Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1876-06-07
The Case Ayains, Speaker Kerr.

Speaker Kerr's statement before the
Clymer Committee will disapDoint all who
had hoped he would promptly vindicate
himself against the serious charge, sup
ported by direct testimony, that is brought
against him. His statement is a general
denial, but it does not cover the ground
1t leaves too much unexplained, and re-
qures too much explanation to be accept
ed as answering the testimony against
him. To begin with, there is required
considerable explanation of why Mr.. Kerr
did not recommend the appointment from
his own district or State, instead of going
to New York to find young man upon
whom to bestow It, AT that time, when
he was OF the minority, it was the most
valuable patronage controlled by Mr..
Kerr. The appointment is one that is al
ways eagerly sought. Then Il $500, just after
the close of the war, doubtless there were
not less than five hundred young men in
Mr.. Kerr's own district who, on being APP
prised there was a Lieulenancy to be
filled, would have sharply competed for
it. Many of them doubtless would have
been commended by their own worth.
Others, of course, would have brought
strong political influence to bear to secure
the appointment. Why did Mr. Kerr ig-
more his own constituents, to whom the
appointment properly belonged, and be-
STOW it upon young Green, of New York I?
Then there is disclosed, not by the tes-
timony Of Harvey, but by the official
records, an extraordinary solicitude on
the part of Mr. Kerr to make sure of the
commission in question for young Green
Mr.. kerr's original appOintee, who loas
from Indiana, it seems failed to pass ex-
animation and was rejected. But when
Mr. Kerr appointed young Green, of New
York, he provided that youth with letter,
upon the strength of which he received
his commission without examination by
any Board,' as he himself testified. 1t
must strike every one as strange that when
his letters were 50 potent in this regard,
Mr.. Kerr did not take the trouble to write
one for his Indiana appointee, as he did
for Green, of New York. Why was Mr.
kerr's anxiety to secure the appointment
OF Green SO much greater than TO secure
the appointment OF young man from his
(Kerr's) own district?
Further, Green, who carefully avoids
lnculpating Kerr, testifies that he paid
Harvey to procure the appointment; that
Harvey named Kerr as the man through
whom it was to be obtained; and that,
when Harvey had been paid, Kerr did
procure ii for Green. Mr.. Kerr testifies
that he never knew Harvey in his
life. though Harvey, being one of
the Doorkeepers of the House, must have
been seen daily during the entire session
by Kerr. Mr.. Kerr, with unnecessary
| mprehensiveness, adds: 81 never con
sciously exchanged one minutes CONVEX.
sation between heaven and earth, with
that person tHarney). l never received
any money from him"
! What then, was it that induced Mr.
Kerr to throw away this important and
much sought appointment upon young
man he did not know, and who did moi
live in kerr's State nor district, and had
nobody to secure it for him except Har-
ney, who received $3.50 to buy it with ,
Mr.. Kerr would not have it believed he
was such an innocent as to throw away
such important patronage Harvey
swears he paid the money to Kerr Ger
tain il is that the appointment followed
the payment Of the bribe-money to Har-
ney. According to Mr. Kerr's statement,
Harvey himself was unknown to, and
could have had no influence with him
| Kerr. What, then, was it that infu-
enced Mr.. Kerr to bestow the appoint.
ment upon young Green, who paid for il
-ChIcago Tribune, May 81.