The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1880-06-19
THE CHICAGO NOMINEE FOR THE VICE
PRESIDENCY

IdE CdlChUO NVmlNEE Fun IhE VIE
PRESIDENCY.
The prevailing style among the republican
papers is to excuse the nomination for the
vice presidency Of a man so obviously objec-
tionable and untitled tor the position rs Gen
Arthur, by saying it was necessity in order
to strengthen the ticket in New York by con-
ciliating and humoring Conkling, who might
otherwise have felt soured and indifferent on
account of his great disappointment from
failure to secure the nomination of Gen. Grant
The truth, however, Is palpable, that Conk-
ling hurled Arthur at the convention with no
thought of presenting him as peaceofering,
but purely rs a taunt and insult. The con.
vention had not only put upon Conkling ev.
cry indgnity it was capable of in the bullying
manner in which it had ruled out the Grant
majority and then sneered at and tainted him
with his impotency, but it had taken extra
pains to insult him 10y passing resolutions
commenting the administration of President
Hayes, for which Conkling had never failed to
show his contempt, and to pass strong resolu-
ton commenting the --LATEST humbug of the
age Hayes civil service reform pretentions, for
which ConklIng was known to harbOr the most
supreme disgust. 1t was under taunts and
insults like these that Conkling, like the scor.
pon hegirt with fire, dealt his last deadly
sting by defantly hurting at the convention
the name Of Arthur. The force Of the indlg-
nant retort can only be thoroughly appreciated
from a glance at the real character of Gen.
Arthur and the history of his connection with
the Hayes administration and its civil service
reform humbuggery, which the convention
thought it had SO splendidly "set down upon"
Conkling by commencing.
Two years ago Chester A. Arthur was re-
moved by President Hayes from the office of
collector of the port Of New York on direct
charges of inetllciency, with the implied
charge of dishonesty. We copy the rest of
this sweet history from the New York Sun:
In his message to the senate Of January 81,
1919, Mr. Hayes SAID:
With my information of the facts in the
case, ana with deep sense of the responsible
obligation imposed upon me by the constltu-
ton, to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed | regard 1t as my plain duty to sus-
pend the officers in question, and to make the
nominations now before the senate, in order
that this important office may be honestly and
efficiently administered"
In order that the custom laws might be
faithfully executed Mr. Hayes found himself
compelled by a deep sense OF his duty, to re-
move Chester A. Arthur.
In order that the custom house might be
differently managed Mr. Hayes regarded it as
his plain duty to remove Chester A. Arthur.
In order that the office might be honestly
administered, he felt Obliged to remove Ches-
ter A. Arthur
In Mr.. Hayess view, the then collector of
the port of New York was neither faithful,
competent, nor an honest officer of the gov
eminent
What was John Sherman's opinion of Gen.
Arthur at that time?
In a letter to Hayes, dated Jan. %, 1870, Mr..
Sherman said:
| If, to secure the removal of an officer, it is
necessary to establish the actual commission
OF a crime by proofs demanded IN court OF
Justice, then it is clear that the case against
Mr. Arthur is no. made out, especially II his
answer Is held to be conclusive, without refer
encc to the proofs on the public records and
| rendered to the committee and the senate. But
| if it is to be held that, to procure the removal
of Mr.. Arthur, it is sufficient to reasonably es
tablish that gross abuses of administration
| have continued and increased during his In
cumbency; that many persons have been regu-
| larlV DNlu on MS Tolls WilO IcuuCiCu liltiO Va
no service; that the expenses of his Office have
increased, while collections have been dimln-
ishing that brlbes or gratuities in the nature
| of brides have been received by his suDordln-
ates IN several branches of the custom house;
| that efforts to correct these abuses have not
met his support, and that he has not given to
the duties of the office the requisite diligence
and attention, then 1T is submitted that the
case is made out. This form of proof the de
partment is prepared to submit"
In short, John Sherman claimed to have
proof in his possession that Chester \. Arthur
was either fool, incapable of watching the
thieves whom he cherished in his office, or a
rascal who winked at their crimes. Indeed,
he plainly lnsinuated that nothing except the
actual legal evidence of Arthur's crlmlnallty
was wanting to put that official into prison
| instead of into retirement.
What qualification 1t must be to Gen. Ar,
thur and to his many warm friends to tnd
this very same John Sherman and Rutherford
b. Hayes now supporting HIM for vice presi-
dent of the United States.