The daily gazette., 1880-07-24

the language which has heretofore
been published in the GAZETTE. But
this does not modify the crime which
Garfield is charged with. 1t only
causes one witness to drop out, who
had not been referred to at all until
the charges had been thorough exam
ined and pronounced upon by numer-
GUS influential persons belonging to
Garield's own party. But this re ,rs
to only one of the charges, that of the
5000 De Qolyer bribe. We believe
that Garfield does not deny that he re-
ceived the $5, 900. But says he took
the money as counsel fee. This
whole matter has heretofore been sift-
cd by the Western editors and the
readers Of the GAz sTTE may to some
extent be familiar " ith the case. Some
however may not understand it as
clearly as they should. We, there
fore, give brief vers ion of it that ap-
peared in the Chicago Times an inde-
pendent journal that was at first dir
posed to favor Garfield's version of the
matter. That paper, in its researches
for the truth Of the charge that Gar
field took the bribe, says:
"Gen. Garfield admits the receipts of
$500 sem De Golyer and Mcclellan
through Dick Parsons. but he Indignantly
denies that II was bribe. Why was he
paid so much, for II was large fee to the
best of lawyers for the hardest of work
| Chittenden was interested with DeGolyer
| & Mcclellan in the paving contract OBJ.
tained for them by Garfield, but was never
| able to make good that interest, because
while admitting his service The firm for
| mally pleaded that the ,ntract having
been obtained by bribe 1t was contrary
to public morals. Thus Chittenden avows
that the amount was paid not for the ser
vices of Lawyer Garfield. neither for those
of Congressman Garfield, except In so
far as he was Chairman of the Committee
ON Appropriations. Garfield says IL was
for downright hard work, he having ex-
amined some forty different kinds of
pavement and made written brief show
| ing the value of the "Ironizing" process
above ali others. The Nation, without
seeing the brief, thinks the work upon IL
worth the fee. But where is the brief?
How long was it7 How lucid and CON-
vincing7 The document is not filed
among the records OF the District Of Col.
umbia. 1t does not seem to be in cyst
ence. II was never read to the Board
s,ft tln cf-l,
ing.
"Unless there was some labor upon this
brief the fee was obviously for the pur-
chase of the Congressman's influence, for
u mere statement 10 Shepherd was not
professional service worth S5,OOO. Garfield
claimed that he wrote the brief, But what
became of it2 Was 1t written merely for
the purpose OF formal labor for a fee ?
Cross questioned before the committee on
the real estate pool by Mr.. Nick erson who
owned the ironizing process Gen. Gar
| Held was asked ibid you file with the
Board of Public Works OF this District a
brief or opinion, written, printed or other
upon the subject OF the DE Golyer pave
ment? ?" Mr.. Garfield's answer was: ~
could not say did" "Did you at any
l
any argument Whatever" was another
query, and the answer of Mr.. Garfield
| was:
~ do not remember that did but l
did speak to Gov. Shepherd on the sub
| Ject giving my opinion in its favor"
| That was all and as events prov d, it was
worth to Garfield's employers oil they
| paid him. II that brief is in existence,
| why not print 1t now2 ltwould be an in
teresting idition - the literature OF the
campaign"
But that charge has nothing to do
with the charge of taking Credit Mo-
bilier stock. Garfield has promised to
explain both charges away, but has
never yet explained either satisfactori-
| ly to his own patty friends. 1t must
be remembered that these charges did
not arise after he was nominated for
the Presidency. They had been under
discussion years before that. The Po-
land Committee had investigated the
; Credit MoDilier matter, and that Re-
publican committee did not exhonor-
ate Garfield. On the contrary it i'm
plicated him even deeper and shows
that he or Ames' testimony ON oath is
not to be taken as true.
After Mr.. Ames's first mild and re-
luctant testimony, Gen. Garfield ap-
, peared before the committee on Jan.
, IA, 1873, and made his sworn state.
ment to the effect that he had 'never
owned, received, or agreed to receive
any stock of the Credit Mobilier or of
the Union Pacific Railroad, nor any
t dividends or profits arizing from either
. of them" Mr.. Ames was recalled Oh
the 25d of January, 1873, and he ther
produced a memorandum from his
l books, showing Garfield to have beer
A the owner of ten shares of Credit Mo
q bilier, with an exact account of the
transaction. He also swore thai Gar
= field had appealed to him "since thi,
: investigation commenced" to let the
a surplus 1899 which he mad received
q ego as loan" Here was flat con
tradiction between Garfield and Ames
y One or the other had sworn falsely
s Garfield gave out through the pres
0 that he would at once demand hear
: ing before the committee, and convc
Ames of falsohood. But he did no
y seek the hearing. Well-founded rumor
II stated that Ames had ammunition il