The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1876-05-10
BLAINE AND BROTHER.
CHAPTER OF COR.
RUPTION.
The Question of Whether tn,
Hyena From Maine Whacked
With His Brother Again
Discussed.
AN ARGUMENT.


Discussed.
AN ARGUMENT.
BLAINE OF THE BLOODY BANNER CAN'T Az
FORD TO ACCEPT STEWARDS vINDIcA-
TON.
ST. JOSEPH, Mo-, May LIN my former
touching James G. Blsine's
with the Kansas Pacific cor
ruption bonds, 1 promised 20 notice
further the explanation which Mr.. Blaine's
friends and partners in the alleged coirup-
ton have made for him. The first impor-
tant fact that stands out boldly is that Col.
Stewart and Gen. Ewing were both parti-
ceps criminis with Mr.. Blaine in the
charged corruption. So far as Stewart and
Blaine are concerned, they sustain the re-
lstion OF corruptor and corruptee, and
Gen. Ewing Is their co-corruptionist. Col.
Stewart was the great central figure or
character in this whole corruption drama,
and in his sworn deposition claims nearly
all the glory of putting that great infsmy,
the corruption act, through Congress. For
many years he has been one of that foul
sGarm OF D liticsl buzzsrds who
gather about the Washington lobbies
and grow fat on the rotten MEM
bers of Congress, whom they deem
their legitimate prey. II Col. Stewart ever
had any moral perceptions, he has breathed
the deadly moral miasma of the lobbies
until they have long since been al sti1edi
Mr.. James G. Blaine nay or may not be
guilty of this grave charge which, If true,
turns the hsrd-earned glory OF bis past lie
into shame and darkness, but the country
can not afford to let the matter rest on any
vindicstion Col. Stewart may make. And
unfortunately for Mr.. Blaine, Gen. Ewing
- ~ ---lN n H.
dition to do Mr.. B.aine much
good. Under sll the circumstances
any statements Gen. Ewing may
make should be severely criticised.
1t is wonderful how all of our corruption
lists do protest their innocence. or all the
honorable and distinguished individuals
who were connected with our whisky
ring, and who now adorn our
Missouri penitentisry and so many
was hardly one that did not protest his in
nocence in the face of the most overwhel-
ming evidence of his guilt; and even those
VINO plead guilty when called up for SEN
tence still protested their innocence OF any
actual guilt, and all especially protss sted
their innocence of ever having gotten a
single dollar of the stolen millions.
So it is with all these corruptionists.
They and their many distinguished
friends, with the most sublime impudeDce,
declare their innocence in the face of the
most stubborn facts. But now to
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
in hand. Col. Stewart testified that 500. .OeO
of this corruption fund was pat
into his hands in trust for other
parties not named; and as ]
stated in my former communication,
Thomas @. Durant testifies that the whole
r.f de
placed by him in Stewards hands, to paw Ii
abilities, but he knew nothing about the de-
tails of me company. Now, the testimony
shows that Stewart never rendered any
service at all TO this company except to
prepare and lobby this measure through
Congress, for which he got $4,000 of this
fund. Right here the prominent facI
comes in that Blsine's $4,000, Ewing.
| SIS, 900 and Sherman's $40, 600 were paid by
the company on the written orders ol
Joseph B. Stewart, and were charged by
the company to Stewart and his corruption
| iund, and were allowed by the court as sc
much in payment of Stewards claim in bis
suit at Topeka. Every dollar in Stewards
hands was for lobbying purposes. 1t now
seems that Stewart and Ewing state in theil
attempt to vIndiCa:e Blaine, that the record
of this suit shows that the $4,000 were
paid to John f. Blaine. a brother o.
James G. Blaine, for $4,000 of stock in
bonds he held in the old defunct Leaven-
worth, Paunee and Western road in 1S6l-2
In the first place it seems Strange that the
Kansas Pacific company should give Jobr
L. Blaine Sl5, 900 good bonds, its temporary
construction bonds, which were secured
by deed OF trust in all the valuable par
of its magnificent land grant, and convert
able into governmer bonds, Tor Sl0,0 o.
worthless bonds of bankrupt road. In
the second place, how did it happen tha
this S15 600, which the record shows Johr
e. Blaine got, should be paid out of this
corruption fund into the hands of Stewart
and be charged to Joseph B. Stewart
and offset against his claim in his sun
against the read? It seems from Ewing.
statement that it was in 1872 that JohI
E. Blaine made this remarkable exchange
of $40, 900 of worthless bonds for $4,000 o.
good bonds; and the evidence shows tha
Joseph B. Stewart had nothing to do witt
the road until about 1864 when the ac
spoken OF by him in his deposition
was put through Congress, and th'
written stipulation in regard to thes.
Blaine bonds, which was used in evidence
states that John Z Blaine had these con-
struction bonds as far back only as 1864
but no farther, as infer. The following Il
q true copy of the stipulation as 20 the
Blaine bonds:
STIPULATION AS TO BLAINE AND sCHIF
| FER.
SIT is agreed In this case that John E
Blaine was the holder of fifteen of tn
bonds described in the pleadings in thi
case as the construction bonds of the de
fendsnt, series "B," and that he receive,
said bonds of plaintiff (Stewsrt) and whicl
were returned to him (Stewart) by sei'
Blaine.
ssThat sfterward at the instance and re
n O-oof IF no oloinfif n fGtowotfN tho dafand
ant RAILROAD Company delivered to sal
Blaine II land grant bonds of 81 900 esc
in full satisfaction of the Is bonds in tn
hands of plaintiff, which have not bee
delivered to defendant.
THAT the delivery of the II bonds wa
made since the commencement of this sui
but said Blaine was the holder of the cor
struction bonds aforesaid Ia the year lS6-
"This statement may be read in evidenc
in the cause by plaintiff, July 16, 1870.