The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1880-06-24

The Charges Against General

The Charges Against General
Garsield-
The New York Herald, in comment
ing upon the arraignment of General
Garfield by the n. Y. Sun, says: 4
- < If the Suns charges,
are proved General Garfield is not tit
to be President. They are so utterly
damaging, if true, That we reproduce
the Suns statement in another part of
this paper. The parallel which the
Sun draws between the case of Mr..
COifaX-and that of Mr.. Garfield is fore
ible and striking, and tends to show
that the ruined ,Colfax is an. .inj ured
maniif Garfield is innocent. They had
the same amount of Credit Mobilier
stock assigned them they alike denied
that they had received any; the deni-
ais of both were rebutted by strong
evidence but one of them has been
seventeen years in disgrace and the
other is nominated for tbe'Presidency.
If the overwhelming ruin of ColfaX is
Just it behOOveS the friends of General
Garfield to show how their cases differ.
I'VE are willing to judge of Mr.. Gar
fields defence with the same leandor
and impartiality as if we had never
| pronounced a strong opinion against
him. But the fact that the charge is
old does not absolve him from the ne
cessity of refuting it. a" ode ss.-t
The grounds of defence thus far of
fered by his supporters are as damag-
ing as the original accusation. They
try to belittIe it by saying that it is
raked up from the past. Do they real
| ly think that if General Garfield was
corrupt eighteen years ago that is no
reason why he should not be elected
| President now? What is of real con-
sequence is not whether the charges
are old, but whether they are true.6 If
true they are as fatal a bar to this cleo
ton as ii the offence had been conn
mitted yesterday. Would Colfax be a
! fit candidate because so much time has
t'elapsed since his eXposure?n i''e-ea
| al 1t is .sufther, said that Mr. Garfield 8
constituents ia his Congressional dis
| trict have recovered confidence in him.
This counts for little until we know
whether they acquitted or condoned
and. the grounds on which they acquit-
ted him, if it was all acquittal. Ger
tain it is that he lost many votes in the
| election which followed his exposure.
His majority, which had been nearly
IL 900 in 1872, just previous to tile ex-
posure, IL IL to 2 ,5:S i'll 1874. But a bare
statement of majorities is not fair to
Mr.. Garfield, since there was, a. third
candidate in 1874. The loss of conf
dence is best measured by his loss of
| votes.o In 1872 he received 19, lS9, and
in 1874 only 12,59I-a loss of nearlys6,- :
500 in consequence of the exposures
and in spite of his strenuous attempts
to parry them. He afterward recovi
cred his usual majorities. '','r
f. But when we are referred to his con-
stituents it is legitimate to inquire on
what grounds they forgave or acquitted
| him. If it was on the same grounds
that are now urged their Judgment
cannot be accepted. We are now
gravely told that it was, only small
matter of three hundred and twenty
nine dollars, as if the dishonest ac-
ceptance of that sum were not as fatal
as the acceptance of larger amount.
! If his constituents cOndOned his of
fence on this ground the country will
not approve of their leniency. Be-
sides, it is sheer misrepresentation to
say that the alleged bribe was limited
to that amount. What is charged is
that he had Credit Mobilier stock to
the amount of two thousand dollars
that he never paid nor expected to pay
a cent for it; that the dividends on 9TH
er stock which went with it were so
enormous that they paid for the Credit
Mobilier stock and left a surplus of
three hundred and twenty-nine dollars
which was paid over to Mr.. Garfield,
making the actual bribe two Thousand
dollars in stock which cost himsnOth-
ing and the surplus which he received
in money. When the exposure came
he threw up and repudiated the stock
but had there been no exposure he
might have retained it. His accept
ance of the surplus of dividends be-
yOnd what was necessary to pay for
the stock looked like an acknowledge
ment that the stock was his. There
must be some better explanation than
has yet been presented before the
country. will think Wsale
willing and anxious to see defence
inal charge. Will any Republican
contend that if the three hundred and
twenty nine dollars which Mr.. Gar
field received from OakeS Ames was a
surplus Of dividends on his stock he is
fit to be President? IF, as Mr.. Garfield
tried to have it appear at the time, it
was borrowed money, why! did he bor-
row SO singular q sum? - -.
The defence put forward for the five
thousand dollars received in the De-
Goiyer business is equally as lame. 1t
is not denied that he received that
sum, but 1t is asserted that it was a
counsel fee. It is not yet shown what
service Mr.. Garfield rendered to earn
it. 1t was equal to a full years salary
as Congressman, a salary which is
earned by many speeches on the floor,
much arduous labor in several COM
mittees, and many services for his
constituents. 1t is averred that he
never made aspeech nor did any NAM
able thing for that large counsel fee.
If he did let his friends present a bill
of particulars. If they can find Moth
ing to insert in such bill let them
cease prating about counsel fee, for
it will be evident that the money was
paid him because he was chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations.
We waive the indecOrum of taking
counsel fee in the interest of q job for
which Mr.. Garield's committee was
asked to make appropriations, and SIM
ply suggest that a precise statement be
made of the services he rendered as
counsel. If the list of services proves
to be a blank what Interpretation will
be put on the offer and acceptance of
the counsel fee? .....,,, f.,-..1..5.-
: Mr.. Garfield's defence is thus far in
such weak and unskilful hands that he
should take it up himself. We respect
fully offer him the courtesy of our col |
umns for that purpose. We will cheer !
fully give him all the space he may
req uire. His supporters will damage |
him irretrievably if he leaves his case
IN their hands much longer They |
have inflicted SO much injury: already I
l. kx~& L.