavits and 
 inteiToaatories to make out a case. If this 
 could be substantiated, Gen. Gartiekl would be 
 dis^n-aced. Unless Mr. Hendricks can sub- 
 stantiate the charge he is disgraced. He 
 offered no proof of the charge in his Marion 
 speech, and has offered none since. He can- 
 not produce any. The charge is unsupported 
 by any evidence worthy of belief. On this 
 point we call attention to the following letter, 
 which we Lave just received from D. J. M. A 
 .Tewett, formerly of New Orleans, now of 
 White Oaks, N.M." 
 
 Mr flohdricks in Iiis« cnjening speech of the 
 carQiJaigti at.' Maridil, Msed '. the f ollowlnji lan- 
 guuge icfvrr.iig to liivnomination : 
 
 Then follows an abstract of my speech 
 that I ma<3e,- , ' : •*• 
 
 ; "Thesis a specific chaf^eKjf corruption against 
 GeE. Garfield. As'suniing', t'crfjegin -with, that the 
 election of Hayes was fraudulent, an assump- 
 tion which, as a lawyer, Mr. Hendricks must 
 know is not only unwarrantable but false, he 
 asserts that Gen. Gartiekl 'had more to do with 
 it than any other man.' Proceeding to specify, 
 Mr. Hendricks asserts that Gen. Garfield' went 
 to New Orleans as a partisan, 'without autlior- 
 
 If I don't this evening substantiate 
 every material charge I will ask no man 
 to vote against James A. Garfield. What 
 did I say, gentlemen? I said that Gar- 
 tiekl went to New Orleans immediately 
 after the election four years ago; that he 
 participated in manipulating the evi- 
 dence and preparing the case for the 
 returning board, and that, upon the 
 evidence which he and others thus pre- 
 pared, the returning board made a re- 
 turn against the meu that were elected 
 for the men that were not elected —that 
 is the charge. I wish to dispose of one 
 witness that The Journal introduces 
 first, and I will not occupy much of your 
 time in that task. His name is D. J. M. 
 A. Jewett. He writes a letter from 
 New Mexico. My speech was made 
 here in the central part of Indiana 
 a good while ago. and no response is 
 made ujjon any of these questions by 
 the Journal until now, and it is suggest- 
 ed upon this letter of Je%vett's. written 
 from some place in New Mexico. Isn't 
 it remarkable that Jewett in New Mexi- 
 co is the only man that can tlirow light 
 upon this transaction, which took place 
 in the presence of the nation of 4;5,0(H»,- 
 00(1 of the people? Where are the other 
 visitors of the Kepublican party that 
 went down and helped Garfield to do 
 the terrible work of iniquity at New 
 Orleans? A dozen of them Avent down, 
 and they were closely united in all 
 their business. The Journal says that I 
 produced no evidence to support the 
 charge. Oh! you had better read 
 speech again. In that speech I 
 the document and the page of the doc- 
 ument where Garfield's own 
 oath convicted him of every 
 charge I made against him. First, 
 a little word about this witness. I 
 beg your pardon; he is not heard of for 
 the first time, he was down in New Or- 
 leans, and it seems that was the place 
 where Ilepublicans of his sort did con- 
 gregate. This witness says that "Gen. 
 Garfield and his associates conducted 
 themselves in Louisiana with rare dis- 
 cretion. For example. Gen. Garfield 
 and mysvlf never met in Louisiana. I' 
 
 the 
 
is manifest that had be desired to exert 
 any influence in the preparation of the 
 republican case he would have sought, 
 necessarily, first of all, my own private 
 office." I don't know about that. I 
 don't know whether he >fou]d have 
 sought him or not: but, in that letter you 
 will observe that Jewetfc undertakes to 
 say in sentiment and substance that 
 Garfield did not call upon him while 
 down there; therefore, he observed great 
 discretion while down there. That 
 I would not question, but I will read 
 you. gentlemen, from the man's own 
 testimony before the committee of con 
 gress. This same man that The Journal 
 cites as authority in this case gave his 
 evidence before the committee compos- 
 ed of democrats and republicans, and 
 in that testimony he gives the reason why 
 he did not see Garfield and the other visit- 
 ing statesmen. I will read it to you. 
 
 Question— About tliat time were the visiting 
 statesmen down there? Answer — Yes. 
 
