Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1876-10-27

WQu.d KNOW WnaC was IUr tue Deue III VI tn'
public ssrVce in that regard, and did 20
know. Now, Judge, let me ask you two o
three questions
10 the process of that reduction did not th'
Collector relieve from duty two officers 'rou
the Seventh district, appointed With your re
commeudation as lts represent tatlVe 10 Congress
discharged as part Of the necessary reduc;io'
of his force?
Was he not called to Washington ihercupor
| by Secretary R.istow, and did he not meet sou
| then member of Congress, before the Secre
sar, ? Did you not then insist to the Secreta.
ry that the Collector should restore those men,
| and argue at length that your nen should be
retaioed in ofioe, although the Collector had
| certified 70 the Secretary that their services
were no longer needed, nor the services OF any
body else 10 their places2 Did not the Go!lec
tor 10 your presence state to you chat these
mems services were not required, and dla you
not still insist hat they should be kept b2calis'
| they were your appolntees5
When, 10 the course oty0ur speech 10 the
Secretary you referred to my district, did oot
| the Collector call your attention to the tact
| that had not iatertered With his action ln be
| half of any Of the Custom House employees il
my district, but had left him to DO aocordlc2 to
the dictates OF his own judgment aud that
yourself aud brother, who, think, was pres
ent were the ouly Two members OF Congress
who had ever iuter!ered With him as TO which
of his subordinates be should discharge! Yield
| iug to your opportunities, pressed With great
vehemeoce, did not the Secretary finally order
these men-good men, doubt not, but not
needed--to be retained, and did not the Col
lectcr obey that ordcr2 Aud were not two
men thus fastened upon tho Treasury cy you,
member of Congress- that were net needed,
in opposition TO the judgment OF the officer
charged with the carrying on OF that braach OF
the public.service2
That, Judge, 10 the kind OF civil service Ic-
form [ scott al; aad nothing but NY personal
respect for yen aud tte entire absence ol per
soual hostility toward mo 90 your pait pre-.
vents my sc1tiiog at the reformer.
Now, Judge, how, after ,hat, could you 60
to Cincinnati and vote for civil service reform?
or were you, 10 that regard, as we'll as 10 regard
to tho candidsture OF Mr.. Blaine. oue thing IN
Massachusetts and another 10 Cincinnati
Thou hypocrite, cas-. ollt The beam out of
thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly
to cast out the mote out Of thy brothers eye. -
The difference between Us, Judge, is this, as
| understand it Il do full as we'll as preach;
you preach great deal better than you do
10 the matter Of "cougacts.' | have never
had or made any contract with the government,
nor have had any Interest 10 any except as a
meuber of company which has done work
for the government, precisely the same as any
other iudividua! in the community.
Contracts in relation to government mat
ters do hear you say, Judgei Well, will
tell you What think would be contract about
govcrumen. affairs which would be disgraceful
Nd l q =
With me. If / should be employed BY the gov
ernmrnf, or acybcdy else, to give legal opin.
icn upoa aud mango q law case, and, after
lad done 80 and become conversant viii all hs
,ots on thar de, ,houid take empl ymct
on the ether side ,ui receive large feos for ny
services specially beaauso OF mY knowledge Vi
the casa. gc' wuru waa the lawyer tar tho
frst parry. I 5houI aay had dissrso"d myself,
ny pynfes>ivn and ny S;are; and am certain
i! kai d ,le So yoG woald have mentioned ii
10 vUu letter Us o reason Why YCu ccuia rot
Support me !or Congress.
We'll! thee, Judge [corrcct me il / get thG
facts wrong, and shall cot need oorTcc.ioG,
did rot the CcnIrsl Pacific Railroad hare Il
claim for many nii!ionsof land grants aad bonds,
to BIZ given by he uoited States as subsidy,
depending upon certain Law points. end also
upon the appruvu! ot q map OF location, which
was so proposterous that even Andrew ohnscn
would oot approve it, as i. would take many
millions out Of The Treasury without any equiv
alentf
Were not these law questions peGdl0g before
the Department of Justice, having been re-
ported 10 il before you became Attorney Gen
eral =? Did yeu not hear or read printed argu
nents upon them while acting for the United
States as it's Attorney General?
Did not those arguments tal! to convince yen
that you ought TO advise the President to ap.
proQe that nap, and you did not go advise
him 2 Was uot that all SO?
You did right, Judge; uobody had brlbeG
you or offered to bribe you TO give different
opinion that know Of
Immediately after you esgned your Office CT
Attorney General did you not receive large
retainer loot too large for such servce) Oh
behalf Of the Central Pacific railroad to argue
this very case OF taeirs before the Executive or
other departments Of the government? Ard
did you 10. SC argue!
Nay, did ycu rot, under the pressure OF your
fees. 20 to the President and use oil possible
political, personal and legal iDtiusnca upon
him, az his late law adviser, to prevail upon
the President to approve that map and thereby
lay the touodation Tor fchlng out OF the peo-
pie Of the United States, 10 lands and bonds.
quite es many millions as you ere years old +?
Do you yoursslf believe that you received your
retaiuers on your supposed merits ss lawyer
or simply because OF the knowledge obtained
and influence acquired by you 10 the case-be:
cause you had been Attorney General? OF
course the railroad got you as ex-Attoruey
General not as lawyer. 1t the latter Lad been
what they paid Tor they would have retained
you before, as you were better lawyer before
you we're Attorney General than after. Ny
dear Judge, getting into high Office seems TO
have shrivclsd you up as lawyer somehow. as
ripe pear is sometimes By too much llgh; in
the fall at least thought SO when We tried
the Weld case together when you !et your
ellen ia for $500 900 judgment.
am making in, letter too long, Judge, so
that I will no, sag anything now about the
other relantrs you took against the govern
mout la other railroads and TIE Wool case,
where you not only argued what the law was,
i ,A,. a.s, fah