"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 of party spirit, which has carried then even to the extent of intimating that the Secretary of the Treasury was party to the pranks of an eccentric woman who dropped a parcel of letters to set the local politicians of New Orleans agog—a woman who was called before the committee a long time as a witness, but who was neither called, examined, nor cross-examined by the minority, who, however they might share the public amusement at the performance, entirely declined to take part in it.
"A considerable number of gentlemen who visited New Orleans, either at the request of President Grant or of the national or local campaign committee, were called, and testified as to the purpose of their visit and their procedure during it.
"Adhering to our purpose of leaving the majority to frame issues on which they were willing to proceed in investigating, we did not seek to examine into the particulars of the conduct of the Democratic visitors in Louisiana. To let the testimony show the original resolutions of inquiry to be both useless and mischievous, serving no purpose but the spread of unjust scandal, seemed to us, in view of all former inquiries in the same direction, the proper course to pursue.
"Messrs. Sherman, Garfield, Hale, Kelley, and others were examined, and their testimony was compared with that by which it was attempted to impeach their motives and their conduct. Their account of their action is consistent and frank. They believed that their party had rightfully a good claim to the fruits of the election in that state. They also believed that the notorious violence and intimidation which had in former years disgraced that state had been again practiced in the campaign of 1876. They approved the action of the returning board in deciding, under the powers given them by law, to declare null the pretended elections at precincts and polls where evidence of such interference with the freedom of election had occurred. We do not find that they attempted to control the board or to dictate their action. We do not find that they attempted to dictate to witnesses or to procure false testimony to place before the board. We do not find that they were in any way more partisan or less scrupulous than the similar party of gentlemen who then represented the Democratic party. The attempt to single out Mr. Sherman for special attack seems to us to have had no original foundation but the testimony of James E. Anderson, and the terms in which the majority, in their report, have characterized that person, warrant us in declaring our opinion that when the character of that witness and his testimony were discovered, it was the duty of the majority of the committee frankly to abandon their effort to discriminate between Mr. Sherman and the other gentlemen who were associated with him."
Shortly afterward I wrote the following letter to E. F. Noyes, then United States minister at Paris, whose name was mentioned in the resolution of investigation:
"Washington, D. C., April 1, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 18th ult. is received.
"The report of the Potter committee, which you correctly pronounce to be infamous, was received in silence and was scarcely printed or noticed in the newspapers of the United States two days after its presentation to the House. It was then severely handled by the Republican press and treated with silence by the Democratic press, and now it is not mentioned. I think that neither of us should complain of any injurious result from the Potter investigation; although it was annoying, it was fair and creditable both to the committee and many of the witnesses. But for the expense and trouble of the investigation, I am rather gratified that it occurred, for the feeling of the Democratic party, over what they supposed was a fraudulent return, would have deepened into conviction, while the investigation tended on the while to repel this suspicion.
* * * * *
"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. E. F. Noyes."