 Q. Did you have anythina; to do with them? 
 A. No, sir ; nothing whatever. 
 
 Q. Why not? A. I did not care to. 
 
 Q. They were members high in the republican 
 party, and lilgli in the councils of the nation, 
 and you were secretary of the republican elec- 
 tion committee, and were cognizant of all the 
 facts— what was there in the character of this or 
 any circumstances which made a repulsion and 
 kept you and these visiting statesmen apart? 
 A. Nothing that I know of, but my duties did 
 not bring me into contact with these gentlemen 
 as we always had a coroner's inquest held over 
 us after every election. 1 cared to know as 
 little as possible. 
 
 Q. Mr. Butler. You purposely avoided meet- 
 ing with the visiting statesmen lest you might 
 know too much of what is going on. Is that it? 
 A. Without casting any reflections upon them, 
 yes. 
 
 This witness swears that he avoided 
 knowing anything that those visiting 
 statesmen wei'e doing, because he did 
 not want to know what was going on 
 there, as he would probably have to 
 answer under investigation after- 
 ward. So I will spend no more time 
 upon that Avituess. Now for Mr. Gar- 
 field himself — and he gave his testimony 
 before this same committee under oath : 
 
 Q. Did you visit New Orleans in the month of 
 November, ] 876? A. I did. 
 
 Q. What time in the month did you go? A. I 
 think it ^ 'as about the 14th day of November 
 , that we ai -ived at New Orleans. 
 
 The 1 uh day of November was imme- 
 diately after the presidential election of 
 1876, and he was there with John Sher- 
 man, he was there with Kelly, of Penn- 
 sylvania, and many others whose names 
 I will not delay you to repeat; 
 and further on in his testimony he 
 says that they left New Orleans to return 
 to Washington city on the 1st day of 
 December. So you will observe that 
 James A. Garfield was at New Orleans, 
 reaching there about a week after the 
 presidential election, and .staying there 
 18 days. What did he do while there? I 
 
 charge— and The Jom-nal says if it is gup- 
 ported, he is a digraced man---I charga 
 that he occupied an inner room of the 
 custom-house, assigned to him, and him 
 alone, and in that room he saw witnes- 
 ses, black a)id white, of Louisiana, and 
 he conversed with them aloue, and 
 when their te.stimony was not made out 
 satisfactory to him, he suggested inter- 
 rogatories that should be put to them, 
 and those interrogatories went to the 
 returning board, and that returning 
 board made a report against the men 
 that were elected. That is what I charge. 
 I say to you I will make it clear to you to- 
 night by his own evidence. What does 
 Tlie Journal say to me? That I have fur- 
 nisJied no respectable evidence, when I 
 have referred by page and document 
 to the sworn testimony of Garfield 
 him.self. What did lie do? First, 
 gentlemen . I said that they distributed 
 parishes among these visiting statesmen 
 and that, in the distribution of the i^ar- 
 ishes for investigation and manipulation, 
 the parish of West Feliciana fell to James 
 A. Garfield. I will read what he swore 
 to, and after tonight it shall not bo be- 
 fore the intelligence of Indiana what 
 Hendricks said, but the question now 
 shall be what Garfield said. In his an- 
 swer to a question, he says: 
 
 "Thereupon, in order to make our work of ex- 
 amination and our knowledge of the case as full 
 as possible, the suggestion was adopted that all 
 the testimony relating to one parish be given to 
 one man, and the testimony relating to another 
 parish should be given to another man. Among 
 the parishes that were contested were the par- 
 ishes of Feliciana, and I believe that Mr. Sher- 
 man assigned these parishes to Mr. ParBfer and 
 myself, saying that we could divide them be- 
 tween us as we chose. I suggested to Mr. Parker 
 to take his choice. He took East Feliciana ; I 
 took West Feliciana." 
 
 Q. What did you take it for ? 
 
 I will give the answer of tiiat pregnant 
 question, and when it is answered. The 
 Journal says that the man that the re- 
 publicans have upon their banner for 
 candidate is a disgraced man. 
 
 A. I mean by that to say that I took the 
 copies of all the official papers which were de- 
 livered to tlie returning board, touching the 
 election in West Feliciana, and for convenience 
 of examining these papers, as I did not reside 
 at the St. Charles Hotel, I occupied a rooin in 
 the custom house in the corner of the building. 
 
 This is coming close up to Garfield, 
 and closer to The Journal. 
 
 "I don't know now whose room it was; it was 
 a room not very much used ; I think it was one 
 of the private offices, perhaps, of the collector 
 himself." 
 
