Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1876-11-01

action by tho department, and that th'
resolution cf the gentleman from Wis
consin, or something similar 10 1t
should be adopted
This may be called u rcmarkabl,
"efort," for its style, for its composi
ton, and for its glaring contradictions
First of all, Mr. Hayes says, "the com
miltce was called together to consider
this matter during, ] think, the las
week of tho session" Now the bill
passed on The % of March, the day
preceding tho end of the session. 81
according 10 Mr.. Hayess version, th'
report from his committee and the vote
in tho House must have followed :,
aiias ssaEtisssi5oSS. isssi5oSS' -s -Sssf'Hs R 'tdsso rasu
in mind, what did he do in the matter
lie states that 'af,cr comingout OF tb'
ss.aSsssissli
and found the case referred 10 by the
gentleman from Wisconsin" who upor
that decision had pronounced it th'
"most fraudulent claim ever presented
to Congress. He agreed with Mr.
Washburn's impression, aud so told th'
Chairman of the committee. But
says he, "the majority of the commit
tee had decided the matter, and
could do nothingw
Herein the feeble and passive char
acter Of the man is revealed. ii,
knew this to be fraudulent CLAIM
after reading the decision OF the Su
preme Court, but because the ''majori
ty had decided the natter he accept
&c their Judgment and the irauc
together, dismissed the case, and OK
cuses himself by saying, II could dc
nothing" Why did he not make {
minority report, or knowing what he
did, watch the calendar, and expos,
the fraud? 1t was in his power u
prevent the passage Of this bin, but
as in the case OF the railroad jobs, b,
did not dare TO lisp a syllable agains
what the majority had decided"
But this is not ALL Mr.. Washburr
had declared II served on the Com
mittec on Private Land Claims foul
years, and this is an old Acquaintance,
Of mine; will say TO the House, {
more fraudulent claim was never pre-
sented to the Congress of the United
States; If gentlemen will only read {
decision of the Supreme Court referred
to, they will see that it u fraudulent
claim" Mr.. Hayes. in his explanation
said; II went to the law library ant
found the case referred TO by the gen
tleman from Wisconsin. read j
hastily, and the impression icds mad
upon my miadcorespondiag precisly loiti
The statement embraced in the resolution
presented By the gentleman from IPiscon
sin" So they agree precisely thn
that the claim was fraud under thii
decree of the Supreme Court. Yet
after uttering this positive opinion, h'
winds up this singular discourse il
these words
81 will say further that my prcsen
impression is, that il the claim is per
iectly good one, as perhaps il may be, !
it will bear examination, il seems {,
me right that we should, If possible
procure postponcment of action b,
the Department
These utterances need no comment
They speak for themselves, and exhibi
a commonplace politician, with smal
capacity, and no moral force, lifted N
into the position Of u candidate for th
Presidency, and put forward by pow
erful party as Statesman" fitted 70
this great crisis. If anything wa
needed to determine the qualities AM
fitness of this aspirant, the forcgoin,
speech wouid supply the deficiency. |
ought to.settle the prctensions of Ruth
crford B. Hayes.