The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-10-23

OF bonds 10 De carried with TINS margin Oh |
account of the President.
4. That Mr.. Gould had a personal inter
view with the President in the summer at
Corbin's house, in which the President told
Gould that no gold would be sold before the
1st of November, beyond the regular monthly
two millions, and that this information was
the basis of the speculation.
d. That Mrs. Grant was in the speculation;
half million of gold having been purchased
on her account at 1872, which was sold when
the price had risen to 1871, and the profit,
amounting to %25, 900, was RENTED to her.
6. That when Secretary Boutwell, had de-
cided to sell gold and break down the specu-
lation, the President gave peremptory order
to Boutwell, forbidding the sale, and that
this order was given at the instigation OF
Corbin.
I. That the final order for the sale of gold
was not given until after Corbin had repre-
sented to the President that he was out OF the
speculation.
Everybody must perceive that this is
most damaging array of facts, if the allega-
tions of Mr.. Gould are to be accepted as true.
They are fatal to Corbin, ruinous to Butter
field, derogatUry to Mrs. Grant, and they
compromise the President himself, as it can
not easily be believed that Mrs. Grant would
have gone into SO heavy an operation as the
purchase of half million of gold without the
knowledge and connivance of her husband.
At the very least, it is a matter which needs
to be cleared up; for unless Mr.. Gould can
be confronted with attested facts and con-
victed of falsehood, the Presidents denial,
made at the instance of Mr.. Bonner, cannot
protect his reputation.
| Why does not Mr.. Corbin come before the
public with a formal and circumstantial
| denial He is an old journalist and a recent
contributor to the editorial columns of the
Times; a man accustomed to address the
| public through the press, and perfectly COM
| petent to his own defense, if he has a de-
fensible case. A statement from him was
promised by the EceRjng Post some ten days
ago; but he has not yet ventrred to make it.
| He has made an abundance of verbal denials;
but his solemn asseverations have been con-
tradicted by an array of evidence and affi-
davits that prostrates all belief in his veracity
Under such circumstances, his protracted
| silence looks to the public like q tacit confes-
| sion. Considering that not merely his own
| reputation, but that of the President, is in
| volved, it seems fair presumption that,
| ii he had any defense to offer, he
would make haste to lay it before the public,
especially as the President himself has felt
constrained to make disclaimers in a pub
lished letter. If Mr.. Corbin had anything
| pertinent to say. he should have saved the
| President from this humiliatng necessity.
| The conviction is Hnivorsal that Oorbin was
up to his eyes in the speculation and probably
| its original instigator and Mr.. Gould's dis
| closures, that General Grant was in $500 600
speculation in bonds. and Mrs. Grant in a
! $500, 900 speculation in gold create a neces-
! sity for better defense than has yet been
| offered, before the President can be fully
acquitted in the public Judgment. There is.
possibility of his innocence: but appearances
are too strongly against him to allow the mat
| ter to stand in its present light.
General ButtertieId has not cleared himself
| op1 iS Nftr 1ral Iha uin tinY, ,,,,i,h
he attempted few mornings since in the
| Times is sufficient to condemn him. His very
| eXculpatiOn is inconsistent with his probity
as an officer. Nobody can believe that a tall
agent of Fisk could have stood close by him
in his Office on that memorable Friday, and
have read over his shoulder all the official
kilograms he received from Washington, with
out his connivance. Whether he was guilty,
OF only green, he is equally unfit for his i'm
portant position. Why does not the Presi-
dent remove him? Is he afraid to put so
guilty, or at least so leaky, man out of
Office? Is Butterfield in possession of secrets
which would connect General Grant more di
rectly with the speculation as its secret abet-
tor? Even apart from Gould's disclosures,
Butterfields own defense takes away all ex-
cuse for continuing him In office for single
day. Nobody believes that tall messenger
of the gold ring was looking over his shoul-
der and reading all his dispatches without his
completely. Why does the President hesitate
TO turn him out?
If it had been Andrew Johnson, instead of
Ulysses Grant, to whom such facts had been
brought SO nearly home, how all the Repub-
lican organs would have howled What a
clamor they would have raised Especially
if President Johnson had been notoriously in
the habit of accepting profuse and expensive
gifts and in return bestowing important offices
upon their authors. Had it been Johnson in
stead of Grant, nothing short of impeach-
ment would have satisfied the Republicans;
and if the evidence had been believed, con-
viction would doubtless have followed. We
will not treat General Grant with such reck-
less want of candor was practised towards
Mr.. Johnson. All we have to say is, that the
disclosures are too damaging to be safely ig-
nored: but if the President or his friends
l make a successful vindication, none will well
3 come it more heartily, or more cheerfully
2 admit its force, than ourselves The reputa-
a tion of the country is too deeply involved in
3 the integrity of its first magistrate, for us to
desire that Mr.. Gould's charges should be
, substantiated.