 You recollect who was collector, don't 
 you? It was Packard that was running 
 for govenor and that could not hold his 
 office although he got a thousand more 
 votes than Hayes, who got the vote of 
 Louisiana. Genflemeu. what do you say 
 to thepro])osition---whichImade in my 
 speech a month ago — that Garfie d went 
 to New Orleans as a partisan ; that he 
 
oeonpied a room in the custom house 
 lor the purpose of making up evidence 
 lor the returning board; but w© will go a 
 good deal farther than that. This ques- 
 tion that I make to-night ii> not to a 
 subordinate -writer on The Journal. I 
 repeat it is to John C. New. owner of the 
 paper, and the chairman of the republi- 
 can central committee of Indiana. It is 
 John C. New that I ishall brand if he 
 does not place my an.swer as prominent- 
 ly in his paper tomorrow morning as 
 the article in The Journal thi.s morning. 
 Where was this room m the custom 
 house? I said thi.s was an inner room. 
 and I proposB to prov« that by Garfield 
 himself. 
 
 Q. Where did you converte with her, that Is 
 a negro woman, Emily Mitchell? A. In a pri- 
 vate office in the custom-house. 
 
 Q. One of Gov. KelloKcr's rooms? A. No sir; 
 in one of Mr. Packard's rooms in the custom- 
 house. . . , 
 
 Q. Who was there besides you two? A. I 
 don't think there was anybody else present 
 when .she was there. 
 
 Q. Who brought her to the room? A. I can't 
 Bay; Romcbodv brought her there. 1 think she 
 had a little child in her arms. She sat down, 
 and I asked her to tell me the story of her hus- 
 band s death, with all the p-<rticulars, and told 
 her that all I wanted to know was the exact 
 truth aboul.it. 
 
 Q. Was there a door-keeper to the room':' A. 
 I think there was nobody by at all. 
 
 Q. But was there a door-keeper outside the 
 door'/ A. That I don't know. 
 
 Q. Do you remember that there was a door- 
 keeper for that room? A. That door oonimuni- 
 cated with anotlier room; there was no door 
 into the hall; I think that door communicated 
 witli the ne.\t room, which communicated with 
 the hall. 
 
 Wasitan inneri'oom or not. gentleman? 
 That is what Garlield swears to. The 
 Journal says it is not true. That is be- 
 tween Garfield and The Journal, and be- 
 tween them I would not know which to 
 believe. 
 
 Q. So she did go from a hall into that other 
 room before she would get into the room where 
 you were ? A. Yes. I take it that the ques- 
 tion of the inner room is a settled (luestion. 
 
 Q. Was that door, leading fi om the outer door 
 into this, open or shut ';' A. I don't know 
 
 Q. Who occupied the outer room at. the time? 
 A. There were several customhouse clerks who 
 had desks behind a sort of railing. 
 
 A. very little more, gentlemen, about 
 these rooms. 
 
 Q. In that inner room was there anybody be- 
 side yourself V A. Nobody. 
 
 He was asked whtither there was any- 
 bodj' in that inner room but nimself, 
 and he says no. Not that there was no 
 inner room, but there was nobody in the 
 inner room but him.self. 
 
 "Some of the men who were getting up state- 
 ments aboiit ot her parishes came in there, but 
 the room was assigned to me." 
 
 There you have it -an inner room 
 reached only by passing through another 
 roiiin froiij tiic pul)lichiUl, and thatiniier 
 room was assigned to James A. Garfield, 
 and Yie occupied it and received tlie wit- 
 nesses there, as I will proceed to prove. 
 
 So the question, What did he do in th» 
 inner room? and that quastiou wa* 
 asked him under oath, 
 
 Q. What did you do? A. I took all ih08« 
 papers, commencint; with the protest, and then 
 read them carefully and made a careful brief of 
 their contents, giving: me the summary of each 
 witness in my own way, as I would if I -were a 
 la\vyer in the case. 
 
