The sun., 1873-01-27

us next consider the qualifications OF the
person whom they have just appointed
and confirmed us Assistant Secretary OF
State.
Mr. J. G. B. DAVIS is a citizen OF New
York For many years he was director,
and also a trusted legal adviser OF the Erie
Railway Company. He was such in 1867;
and on October of that year he was
active in procuring contract to be made
by the Erie Company with the Boston,
Hartford and Erie, corporation OF Mas
sachusetts, by which the Erie Company
guaranteed five millions OF dollars OF the
bonds of the Boston, Hartford and Erie
BY making this contract the Erie Company
ultimately lost u large sum OF money-pe-
tween two and three millions Of dollars.
Subsequent to the execution of this con-
tract the Boston, Hartford and Erie Conn
pany became embarrassed, and an invest-
CATION of its affairs was made by joint
committee Of the two Houses OF the Legis-
laturc of Massachusetts,; and in March,
1870, the Legislature published the testi-
mony taken by this committee in thick
volume, called Senate Document No. l33.
The committee had before IL the books OF
the Boston, Hartford and Erie Company,
and examined the President of that COM
pany, Mr.. JONI =. ELpRIDGE, under oath
in reference to some of the expenditures
of money set forth in those books. The
following facts respecting Mr.. DAVIS are
stated in Mr.. EIDnIDGE's sworn testimony (:
-. my the comnitteeJ-i see tuHt ,rt. =. -.
DAVIS got sso.oco. what was that forr What
a. (by President ELDRDoBl-He was To draw
the contracts and dtd ~ IN carrying thefn through
"Q.-Was he one OF the directors Of tho Erie
RailroadI
"A lie was one OF the directors at that
time"
This evidence of the President of the
Boston, Hartford and Erie Company, CIV
ing an explanation of entries in their books,
proves that while Mr.. J. g. b. DAVIS was
director and also counsel of the Erie
Railway Company he received large sum
of money from another corporation in pay
ment for his services in securing from the
Erie Railway q contract for the guarantee
Of 1--WE millions of the bonds of that other
corporation. In other words, while holding
a dducidry relation to one company he takes
pay from another com pdnp for the procure
ment Of contract TO be made by the
company TO iChich he s,tstdtns this fdtt-
cidry relation. Being paid and trusted
hy one party. he takes bribe from the
other party to betray and defraud the
party that employs and trusts him.
His act in this case was essentially the
same as II, being Assistant Secretary of
State Of the United States, he should take
bribe from the British Government to
procure between England and the United
States such treaty Us the British Govern
ment might desire.
With all these facts in view we are now
ready to answer the question whether the
appointment of this man to be Assistant
Secretary of State is suitable, appropriate,
and consistent. And we say that il must at
least be admitted to be consistent by those
who view merely the mode in which our
President is elected and the character of
some of the more notorious men who
sit as members of the Senate to confirm
or reject the Presidents nominations.
An Assistant Secretary of State with such
antecedents must certainly be in har-
mony with Credit Mobilier Congress and
Senate, and with President alscted by
frauds upon the ballot box. In this aspect
of the case no fault can he found with this
appointment, and II must be pronounced
suitable. But whether il will be regarded
rs suitable by those old-fashioned persons
who hold that public officers should he
honest men and not bribe takers, and the
| influence of the Government should be in
favor Of good morals Is another question