Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1878-08-30

This despatch tells nothing new, and is
interesting chiefly as showing the kind of
reputation which Mr. Barlow has in Wash
ington-which is pothing new, either. The
closing sentence in the despatch is erro-
neous. The reports Of the testimony
before the Congressional Committee in Feb
ruary, 1876. published in the New York
papers at the time (and copied without con-
tradiction by the St. Adams Messenyer) say
that Mr.. Barlow "admitted in reply to ques-
tions that he had loaned considerable sums,
not exceeding 100000 in the aggregate, to
Gen. Morgan l.. Smith, brother of Giles A.
Smith, the Second Assistant Postmaster
General also that he employed as coun-
sci one Earl, formerly law partner of Post
master-General Creswell, paying him some
$1,000; also that he employed Col. McKib-
ben, lobby agent, at salary OF $50 900 a
year.
Col. McKibben was on the stand and
testified, among other things, " that Col.
Farrar, who aiterward became counsel for
Barlow, Sanderson s Co. received from
them 100000 TO stiae the investigation of
1872"
The New York Tribune's special Wash
ington despatch of February 2sd, 1876, said
that the testimony showed that "about
$l40. 900 was expended by Mr.. Barlow, the
great mail contractor, to protect his interests
from competition and from the investiga-
tions." 1t added THAT money was disposed
of about as follows, for of its disbursement
no denial is made To the Farrar and Nc
Kibben combination, $4,000; MeKibben
personally, $4,000; n. ilson. legitimate
attorney fees. SO 900; Hood, useful about
Departments, $4,000; Morgan l.. Smith, a
loan, SO, ,000 buying bids, $50 900 Jere-
miah Black, McKibben and Paschal, addi-
tional counsel fees, $4,000; total $l3S 900.
OF the above, sum $4,000 was confessed
ly paid to suppress an Investigation in
1872"
The reprinting of these facts from the
public record formed prominent part Of the
- campaign OF yilifcation" which the Bar
low organs have asserted was urged against
Mr.. Barlow in the canvass preceding the Con-
vention. and any further reference to them
will doubtless awaken fresh howl about
Misrepresentation" and personal abuse.
1t seems to be the worst possible "abuse'
Of Mr.. Barlow to call attention to the facts
in his record which he would prefer to keep
covered. But they arc facts to which the
people OF this District are entitled.
What say the honest yoters-Republicans,
Democrats, Greenbackers, or what not do
we want for Representative in Congress an
associate AID employer OF lobby agents.
linen useful about the departments" and
relatives and partners of Government of
fcials with influence to SELL? Do VIC want
mail contractor, whose work at Washing
ton was done with such tools, and who paid
$l3s, 900 to protect his interests from com
petition''-in other words, to prevent the
competition in bidding for mail routes,
which is essential to the protection of the
public interest-and to suppress investiga-
ton" of his contracts? Has it ever oc-
surred TO the taxpayers that not only
the $l3s 900 thus most Improperly expend-
ed in pandering to and profting by the cor
ruption at Washington but the other vast
sums which went into Mr. Birlow's pockets
from the public treasury, and which enabled
him to make these munifcent allowances to
lobby agents and men useful about the de-
partments, and to conduct the most lavish
money y-canvass ever known in the history OF
Vermont. really came from their pockets?