 There is Garfield at New Orleans — the 
 man tiiat asks to preside in the chief ( '< 
 office of this great nation. There is Gar-' i 
 field sitting in that inner room in thel 
 custom house, where the light of day " 
 and the judgment of the American peo- / 
 pie were cut off, and receiving the evi-, 
 dence that turned tlie parish of Westj 
 Feliciana, and •xamining them as 
 though lie w«re "a lawyer in the case," 
 and so he swears: "When I had com- 
 pleted tliat, I felt a great deal of anxiety 
 to see the men who had testified if I 
 could." It was not enough to read the 
 evidence as it had been fixed up for th« 
 negroes and the whites, but it was mora 
 than that. "I confess I felt a good deal 
 of surprise »jud astonislimeut at the re- 
 velations contained in these documents. 
 That I went there with not a Little ap- 
 prehension that tJiere must be a good 
 deal of lying in the papers of both sides 
 connected with the election. I made in- 
 quiry and found that a considerable 
 number of these witnesses were in the 
 city. I made out a list of perhaps onc- 
 half or thrce-iourlhs of the names 
 of the witnesses who.se testimony I had 
 examined, and inquired for them and 
 procured interviews with them. I sat 
 down with them and asked them to tell 
 me in their own way the stories of their 
 relation to the election. lean not name 
 all tlieso Avituesses with whom I con- 
 versed, but some of them I remember 
 distinctly. Mrs. Amy Mitchell (I sliall 
 have something to say about her direct- 
 ly), the young woman whose husband 
 had been killed during the progress of 
 the registry or election. I also remem- 
 ber Judge Duall, a parish judge whom 
 I examined in the same way, As to the 
 result of the examination, (mark this), 
 as to the result of the examination, ol 
 course it was entirely unofficial, it was 
 conversation of my own with these wit- 
 nesses. I draughted some interrogato- 
 ries to draw out more fully from some 
 of the witnesses the testimony which 
 they had given rather in brief, and some 
 of the intoiTogatories which subsequent- 
 ly were appended to the testimony of 
 these witnesses." Now, notice what he 
 has sworn to: That he occupied tliat 
 room, and that wlien the testimony 
 was all lianded to him relating to tin ■ 
 parish of West Feliciana, he exam 
 ined it and the testimony, and he made 
 (mt a list of one-half or two-thirds of 
 the witnesses, and he sent for them one 
 
by one. He examined them, and when 
 their testimony was not as full as he de- 
 sired, he prepared additional interroga- 
 tories, which went, in some cases at 
 least, before the returning board. This 
 comes really very close around The 
 Journal and Garfidld. "The summary 
 in the testimony in the case of West 
 Feliciana was prepared by me." A little 
 further about what he did: 
 
 Q. Some of these affidavits I notice In the West 
 Feliciana case were made after you arrived in 
 New Orleans. Did you have anything to do 
 with them yourself in taking themV A. Noth- 
 ing, except that in some instances, as I liave 
 already related, I prepared interrogatories. 
 
 The next witness was Geo. Swayzee. 
 
 Q. Do you remember talking with himV A. 
 Yes, sir ; I do remember talking with Swayzee. 
 I think interrogatories were prepared tor him 
 after my conversation with him. I don't think 
 I precared them, but there was a brief affidavit, 
 in the case that I read. 1 talked with him, and 
 then after that these interrogatories were filed. 
 In the printing, they were printed instead of 
 the original. I talked with Swayzee. I saw his 
 testimony was not very full, and, after my con- 
 versation with him, interrogatories were pro- 
 pounded to him necessarily to bring out his 
 evidence in full, and that evidence, in answering 
 the interrogatories, was the evidence of Sway- 
 zee that was printed. 
 
 The next man, Napalus, I remember 
 well, for he had a very striking story of 
 having been partly hung, and having 
 been dragged with a rope around his 
 neck. He was one of those to whom in- 
 terrogatories were propounded after the 
 filing of the first affidavit. Now, gentle- 
 men, he mentions as the most remark- 
 able case in which he prepared the 
 questions for the witnesses, the case of 
 Amy Mitchell, so I will read what Gar- 
 field swore to in regard to that case. 
 
