Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-06-22
GARyIELD's RECORD.

| in IL, and tnaG II VIII not pay ~ miami q"
campaign ON the basis of SANDER. Doubt
less If the Democrats have sufficient sense
to recognize the futility of that kind OF
fight. it will relieve the approaching can
vass from the indecencies which too COM
monty attend such contests; but the Re-
publican party has no need to deprecate
the most unsparing analysis of its candi-
dates record, and it assuredly will not
shrink from any challenge in this connec-
ton. The Democratic press has thus far
found itself confined to exactly three
charges against Garfield, and we shall no
doubt obige our readers and clear the way
for more profitable discussion by dealing
with these three charges at once, and by
showing exactly what weight attaches to
them.
We viii begin with what is called the
Credit Mobilier charge, which is to the
effect that in 1867 s Garfield received some
Credit Mobilier stock from Cakes Ames.
The latter, in 1872, in civil suit, filed
letter stating that he had disposed of GER
tain stock to persons named, and among
those names was that of Garfield. On
motion OF Blaine a Congressional Com
mittee was soon after appointed to examine
and report upon the facts in the case.
The result of this inquiry was two reso-
buttons, for the expulsion of Cakes Ames
and James Brooks. The committee took
full evidence in regard to all the Congress
men who had been named as the recipients
of stock In the case of Garfield, Ames
| testified, in effect, that he had put 81 900
OF the stock in the formers name that
the stock earned $l,329 : that he paid
Garfield 1929 in cheque; but that he
continued to hold the stock during the five
years following, and that he never made
any further accounting to Garfield, though
it was earning dividends all the time. He
stated that the stock never was in Gar
| fields hands, and was never asked for,
or any correspondence or communication
had in regard to it. Garfield on his part
stated that George Francis Train had ad-
vised him to invest in the stock, but that
he had declined; that being in want of
money on one occasion he had borrowed
$500 from Ames, which loan he had re-
paid. The report of the committee ON this
episode was as follows: 1.-THE facts in
regard to Mr.. Garfield, as found by the
committee, are identical with the case
"of Dir. Kelley to the point of reception of
GO the check for 1929. He agreed with MIR.
Games to take ten shares of Credit Mobi-
lier stock, but did not pay for the same.
"Mr. Ames received the so per cent divi-
"dends in bonds, and sold them for 81
''per cent, and also received the 60 per
''cent. cash dividends, which together
"paid the price of the stock and interest
''and left balance of 1929. This sum
twas paid over to Mr.. Garfield by check
son the Sergeant alarms, and Mr. Gar
field then understood this sum was the
balance of dividends after paying for
g the stock. Mr.. Ames received all the
Subsequent dividends, and the commit
''tee do not find that, since the payment of
{" the 1929, there has been any commuLi-
=" cation between Mr.. Ames and Mr.. Gar
field on the subject until this investiga-
g ton began" The committee further de-
clared that they had been unable to find
that any u these members OF Congress
" have been affected in their official &C.
q ton in consequence of their interest in
''Credit AIobilier stock, " and they 'do
''not find that either of the above-named
"gentlemen, in contracting with Mr..
Ames, had any corrupt motive or pur-
"pose himself, or was aware that Mr..
Games had any, nor did either of them
"spppose he was guilty Of any impropri-
"ety, or even indelicacy, in becoming
purchaser of this stock" IN this &C.
quittal the Democratic members Of the
committee concarred, and on the state
of facts as here shown Mr. Garfeld's Ohio
constituents confirmed the exoneration,
and reelected him triumphantly to Con-
gress.
The second charge against General Gar
field is in connection with the De Golyer
paving contract. It is alleged that he
accepted fee of $1,000, while Chairman
of The Committee on Appropriations, to
act as attorney for certain street pave
ment, which it was sought to have used in
Washington. The facts are as follows
The Washington Board Of Works mad de.
cidcd upon laying certain quantity of
wooden pavement, and there was sharp
rivalry between the owners OF various
patents for the contract. A Cleveland
lawyer named Parsons had been retained
to represent the claims of the De Golyer
pavement, The Congressional session was
about to close when Parsons called on Gar
field, said he was obliged TO go to Cleye-
land On important business, and offered
Garfield half his fee if he would examine
into the patents end paycments, and pre-
pare an argument for him in behalf of
the De Golyer pavement. Garfield re-
Piled that he could do nothing until Con-
gress adjourned, bat would then under
take the work, which undertaking he
carried out, and received his pay. When,
five years afterwards, Democratic Com
m;ttee attempted TO convict him of having
accepted money, while Chairman of the
Appropriation Committee, to influence the
District appropriations, he appeared before
this committee, and proved that the
charge was absurd and slanderous, mas
much as the appropriations for the work
were made by the District, and not by
Congress, inasmpeh as he had meyer
had anything to do with the price
paid for the pavement, and inasmuch as
what he had done was wholly and entirely
legitimate, and within the scope of hon
orable legal work, in no way capable of
affecting his action as Congressman, nor
susceptible OF any discreditable construc-
ti,r, cave rn,, ri, +ho ,,go of A. ..-...-.z.