Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1880-07-14
AN EXPLANATION.

The Enterprise calls the New York
Nation ga newspaper of Democratic ten
dencies." This will be news to most per.
sons outside of the Enterprise office. The
Nation is and has been for years a Re-
publican journal. 1t supported Hayes
four years ago, and is now engaged in the
pleasant position of white-washing Gar
field. However, we will give the Nation
the credit of attempting to excuse Gar
field in the De Golyer contract business.
No other Republican journal, so far in
the campaign, has had the manliness SO
to do.
To be sure, the explanation of the
charge is as bad as the charge itself. The
Enterprise of last Sunday copied an arti-
Gle from the Nation, but left out the most
important part Of it, which we will re-
print for the benefit of our Republican
friends in general. 1t is as follows
ssThe sum and substance Of the whole
matter, as regards General Garfield, then
is, that at the request of a friend of his,
the attorney for the De Golyer d McClel-
Ian Paving Company, he examined the evil
dence in favor Of some 40 kinds of pave
ment, prepared the required brief, which
was intended for the Board of Public
Works, made known to Mr.. Shepherd, then
President of the Board, his favorable opin-
ions, and expressed the hope that he would
give these Western men a chance. No
price was agreed upon for the service, but
Mr.. Parsons paid him Sc, 900, saying that
he had received a large fee and would share
it with him. The d%isproportion of the fee
to the work performed may be attributed
to the large interests involved and to the
friendly Intervention of Mr.. Parsons. But
the case, nevertheless, exemplifies one of
the gross abuses prevalent in public life
which the friends Of good government can
have no difficulty in condemning. We re-
fer to. the practice Of seeking and giving
weight to the opinions of public men on
subjects Of which they know no more than
any one else, and in legal cases paying fees
in proportion to their influence. We should
have liked it much better if General Gar
field had told his friend that there were
scores Of people much better qualified to
form q reliable opinion Of pavements; that
~ OiuCldl PoSAb1ou WOulu klNc q ldCtltlOuS
Importance to his opinion which he did not
best experts should be sought for
rather than his own. We do not
think, therefore, that the motives of Mr..
Parsons and his clients in employing Mr..
Garfield are above suspicion. It is not
improbable that they sought in so doing
something more han his services as coun-
sci, but we can discover no trace of any
thing worse on his part than indiscretion
With this we think he may be fairly
charged, and although the character of the
Board Of Public Works was not as well
known then as it was afterwards, there
must have been enough known about it to
suggest to q prudent public man the inn
propriety Of taking q hand in influencing
it in any manner, and especially in a mat
ter which he had no claim to be considered
an expert. General Garfield has been Sc
verely assailed, too, because he made no
formal argument before the Board as q
whole, and the inference has been drawn
from this that he knew he did not render
full service for his fee. But an oral argu-
ment would hardly have added anything
to the value Of his brief, and having made
the brief, we think he was fully justified
by forensic custom In thinking he had
done enough. Let us say finally that in
judging him on the charge Of indiscretion
1t is not fair to judge his conduct in 1871
with the light Of 1880. There is not one
Of us whose views about discretion touch
ing the relations between politics and
money that have not been greatly clarified
by the events Of the past nine years"
Remember that this is the excuse of q
friend, and not the ''mud" Of a foe and
also remember that the Enterprise sup
pressed this when it pretended to give
the opinion of the New York Nation con.
corning a grave charge against the Re-
publican candidate for President. The
fact is, no good OIL sufficient excuse can
be passed for Garfield in the matter. He
received a bride of IS, 900 while he held
the responsible position of Chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives. The Nation
calls it an act of "indiscretion." We
suppose the Enterprise would call it an
act Of loyalty" or something of that
kind; but, call it by any name you please,
and there is the same flavor Of the dis
honest, cunning politician about it.
Some bold a~pologists for this crime
have the cheek to say that it was a legit-
innate lawyers fee, and that Daniel Web
ster was in the habit of taking money in
this way while in Congress. If that
great man was accustomed to receive
brides while he was the Chairman Of ar
important committee, we have failed to
learn it from any other source than a Re-
publican newspaper. The fact is. such a
is false, and is an attempt to vilify
The dead in order to shield the living. It
was left for the present day to send lit
lie creatures, called lawyers, to Congress
make money out Of their position and
In the days Of the great Elk.
founders of the Constitution, a Webster.
! Corwin, or a Choase did not work for
ees Of the De Golyer kind. We advise
he Enterprise to come again on the De
business, but when You come, do
ot suppress the truth, but tell it, though
on shame the devil.
Il