 Q. As regards the case of Amy Mitchell, 
 which made an impression on you, can you *ell 
 whether it was before or after you were fur- 
 nished with a copy of her affidavit that you 
 had this conversation with herV A. It was 
 afterward. It was the reading of the affidavit 
 that im Dressed me, and I asked to have her 
 sent to me. • 
 
 Q. I see that the affidavit apj^ears to have 
 been sworn to the 2<)th of November? A. I ad- 
 vised them take a fuller statement by interro- 
 gatories from Amy Mitchell, and I think I pro- 
 pounded a portion of the iuteri-ogatories The 
 preliminary statement, the simple affidavit, 
 was earlier. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I will turn over a 
 page and see what the case of Amy 
 Mitchell was. (Turning the leaves of a 
 book.) She first made an affidavit in 
 the custom-house, where she was ex- 
 amined privately by James A. Garfield. 
 That affidavit was not full enough. He 
 prepared additional interrogations to 
 be propounded to her; and she answer- 
 ed tliose interrogatories, and in her 
 testimony before this same committee 
 she afterward swore that there was no 
 truth in the statement given in response 
 to Garfield's interrogatories. In answer 
 to a question propounded to Gov". Cox, 
 
 of Ohio, who is a republiqan, Amy Mit- 
 chell said — she repeated her direct tes- 
 timony—that every statement contained 
 in the affidavit was fahse; tliat she did , 
 not say anything because she knew it, 
 but said what they told her to say. Her 
 testimony also showed that she had . 
 been trained in the custom-house to ^ 
 testify before the committee. I don't j 
 say that Garfield was present when she I 
 swore to the answers to, interrogatories, ; 
 but he i^repared the interrogatories 
 that were answered, and he prepared ( 
 the interrogatories after he had an in- • 
 terview with that colored woman, when 
 there was no person besides themselves 
 I^resent; and the same. Avoman comes 
 before the committee of congress, not 
 in an inner room, not when the light of \ 
 God's day is shut oft', but she comes be- i 
 fore the committee of democrats and j 
 republicans, and in that testimony, giv- : 
 en under oath and under the test of a 
 cross-examination by the republican ' , 
 members of the committee, she says / 
 tliere was not a wurd of truth in the ; 
 testimony which she gave in answer to \ 
 Garfield's questions. The next purpose, •, 
 gentlemen, I have in mj mind is to ask 
 why Garfield did spend eighteen days in ! 
 the inner room in the custom house? Why 
 did he have private interviews with the ' 
 colored and white people whose testi- j 
 mony was to be taken to be used before 
 the returning board? and why did he 
 prepare interrogatories for witnesses? , 
 I Avill answer in his own words: \ 
 
 Q. But don't you understand that in the cases / , 
 where you suggested that interrogatories ' I 
 Bhould be prepared instead of the evidence, I 
 
 they were to go before the returning board ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 And Avhen his work of taking the testi- 
 mony was completed, he tui'ned his at- 
 tention to the i^reparation ol a brief. A 
 brief , as you all know, is a lawyer's ar- 
 gument in writing. I will show you what 
 he says upon the suljject, on page 797 of 
 the report: 
 
 Q. Was that brief furnished to the returning 
 board V A. No, sir. That brief was never fur- 
 nished to anybody Ijut the jjresident of the 
 United States. In fact, a considerable portion 
 of the brief was written on the cars on my way 
 to Washington. 
 
 Q. Written after you left New Orleans ? A. 
 A considerable portion of It. I had written a 
 summary of the evidence before that, )3ut a 
 considerable portion ol the brief was written in 
 pencil on the cars after I left New Orleans on 
 my way homec. 
 
 You see he completes the evidence. 
 He is the only man that prepares it for 
 West Feliciana after the evidence had 
 been turned over to him, and when, he 
 has done that Avork. on his way from 
 Nev/ Orleans to Washington *he prepares 
 an argument in the case. I wish to con- ' 
 nect directly this transaction with the ': 
 duties of the man who takes the solemn ■ 
 oath to deal ;fairly. It was his duty as a 
 
6 
 
 member of the commissi on to deal fairly. 
 The next question is. what did Garfield 
 do in regard to Louisiana? That we can 
 find on page 803. I say he knew that 
 Louisiana was democratic by 8,000 ma- 
 jority when he sat in that inner room 
 and had i^rivate conversation with the 
 witnesses, and prepared interrogatories 
 to guide and control their testimony; 
 when he was at that work, and when he 
 was writing a brief to make it appear 
 the other way, he knew Louisiana had 
 cast a democratic majority of 8,000, and 
 here is his sworn testimony on that 
 subject: 
 
 Q. Did you fret any idea how the vote of 
 Louisiana stood from t lie returns? A. 1 had 
 ■ill those ideas that could be trot from the uews- 
 . lapers and the loaders of the different parties. 
 •S^e had had, of course, very full information of 
 ' hat sort. 
 
