L. Holton.
“I hereby attest that the above is my father’s signature.—J. A. Holton, son of Llewellyn Holton.”
BRODHEAD’S REPRESENTATION OF IT.
“Forks, Elkhorn, May 24, 1883.
“This is to certify that my father, Captain John A. Holton, was for a number of years interested with Captain John Russell in a number of thoroughbreds, and they raced them in partnership. When they dissolved, and divided the stock, I am positively certain that my father retained all the descendants of the Stockholder mare, among them Maria Russell and all her produce, and I know to my certain knowledge that said Maria Russell had two good eyes from the time of her foaling until the day of her death. If my father bred a mare to Boston in 1848, I incline to the opinion that it was a bay mare he owned called Limber, for the reason that she, Limber, was very uncertain, having missed several seasons. There is one point, however, that I feel very certain upon, and that is that neither my father nor Captain Russell during their racing or breeding career ever owned a Boston filly. As Boston was the most famous horse of his time, it is not at all possible that there could have been a Boston colt or filly on my father’s farm and I not knowing of the fact. I was born in the old homestead the 15th of November, 1820, and have resided either there or adjoining all my life; therefore I had constant opportunity to know all about my father’s stock of horses.
L. Holton.
“I hereby attest that the above is my father’s signature.—J. A. Holton, son of L. Holton.”
The deadly parallel columns tell the whole story. The central and most important fact in Mr. Holton’s statement has been deliberately and carefully cut out by Mr. Brodhead, and the evidence that he did so cannot be wiped out either by money or by the torture of invalids. The testimony of cold type remains forever. Has Mr. Brodhead, it is asked, professed to have given the whole of Mr. Holton’s statement, and suppressed a vital part of it? He has given every word and letter of the statement, from the date line to the signature, except the one sentence that is the life and soul of the whole statement, and that sentence I have printed above in capital letters, so that it may be easily distinguished and compared. For years I have known that Mr. Brodhead possessed most remarkable visual powers. When he wanted to see a thing he could see it through a stone wall and without any assistance from the “X-rays,” and when he didn’t want to see a thing he couldn’t see it even when held up to his very nose under an arc light. The deception practiced here might justly be designated by a harder name, for it was deliberately planned and carried out in order to gain an end by suppressing the truth. Why did he not free himself from his marvelous powers of vision, and looking out of the natural eyes of his mind, see the imminent danger of a terrible exposure? In keeping back part of the truth with the pretension that he had given it all, how could he avoid recalling the fate of Annanias and Sapphira for keeping back part of the price with the pretension that they had given it all?
As an exercise in ethical athletics I will submit the following abstract question to the debating clubs, especially in Kentucky, viz., “Is the man who suppresses the truth in order to sustain a fraudulent pedigree any more worthy of belief than the man who made the pedigree and sold the horse upon it?”