Democratic Sentinel, Volume 2, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 June 1878 — THE LOUISIANA CONSPIRACY. [ARTICLE]

THE LOUISIANA CONSPIRACY.

Darrall SubatuthtM Anderson. The testimony of G. B. Darrall, a Bepublican ex-Congressman from Lonisiana, confirms the story of Anderson in most of its details. Darrall wanted the office of Colleotor of the Port of New Orleans, and was supported by the influence of Stanley Matthews, which he secured through Anderson. Darrall is confident that he would have gained his point, but for the President’s obligations to old Wells and the Returning-Board Anderson, who wanted to control everything themselves. A mere parish Supervisor and an ex-Congress-man could not expect to prevail against the influence of the two men who nad the power to count out ten thousand Tiiden votes, and used it. Mr. Hayes’ adherence to the Returning Board gang, in spitfe of all opposition, is oonvinoing proof that he fully appreciated the magnitude of thedr servioes—and the extent of their knowledge. He knew how many other hearts would ache if Wells began to squeal, and kept the old reprobate’s manger full of fodder, that there might be no provocation for squealing. Rutherford B. Hayes is open to the charge of tampering with witnesses. The Democrats were greatly disappointed in Darrall’s unwillingness to testify. Ho had been talking very plainly to them for a day or two, and even up to within a couple of hours of bis appearance before the committee was pouring the tale of his wrongs into the willing ears of McMahon. Just, before he went on the stand Hayes sent for him, and from that time Darrell’s tune changed. After the dose of the examination he received another summons from the White House, and was closeted there a long time. He is certain to have some good appointment within the next month.

Paymaster Smith’s Examination. After the examination of Darrall, Paymaster Smith was called to the witness chair. The chief point of his testimony concerned the President’s apparent prejudice against Anderson, the Louisiana Supervisor. At Anderson’s request Smith called on the President to get his indorsement or approval of the appointment of Anderson to a better office than Smith had offered him. Anderson wanted something worth $3,000 a year, and thought he would get it if he could see IJfr. Hayes. The latter, with strong appearance of disgust, refused to be interviewed by Anderson, and gave Smith to understand that he did not think the Supervisor had a good claim for so lucrative an office, but did not object to giving him a minor appointment. The effort of Smith to show Mr. Hayes’ contempt for the Anderson sort of people was not particularly creditable to Hayes. It merely showed that, having pocketed the proceeds of Anderson’s dishonesty, the President, wanted to get rid of "him as quickly and cheaply as possible. He despised the swindler as men are apt to do under such circumstances, wliile cheerfully accepting the profits of the swindle. Gen. Butler asked Smith if he had been in consultation with anybody at the White House in relation to his testimony. The other Republicans on the committee objected to the question, and Smith refused to answer unless expressly required to do so by the committee. He might as well have answered in the affirmative, for nothing would have been easier than a denial, if he could have safely made it. The administration people seem to be making a practice of capturing and “cramming” witnesses summoned by the committee—a practice that, if persisted in, may demand action on the part of the House. Secretary Sherman’s lawyer is said to have tried this plan with Mrs. Jenks, who is supposed to know something about the Sherman letter, of which so much has been said, and the visits of Darrall to Mr. Hayes, while his examination was unfinished, are disagreeably suggestive.

John Sherman Attempts a Diversion. Having appeared before the Committee of Investigation, and, in effect, confessed that he wrote the Anderson letter, Mr. John Sherman finds that he has not helped his case, and deems it advisable to make some further attempt. Here is what he now proposes, as it is stated in the New York Tivies : Washington, June 7. The Potter Investigating Committee was in secret session to-day. A commnnicacation was received from Secretary Sherman, reciting that he is charged in the preamble to the resolution authorizing the investigation with complicity in election frauds in Louisiana, and requesting that immediate inquiry be made into this charge. The Secretary furnished the committee with the names of about fifty witnesses, who, he says, will prove that outrages and intimidation were perpetrated upon white and black Republican voters in Louisiana to such an extent as to deter them from exercising their rights at the polls, and requested that these witnesses be called.

This written communication is almost as decidedly a confession as was the oral testimony which Mr. Sherman gave on Saturday week. He is charged with being accessory to the preparation of fraudulent documents concerning tbe election in Louisiana, and with conspiring to change the true returns of that election so as to give the electoral votes of the State to Rutherford B. Hayes when they belonged to Samuel J. Tilden. These are the things which this committee is appointed to investigate, and Mr. Sherman’s invitation to inquire into something entirely different says, about as plainly as words can say, that the proper inquiry of the committee is one that he wishes to evade—is one dangerous to him and to the administration of which ho makes a part. This new move of Mr. Sherman’s won’t avail to draw away attention from the facts thready established against him through evidence of his owd. These facts are that when two Supervisors of Registration in Lonisiana, having charge of the election in two parishes in which a Republican majority was absolutely indispensable to the counting in of the Hayes electors, were on the point of publishing the truth when the election in their parishes had not only resulted largely in favor of the Democrats, but had been orderly and peaceful, furnishing to the Returning Board no ground for throwing out votes or altering returns —when these Supervisors were on the point of revealing the nature of the protests which had been made in their names, then Mr. Sherman, having given them oral promises on which they would not rest, wrote to them the following letter; New Obleans, Noy. 20,1876. Gentlemen : Your note of even date has been reoeived. Neither Mr. Hayes, myself, the gentlemen who accompany me, or the country at large can ever forget the obligations under whioh you will have placed us, should you stand firm in the position you jiaye taken,