 Q. Pi'esuming that there were not some ijar- 
 •^hes to be thrown out by the returnini.'' board, 
 
 t was very cleai- that the state had Kone for 
 Mcholls and Tihien, was it not? A. It was 
 very well understood by the time I got there 
 that, if nothing bui the face of the returns was 
 to be considered, and, if every vote sent up was 
 to be treated as a legal vote, Mr. Tilden was 
 ahead. 
 
 Q. And if every vote sent up was a legal vote, 
 and some more i-epublican vctcs were not 
 found it was very clear that the state had gone 
 for Nicholls and Tilden? A. Yes. 
 
 There is your man, republicans, that 
 you propose to place in the chair that 
 Wasliington occupied. [A voice, "No, 
 never."] It will never be done. No man 
 with a record like that did ever take 
 that chair; and, in the kind providence 
 of an eternal God, it will never occur. He 
 knew by the returns tliat Tilden for 
 president and Nicholl for governor were 
 elected in tiie state of Louisiana; a)i(l 
 yet, when he knew tliat, he says when he 
 got to New Orleans he &taid there 18 
 days, and all that he did was to sit in 
 that inner room, where nobody could 
 find him except thej^ parsed from th(! 
 public hall tlirough another room, and 
 J tliere alone, with jioor, ignorant witues- 
 i SOS, he prepared interrogatories, and 
 talked with t.fiem, and tliat those inter- 
 rogatories and that talk went to the re- 
 turning board and furnished the scoun- 
 drels of' that boaid the pretext to return 
 against the truth that Tilden Avas beaten 
 in Louisiana. Do you sui)pose that this 
 man was to return to Washington and 
 become a juror and decide whether Til- 
 den or Hayes was elected, and to decide 
 between man and man whether Hen- 
 dricks or Wheeler was elected vice pres- 
 ident? He says, on page 793: "I heard 
 of notliing of the kind- that is, of 
 a decision then made. I don't think 
 any of oiir party had heard of 
 it, for WQ left in great anxiety 
 as to what the result would be." Then 
 a little further down he says: "We went 
 away from that meeting, and withiii 
 perhaps three hours from that time, at 
 
 least by the first train after that, we 
 left New Orleans. I know there was 
 groat anxiety among us all as to what 
 the result would be, and we had no 
 word or hint of it until we had passed 
 Bellaire on Tuesday morning, when a 
 dispatch was received addressed to some 
 of our number, jDcrhaps to Senator 
 Sherman, giving us the first intimation 
 of the conclusion of the returning 
 board.'" And what do you, fair-minded 
 men that have from time to time taken 
 your seats i.ipon the jiu-or's box. what 
 do you think of the man that is to come 
 on to Washington to try the cause"? 
 Being anxious in his mind as he leaves 
 New Orleans, and all the way from that 
 city until he reached Bellaire, xintil 
 he reaches Ohio, he is in a great state 
 of anxiety, and then a dispatch comes 
 at lightning speed. "The work is done," 
 "The work is done," and there is no 
 anxiety thence on forever! The perjury 
 and the forgery is committed ! The 
 people of the United States have been 
 beaten in their might and majesty and 
 in their glorious soverignty at the bal- 
 lot box ! They have been beaten like 
 the old lion that has his paws entangled 
 in the meshes of the net. The great 
 people of the United States are beaten, 
 and a part of the work was done in that 
 room, and forever from this time in- 
 famous room in the custom-house; and 
 this is the evidence gentlemen. John 
 C. New, you that stand high as 
 a citizen of Indianapolis, this is the 
 evidence that I quoted in my speech at 
 Marion. And I gave i)age and document 
 so full that if you wanted the truth you 
 can not fall into error, and here is what 
 I said in that original speech: "Gar- 
 field's testimony commences at page 
 789." and here it is; you can come and 
 look for youi selves (referring to the 
 book,) "Document 31. accompanying re- 
 port 120. house of representatives, third 
 session, 4.5th congress." If that is not in 
 detail, why it is more specific than the 
 conveyancer describes a piece of land in 
 a deed or will. Now, tomorrow morn- 
 ing, let him who wrote the article this 
 morning come rtown on his knees and 
 pray God's i^ardon, and go to The Jour- 
 nal ofiice and do justice to a neighbor; 
 aye, more than that -do justice to him- 
 self; aye. more than that--do justice to 
 the intelligence, sentiment, and judg- 
 ment of the people of Indianapolis, that 
 he addresses every morning! He knows 
 now where the evidence is, and will he 
 now repeat what he .said this morning? 
 A little further: (looks at the book) I 
 can't find it— (here it is); if yon are <m 
 to a thing you will always find it if it is 
 there, and we democrats are going to 
 stick to this man until he is sorry he 
 'was ever nonilnHto.d. He may un- 
 
