The Sunday herald. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1866-1887, 1880-07-25
TIE rRESIDENCl.
EriVONE OF CURnENT rACrS AND
OPINIONS.
Gnrficld'o tcr.

General Gardeld's connection with the
De Golycr wood pavemcntl contract has
always seemed to us much more serious
matter than Gen. Garilelds connection with
Credit Mohilicr. In truth, the only very
serious part OF Gen. Garicld's transaction
with Oakcs Amcs was that which occurred
after the transaction became public. II was
iudiscrcct, indeed, for Gen. Garfield TO have
taken any stock, on any terms, in an enter
prise concerning which hc might I've called
upon to vote. But surprising that he and
Ames were on terms so friendly that there
was nothing surprising in Amcs's offer 10
put him up to good thing" there was so
far nothing more, necessarily, in Garicld's $
acceptance of the stock than an inliscrction.
Unsuspiciousncss is not n crime, and ii Gar
field, when the facts about the transaction
became public had frankly owned his share
in the transaction and denied any guilty
intention, most people would have believed
him. Ii he had asked then, as he has asked
now, whether people believed that he would
sell his good name for $500, the answer
would have been, No. The cowardicc which
led him TO invent false and absurd version
of the transaction, and to swear To the same,
in itself afforded u presumption that he was
| ashamed of the TRUTH and that hc was as
| we'll aware rs Ames why Amcs was anxious
| lb nfin hlli w ~ plbHldNlt lnN'Stili'il.
| If Garfield had told the truth and pleaded
the innocence of his intentions, his relations
with Ames would not liavo hurt him in the
opinion of the country. No doubt some per
sons would have insisted that he was aware
| OF Amcs's purpose hut if no other case had
| been brought to light in which he had
traded ON his official opportunities the affair
OF the Credit Mobilicr would have been for
given and forgotten. Unfortunately for him,
| his acceptance of So, 900 from the promoters
of the DeGolyer contract furnishes such q
| ease, and about this case there can he no sort
| of doubt. The defenses which have appeared
of Gen. Garled's conduct in this matter are
worse than no defense at all. Being chair.
man of the Committee on Appropriations, he
took $1,000 for expressing an opinion favor.
able to n certain pavement the appropriation
To pay for which afterwards came before his
committee aud was passed by that committee
| Gen. Garfield is not great lawyer. In fac
he has no standing rs n lawyer. lie is als'
| not fool, and he IL aware that his brie
upon any subject, and especially upon ;
technical subject such as the comparativ,
merits ot wooden pavements, could not pos
Silly be worth So 900. Moreover, it is doubt
ful whether he ever made a brief. lie admit
ted that he never filed n brief, and that h
made no oral argument. lie merely "spok
tn otorernor shepherd. 1hat Is all that III
clients expected him to do and his service
were worth the fee they cost. His service
consisted in notifying the Boss OF the Wash
ington Ring that the chairman of the llous
Committee on Appropriations had been re
tanned by the patentees of the DeGolyer pay
, ment. Paint an inch thick and to this fave
it must come The Republican candidate fo
the Presidency took n bribe of So, 900. Til
severe expression of Judge Swayne eN-Sel
ator Dooittle's bricfil is simply n dcscril
tion of Garlield's action. 1t was ga sal
of official influence which no veil can cover
$ We are greatly deceived ii the people
the United States mean to elect to the Pres
dency Il man who has been declared by
judge of the highest court in the Unite
States to have sold his official influence, an
who has obtained for u bride OF s.! 900 COZ
tract which the courts have refused to el
force because it was 50 obained.-N.
IlorH, Juiy 70.