Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-07-27
Gen. JAMES A. GARFIELD,
Portland Press.
THE GRAB ONCE MORE.

All ofthe evidence, drawn from Republi-
can sources. which by the way the Press
dare not print, fully sustains the statement
of the argus and Herald that he Gen. Gar
Held only returned the money TO save his
seat in Congress, and proves that the state
mcnt ofthe Press, that he never took the
money ut all. Is base misrepresentation
and malicious lie.-4ryus.
Thus neatly and courteously does the
.irqus speak. We call its attention once
more to the official statement from the
Treasury Department, made in reply to
an inquiry by one Of General Garhelds
constituents:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON,
June .. ls73.--DENE SIR: Your letter,
written early in May, was forwarded To the
n Youngstown, where IL could not be ans
wered Tor want OF accurate data. When
about To return to Washington, searched
for that letter but could not find 1t. My
recollection uf il contents Is that you in
quircd ~ u the payment into the Treasury
by Gen Garfield OF the additional compcn-
satiou due him ~ member OF Congress
under the provisions OF the General APP
The additional compensation due Gen.
Garfield was drawn By Mr.. Ordway, Ser
ceant-at-Arms OF the House ofReprepeuta-
tiyes, aud by him paid into the Treasury
As n miscellaneous revenue receipt. The
money was drawn by Mr.. Ordway on the
order of General Garfield The practice or
the Sergeant is u take receipts
from members in anticipation Of the dates
.I.N, col ma
their check on him by drawing the money
from the Treasury on those receipts. In
this way he j. in Il measure the banker oil
the members. Gen Garfield has signed
such receipts month after month, one OF
which was filed up by Mr.. Ordway and
presented 10 the Treasury. AT that time
| believe Gen. Garfield was out or the city,
/ but happened To know that as soon a.
the 22d day of March this written order
was delivered To Mr.. Ordway-if he had
not drawn any money from the treasury
on his account To close the account with
out drawing 1t and II he had drawn IL 70
return il. Mr.. 0rdway then informed HIM
that it was necessary for him TO sign a
special order 10 the Treasury If he wished
il drawn out and covered in, otherwise MT.
Garfield could draw it out any time within
two wears; whereupon Mr.. Garfield drew
an order for 81 ,5iS, payable TO the order
OF Mr.. Ordway, 10 be by him covered into
the Treasury. This was presented TO the
Treasurer and the money turned over from
the appropriation account To the geheral
sccount so that no portion OF 1t ever LETT
the Treasury at all. 1t was simply a
transfer from the appropriation account 10
the general funds of the Treasury.
Very respectfully,
ROBERT n. TAYLOR
That is the official evidence, and it is
sufficient.
The Argus, which is more acquisitiv'
than industrious, follows the Maine
Standard in quoting from the Press tile'
of 1873 expressions condemnatory of the
salary grab, and censuring General Gar
field for reporting the appropriation bill
containing the back-pay clause. The
Press condemned the grab then. 1t con
dennis the grab now. 1t thought then
that General Garfield ought to have sac
rifced the appropriation bill. That COM
ment was made before his speech of ex-
PLANTATION, which we have recently repub-
iished, was read. But in all that time oil
excited and sometimes unjust condemn
ton we never accused General Garfield oil
taking the back pay-because he never
did take it. We questioned his judg-
ment, not his honesty. But the Argus,
in face of the official record, persists In
the false statement that he received the
"swag," We have given the facts as
officially stated. Doubtless it will con-
tinue to repeat the falsehoods. After
the thorough and repeated reviews We
have made of the case it is hardly worth
r while to go over the ground every time
the Argus prints its unfounded assertions
Upon the official document printed above
We rest the controversy, and wllhngl.
submit the case TO the judgment of can
did men.