f which so much was said or printed at the time. It was a partisan
committee organized to stir up the controversy that had been settled
by the decision of the electoral commission. The committee conducted
a long and expensive investigation. The result was that the
pretended letter was proven to be a forgery, and that my conduct
during the sittings of the returning board was shown to have been
that of a spectator, precisely like that of a score of other so-
called visitors, of both political parties. The investigation
proved to be a radical failure. The report was not made until
March 3, 1879, the last day of the 45th Congress. No action was
taken upon it.

During the investigation I specifically denied, under oath, that
I had ever written or signed such a letter. There was not the
slightest proof, direct or indirect, that I did so. The majority,
with great unfairness, instead of frankly stating that they were
deceived by a forgery, treated it as a matter in doubt. In their
report they do not allege or pretend that I wrote or signed such
a letter. The evidence of their own witnesses was conclusive that
it was written by a Mrs. Jenks.

The report of the minority of the committee commented with severity
upon the unfairness of the majority, in the following language:

"The majority seem to us to have come short of what we had a right
to expect from their candor, when they fail to report explicitly
whether the testimony on this subject sustains the charge that such
a letter as Anderson and Weber testified to was ever written by
the Hon. John Sherman. For our part, we report distinctly and
emphatically that it does not, and that the palpable perjuries of
both the witnesses named justify a feeling of deep disgust that
they should be treated as capable of creating a serious attack upon
the character of a man who has borne a high character in the most
responsible service of the country for five-and-twenty years.

"The charge, if it meant anything, was that of corruptly bribing
Anderson and D. A. Weber to perpetrate a fraud in the election
returns of the Feliciana parishes.

"We find nothing in the testimony to show that Mr. Sherman either
knew or believed that any such fraud was committed. We find abundant
evidence that he believed that the protests against the fairness
of the election were honestly and rightly made.

"We cannot follow the majority in their yielding to what we must
believe to be a prejudice o