The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-02-27

or two since about Lewisville, until it's
statements we're disproved by Lieutenant
McAIanus, stationed at Chester. We
trust that its pencaant for shis peculiar
adversary will some day be gratified by
live one, with formidable horns and q
fearful whisking tail. Then we shall
see change Of tune and quick change
OF base
The CAaEs OF THE BRIBED CONGRESS-
MEN-WHo ARE MOST GUILTY?-Before
Congress acts upon the report of Bishop
Poland's committee, it may be we'll to
consider exactly what that report means
Stripped of all verbiage, the people con-
cerned in the Credit Mobilier frauds are
of two classes-the briber and the
bribed. Oakes Ames is the embodiment
of the one, James Brooks the represen-
tative Of the other. Morally, tho crime
Of these men is the same.
Oakes Ames, a member of Congress,
in order to further the desigLs of men
associated with him in the management
of the Union Pacific Railroad, placed
certain stock of the Credit Mobilier of
America in the hands of certain members
OF Congress. In doing this, he bribed
them. In receiving the stock and divi.
dends, they we're bribed. Poland's COM
mittee recognized one of these facts IN
recommending that he should be ex-
PEELED from the House. The committee
stultifield itself by ignoring the other
fact, which was equally plain to every
unprejudioed mind.
The case of Brooks shows how Aagrant
this qualification was. Brooks received
100 shares OF stock, upon which q ca sh
dividend of $4,000 was paid in June,
1858. This was bribery, of course. Let
as see whether it differs materially from
the other cases.
Mr. Henry L. Dawes "bought" ten
shares Of stock, upon which he paid $500.
Soon afterwards he received $4O0 in divi-
dends, and 5000 additional on account
of his purchase. Thorough investi-
CATION, as in the case Of Brooks, the
Democrat, would have revealed differ
ent state Of facts; but. taking it as it
stands. il was bribery.
Mr. Glenni W. Scofield "bought" ten
shares, and received the dividends-one
of eighty aud another of sixty per cent.
There was afterwards ''settlement''
with Mr.. Amcs. Was not this bribery
also?
Mr. John A. Bingham "bought"
twenty shares of stock, and was made
happy in correspondingly large divi.
dends.
Mr.. William D. Kelley "bought" ten
shares of stock, and Mr. Ames carried"
them for him. He received the diyi-
dends which Dawes and bingham re-.
ceived. The committee tell us this
much, thus impeaching Kelley's veraci-
ty, for he denied ever having owned tho
stock.
Mr.. James A. Garfield is in position
identical with that Of Kelley.
The cases OF Patterson and Colfax
were equally aagrant with the others,
and more hagrant in this. that these men
were utterly reckless in their preyarica.
tion. James F. Wilson is out of Con-
gress, and it is scarcely worth while to
waste even our contempt on him. It
will be time enough to settle the case of
VIM. B. Allison when ho offers to take
his place in the Senate.
Wherein do any OF these cases differ
from the case of Brooks? Colfax was
equally guilty. Why, then, is he not
impeached? Patterson. was equally
guilty. Why, then, does not the Senate
assert its honor and dignity by expelling
him? Dawes, Scotield, Bingham, Kelley
and Garfield we're equally guilty. Why,
then, did not the committee recommend
their expulsion as we'll as that of
BROOKS? The reason is plain, and the
country will understand it. Ames and
brooks were made scapegoats for the
others, with o possible chance for the
escape OF all. The report is partial, nm.
just, disgraceful. If Ames and Brooks
are expelled, it will be wrong which
the American people will not overlook,
Tor the others are equally guilty, and
ought to receive like punishment. II
they escape as we'll as tho others, the
outrage will be scarcely less marked. In
either event, Poland and his associates
will share the infamy and die with the
curses OF their countrymen upon them.
NeO York Herald.