Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1876-06-09
The Case Against Speaker Kerr.

Speaker Kerr's statement before the
Clymer Committee will disappoint 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.
Ii leaves too much unexplained, and re-
uuires 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 1866, just after
the close of the war, doubtless there W ere
not less than five hundred young men in
Mr.. Kerr's own district who, on being ap-
prised there was a Lieutenancy 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-
appointment properly belonged, and be-
stow il upon Young Green, of New York ?
Then there is disclosed, not by the tes-
timony of Harney, 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 iods
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
inculpating Kerr, testities that he paid
Harney to procure the appointments; that
Harney named Kerr as the man through
whom it was to be obtained; and that
when Harvey had been paid, Kerr did
| procure II Tor Green. Mr. Kerr testlfes
that he never knew Harvey in his
life, though Harney, being one of
the DoOrkeepers of the House, must have
been seen daily during the entire session
by Kerr Mr.. Kerr, with unnecessary
comprehensiveness, adds; 81 never con-
sciously exchanged one minutes conver.
sation between heaven and earth, with
that person (Harney) never received
any money from him"
I 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 Kerrs State nor district, and had
nobody to secure ii 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. Harney
swears he paid the money to Kerr. Ger.
tain it 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, anC
could have had no influence with, hin
(Kerr). What, then, was it that inf1u
enced Mr.. Kerr to bestow the appoint
ment upon young Green, who paid for it
-ChtcdaO Tribune, May 81.