deretand that there is now en- 
 circling him a popular judgment and a 
 public conscience that is more terrible 
 than the fate that awaits the wicked. 
 Here is what The Journal says: "If this 
 can be substantiated, then Garfield 
 would be disgraced." How stands he 
 now? How is it between you and me— 
 between your intelligence and your 
 consciences and minds? Aye, more 
 than that. How is it between you and 
 yourselves? Is he disgraced? "Unless 
 Mr. Hendricks can substantiate the 
 charge he is disgraced." 
 
 I have accepted the issue, without 
 fear ; and I stand here in the presence 
 of my neighbors, I thank God and your 
 intelligence, I am not disgraced. "Mr. 
 Hendricks oflered no proof of the 
 charges in the Marion speech, and has 
 none, since he can not produce any. 
 The charge is unsupported by any evi- 
 dence worthy of belief," and the evi- 
 dence is Garfield himself. This is 
 harder on Garfield than anything I ever 
 said. (A voice, "That's it; give it to 
 him, Tom."j Now, gentlemen, this 
 man, that thus came and conducted 
 himself at the city of New Orleans, and 
 helped to j)repare the case, and helped 
 to get a false return from a false and 
 perjured returning board; and he came 
 on his way north as far as Bellaire, and 
 was overtaken by the lightning inform- 
 ing him and his co-conspirators, as he 
 sat in the laalace car, of the decision 
 that they had procured in the city of 
 New Orleans. I know how a lawyer 
 feels when his case has been sxibmitted. 
 I know the anxiety which drives sleep 
 and quiet away when life or property 
 may depend upon the verdict made by 
 the jm-y. But surely I never expressed 
 myself in regard to that anxiety, 
 as Garfield did when he said 
 they left New Orleans very 
 anxious about the result ; and, when the 
 result came, all anxiety disappeared. His 
 work was completed, and an honest re- 
 turn was defeated. He came on to Wash- 
 ington ; and then what do you think he 
 did when there was a bill proposed in 
 congress — the bill that did finally pass — 
 to appoint a commission composed of 
 five members of the house and five 
 members of the senate and five members 
 of the supreme court to hold a confer- 
 ence upon this great issue? When that 
 bill was pending Garfield got up and 
 said, "No, it must not be;" and here are 
 the reasons that he gave. Let me give 
 you, in his own words, if I can, it is in 
 very fine print and difficult to read. 
 Speaking of the bill then pending in 
 congress, he says- --this was on the 25th of 
 January, he got back to Washington by 
 the 2d of December, and the bill came 
 up for •oasideratiou iu th@ house, 
 
 whether this commission should be ap- 
 pointed to pass upon the right of presi- 
 dent and vice president, and Garfield 
 opposing this bill, uses this language: 
 "It assumes the right of congress to go 
 down into the colleges and inquire into 
 all the acts and facts connected with 
 their work. It assumes the right of con- 
 gress to go down into the states to re- 
 view the act of every officer, to open 
 every ballot box, and to examine every 
 ballot cast by 7.000,000 of Americans." 
 That was Garfield's objection to the bill 
 — that if it did pass and that these 
 fifteen men appointed under the law, it 
 would be their duty to go back of all 
 technicalities and returns, and 
 to pass upon the real fact of 
 the case; to go into the ballot- 
 box and see how the votes were, and to 
 decide the case upon the real truth. 
 And after that, when the bill passed 
 and he became one of the 15, he voted 
 every time that they should not open 
 the door to investigate, but that the law 
 closed the door, and said that Kellogg's 
 certificate and the certificate of the re- 
 turning board was stronger than law 
 and the constitution and the judgment 
 of congress. And his vote was the 
 eighth vote against seven that decided 
 that they should not go behind the re- 
 turning board. What Avould you think 
 of me as a lawyer if you would hear me 
 express my opinion upon a question of 
 la,w?---I have nodoubt about it— and ad- 
 dress the honored court and say it was 
 the law, well fixed and decided, and the 
 next day I came to be a member of the 
 tribunal to pass upon individual and 
 public right according to law, and that 
 next day I say what I said before is not 
 the law, and I decide against you upon 
 the statement of the law different from 
 that I had made the day before. As Mr. 
 Julian said, when he stood in the house 
 it was Garfield speaking, but when he 
 was upon the commission it was the 
 party demanding power, money and 
 olfice. Let me read you this oath he 
 took. I take it from Mr. Julian's 
 speech : 
 
 "I, James A. Gartield, do solemnly swear that 
 I will impartially examine and consider all 
 questions submitted to the comjiiission of 
 which I am a member, and a true judgment 
 render thereon agreeable to the constitution 
 and laws, so help me God." 
 
