The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1875-10-29
Dlsgraceful, Scandalous and Corrupt.


Stained as the administration Of Presi-
dent Grant Is with disgraccful acts,
there Is nothing more disgraccful IN the
entire record Of that Administration
than the transfer 70 Henry Clews a. Co.,
Of the United States financial agency in
I London and other European cities
Regarded simply IN respect 10 its APP
parent fitness the change was bad
enough, and was justly condemned at
I the Time il was made. The Barings had
been the financial agentsof the Govern
ment from the time it first needed a
financial agency. They had transacted
the business intrusted 10 them faithfully
and economically. Their house was
substantial and in the best of crcdit-a
credit the growth Of years. There was
I absolutely no apparent reason for max
! ing the change except the desire TO fa-
yOr an American house and the house
of Henry Clews ~ Co, we'll as il then
! stood, had no such standing when com
pared with the standing Of the Barings
rs To make the change desirable or pru-
dent.
And il the change had so little to
commend il when looked at purely as a
business transaction, can il be regarded
rs less than disgraceful in the light Of
the recent disclosures rs to the manner
in which it was brought about? Pro-
cured from the President through the
efforts of the paid agents of Clews &
Co., acting up,n members of Congress,
upon Senator's, upon members of the
/ Presidents own family-such is the his
tory of the change a disclosed by one
of the persons most active in procuring
\ il. According TO the testimony Of
Cheeyer, the whole affair was managed
4 through the lobby influence with open,
shameless and unblushing bribery, and
was finally accomplished through the
! Presidents brother-in-law, who was to
receive for his services one-eighth of the
profits A more scandalous piece Of
business it is impossible 10 conceive Of
Nor is it as a scandal and disgrace
alone that this transaction will be added
to the long catalogue of shortcomings
with which Grants administration al
ready stands credited on the books Of
! the people. II is true that no money
has yet been traced any nearer the cen
ter of the White House than the pocket
/ of the dOOr-keeper; but the question is
I being asked, and asked very significant
\ ly, by what means was the Presidential
mind finally wrought upon in the mat
I ter9 What Were the arts the gallant
\ Dent employed in convincing his poten-
/ tial brothcr-in-law that the change
\ ought 10 be made? There had been no
request from any Of the departments for
K the change. The members of the Cab
\ met who were most interested, and had
I the most reason 20 be, We're abundantly
satisfied with the Earrings. The head Of
4 the State Department, Mr.. Fish, was
4 bitterly opposed TO the change, as it
was well understood his predecessor.
Mr. Seward. was also. How then did
the hired Dent succeed? Was il simply
by persuasive eloquence or by an APP
peal 10 those sentiments of affection
which one brother-in-law feels for an
other? Who believes IL? The first
question an intelligent man would have
asked when appealed TO upon such a
subject from such source would have
had for it, object the ascertaining of the
interest which the applicant had in the
success of his application. To suppose
that Grant acceded TO the request even
of loved brother-in-law in this matter
without knowing or attempting 10 know
precisely what was that brother-in-la' 5
interest in the matter is TO suppose the
! President devoid of common sense. If
he attempted to know he either found
out that his brother-in-law was the paid
agent of the men in whose favor he was
asked 10 make the change or he was
egregiously deceived Upon this point
there may be room for doubt: but it
will probably strike the majority of
those who look at the subject thought
fully that the President was not deceived
and that he knew the precise nature of
Dents interest in the cause he was adj
yOcating.
If the President did know this.
aud knowing it granted the request of
his brother-in-law the act was corrupt
in addition TO being disgraceful and
scandalous. Whether he actually shared
in the spoilS or not can make no differ
ence. If he knew, or had the faintest
reason to suspect, that he was putting
money into the pocket of a relative by
his act or by his assent, the act or the
assent was as corrupt as il he had con-
ditiOncd such act or assent upon a di-
vision of the price paid for securing it.
The strong suspicion Of actual corrup-
ton which is excited in this case may
not constitute very heavy addition to
the burden Of incapacity and infamy
which Grants administration already
has to bear. but it will do much TO re.
move from the popular mind any lin
gering fear it may have had heretofore
Of a possible perpetuation of Grantism
either by fraud or force.
To BE Investigated.