From a long and' intimate acquaintance with Gov. Hayes, I am justified in assuming responsibility for promises made, and will guarantee that you shall be provided for as soon after the 4th of March as may be practicable, and in such manner as will enable you both to leave Louisiana, should you deem it necessary. Very truly yours, John Bhf.kman. Mr. *D. A. Weber and James E. Anderson. This letter, with his own refusal positively to disclaim its authorship, makes out the case agaiust him ; and when he attempts to leave these points and go into other spheres, such, for instance, as contending that in fifty cases iu Louisiana Republican voters were kept away from the polls, his proposition is wholly extraneous to the subject. [ What Sherman has to deal with is his own letter. Let him confine himself to that. —New York Sun.

What Will Be Done With Darrall ? It is understood that before Darrall went upon the witness stand a bargain was effected with him on behalf of certain persons in high station whom his testimony, true or false, was likely to blacken. That the bargain either was known to the President or was to be made known to him by Darrall, is apparent: In answer to a question by Mr. Blackburn, the witness said that yesterday he waited in the committee room until after 1 o’clock, when, desiring to see the President before leaving tlio city, ho went to the Senate and informed Mr. Kellogg that he was going to the White House, and if the committee desired bis attendance a telegram would find him there. Upon reaching tho White House the Sergeant-at-Arms overtook him, and ho returned forthwith. He had business with tho President, and hearing he was going away desired to see him before he left. What “business” could this scoundrel have with the President of the United States ? To find a substantial difference between him and Anderson in his favor is very difficult. Darrall was a candidate for tho New Orleans Collectorship. He learned from Anderson that the latter was possessed of Sherman’s letter, of letters from Matthews, and ox documents by which representatives and partisans of the administration could be seriously annoyed. He swears that he knew Anderson was a* monstrous liar, a perjurer, a forger, and a blackmailer; yet he proceeded to do all he could to procure Anderson un appointment, and to use Anderson and his masked battery of blackmail as tlie means of securing the New Orleans Collectorship for himself. He called on the President shortly after his inauguration, and recommended to him Anderson’s appointment, giving as biß reasons Anderson’s active part in Louisiana politics, and his intelligence ! It appears to have been after this interview with Darrall that Mr. Hayes wrote the reference of Anderson’s successful application for a Consulship to the Secretary of State. Darrall explicitly swears that iic sought Anderson’s assistance lor himself with Stanley Matthews after he knew that Matthews had been threatened in a blackmailing manner by Anderson, toward whom, he says, Matthews remained well disposed in spite of Anderson’s threats and insults. Ben Butler compelled Darrall to confess, notwithstanding his persistent attempt at evasion, that he engaged in this blackmail co-partnership even before he was out of his seat in Congress. Mr. Butler (interrupting)— Pardon me, you were about to become a candidate for a high office under the Government. Here was a drunken, miserable fellow down in Louisiana, or had been there —a man who you had learned had got a corrupt agreement to have tho Naval Ofiicership—you, a member of Congress who had not yet been unseated, and you about to make an application —don’t you know whether that rascal came and made an offer of services to you or you went to mm? A. Well, sir, Anderson and myself had had a conversation in regard to tho Colloctorship before 1 became a candidate. In regard to Packard——” Q. Leave him out. A. About myself I can’t swear whether the suggestion came from him or me, or from some friend of rnino. Q. I mean the suggestion that the loafer should take part of it. That’s what I want. A. I remember writing Anderson about that matter. Q. Didn’t you write him to come over and help you V A. I wrote him a number of letters. Q. (sharply.) Did you write to him, before he said anything to you, to come and help you? A. I think I did. Q. Don’t you believe you did ? A. That’s my best recollection. Unless I saw the letter I could not tell. Q. What iuduoed you to go to Philadelphia for this miserable man to aid } on in your candidature? A. I stated that Anderson had suggested the matter to me a uumber of times, and it was so understood. Ho hold papers t r documents that the powers that wore would bo willing and glad to listen to. Still later, he made this admission : Q. If these documents had not been published you would have been willing to have owed your election to the efforts of a perjurer and blackmailer with false documents as Collector at one of the principal offices? A. You have stated him to be such. <J. You yourself stated it now. A. Not of my own personal knowledge. Q. You knew the man to be corrupt. You believed his affidavit to be false. You knew his acquaintances would say he was a drunkard, and you knew that using these documents for this purpose was simply blackmailing. A. Certainly. Q. Then haven’t you stated all that I have ? A. Substantially. Q. Then we don’t substantially differ, and you were sorry you failed? A. Naturally. The spirit of this fellow’s testimony, from beginning to end, shows that he has been coached by parties interested, and his fruitless determination not to tell anything which he could contrive to conceal is one of the most discouraging features of these disclosures. The presumption of a bargain is irresistible ; and Darrall’s cool call at the White House, because he did not like to leave Washington without saying adieu to Mr. Hayes, will awaken a solicitude to watch the future progress of Mr. Darrall’s relations with the administration and the high personage, whom, in his sadder moments, he characterized as the “psalm-singing hypocrite.”