 They say he is a preacher. I don't 
 Ijretend to be anything but a wicked law- 
 yer — that's all; but there is not wealth 
 enough in the state of Indiana to get 
 me, in my place in the house or in the 
 senate of the United States, to say: If 
 you pass this law, I hold that it o^sens 
 the door to investigation, and we can 
 go down to New Orleans and ascertain 
 how the vote was in fact, and then after 
 I go upon the commission, to tui-n 
 
a 
 
 aiouiid and say that the returning 
 board and its tlndiug.s is conclusive up- 
 on us, and we cannot investigate at all. 
 I would not do it for a thousand j'ears 
 of tenure in tlie gi-eat office for wliich 
 he is a candidate. I state to you that 
 whatever the truth might be about tbe 
 De Golyer pavement, whether be did 
 take a fee against the interest of the 
 government when he was a repi*esenta- 
 tive receiving a salary, whatever the 
 facts might be about the Credit Mobil- 
 ier, whether it was a terrible fraud or 
 not, I will not stop to speak 
 of that until this great question 
 is settled. Whether as a repre- 
 sentative of the people, as a juror 
 sitting between myself and Wheeler 
 and Tilden and Hayes, he was a true 
 or a false man. And if I have a 
 case in your court and you are 
 called upon as a juror, and no questions 
 are asked you at all, and you have a bit- 
 ter prejudice against me, and that there 
 is no verdict at all except against me, 
 would you go and take your seat? Would 
 not it come up to you? My oath would 
 not allow me to do it, and I know tnat 
 yours would not. Yet Garfield, after he 
 had helped to make iip the case down 
 in New Orleans, comes to Washington, 
 and, without protest or apology or excuse 
 he takes his seat and he votes day after 
 day contrary to what he .«aid in the 
 house was the law. No, gentlemen, he 
 will never be president of the United 
 States. [A voice — "No, never!"] He is a 
 man of ability, and the more ability 
 such a man possesses the worse it is 
 for the office. I don't want him, because 
 when I have a president in Washington, 
 whatever his politics may be, I want to 
 feel that he is as much my president as 
 yours, and as much yours as he is mine . 
 
 and that as president he is free from 
 those prejudices and ijassions which 
 pervert the judgment and destroy 
 opinion. Now, gentlemen, I have occu- 
 pied your attention longer to-night 
 than I expected to. Now I will repeat 
 that Avhen I took my breakfast this 
 morning I had no thought 
 of addressing you. It was 
 not a part of the programme of the 
 business of the day at all. When I saw 
 that the Journal said that if I did not 
 make this good I was disgi-aced, and if£ 
 did, then Garfield was disgraced- --then 
 gentlemen, as soon as I saw that, I 
 longed to see you and speak to you with 
 more earnestness and feeling than I ever 
 longed to before. If I have failed in 
 any one of the questions presented by 
 the Journal, I know it not. I have ap- 
 pealed to no witnesses except Garfield 
 himself, and by Gen. Garfield is Garfield 
 this night disgraced. (Applause.) You 
 fair-minded republican.s, you gentlemen 
 that love your country better than you 
 do the Journal,better than you love Gar- 
 field, better than you love combinations 
 of party, I appeal to you, now, by this 
 test. Publicly I have said that if the 
 short-hand reporter is not here for the 
 Journal, I have a rejjort of my speech 
 tonight, and I will furnish it to the 
 Journal and ask that it appear, and if it 
 does not appear tomorrow morning then 
 it is admitted as though it was written 
 in the broadest and brighest capitals, 
 "We can't stand upon the issues that we 
 made yesterday morning." (Applause.) 
 If they don't publish what I have said 
 to you tonight, not in an inner room, 
 but in this temple, then you may know 
 that they admit that Thomas A. Hend- 
 ricks is not disgi'aced, but that James A. 
 Garfield is disgraced. (Applause.) 
 
I