Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1880-06-26
II NELL ENCER, sATURDAY, JUNE go, 1880.

Mr. Colfax and that of Mr.. Garfield
is forcible and striking, and tends TO
show that the ruined ColfaX is All
Injured man if Garfield Is innocent.
They had the same amount OF Credlt
Mobilier stock assigned them ; they
alike denied that they had received
any !: the denials of both were rebuff
ted by strong evidence but one OF
them has been seventeen years Ill DIS
grace and the other is nominated tor
the presidency. If the Overwhelming
ruin of Colfax is just it behooves the
friends OF General Garfield to show
how their cases differ. We are will
ing to Judge of Mr.. Garfeld's de-
Tense with the same candor and i'm
partially as if the accusation were
he ", and as if we had never pro-
nounced a strong opinion against
him. But the fact that the charge is
old does not absolve him from the
necessity of refuting it.
The grounds of defense thus far Of
fered by his supporters are as damag-
ing as the original accusation. They
try to belittle it by saying that it is
raked up from the past. Do they
really think that if General Garfield
was corrupt eighteen years ago that
is no reason why he should not be
elected president now? What is of
real consequence Is not whether the
charges are old, but whether they
are true. If true they are as fatal a
bar to his election as if the ofense
had been committed Yesterday.
Would Colfax be a fit candidate be-
cause so much time has elapsed since
his exposure?
1t is further said that Mr.. Gar
fields constituents in his congression-
al district have recovered confidence
in him. This counts for little until
we know whether they acquitted or
condoned and the grounds OH which
they acquitted him. if it vas all &C.
quittal. Certain it is that he lost
many votes in the election which fol-
lowed the exposure. His majority,
which had been nearly 1000 in 1872,
just previous to the exposure, fell to
2,52S Ill 1874. But a bare statement
of the Inajorities is not fair to Mr..
Garfield, since there was a third Call
dldate in 1874. The loss of confidence
is best measured by his loss of votes.
In 1872 he received 19, 1S9, and in 1874
only 12,59l-a loss of nearly $500 in
Econsequence Of the exposures and in
spite of his strenuous attempts to
parry them. He aiterward recovered
his usual msjorities.
But when we are referred to his
constituents it is legitimate to inquire
on what ground they forgave or &C.
Quilted him. Ii it was on the same
grounds that are now urged their
judgment cannot he accepted. We
are now gravely told that it was only
a small matter of three hundred and
NV 2nty-nine dollars, as if the dishOn'
est acceptance of that sum were not
as fatal rs the acceptance OF a larger
amount. If his constituents condOneG
his offense on this ground the coun.
try will not approve Of their leniency
Besides, it is sheer misrepresentation
to say that the alleged bribe Vas lin
tied to that amount. What is charged
is that he had Credit Mobilier stock
to the amount of two thousand dol
lars /; that he never paid o expected
to pay a cent for it /; that the divi
dends OH other stock which Wen
with it were SO enormous that the,
paid for the Credit Mobilier stool
and lett a surplus Of three hundred
and twenty-nine dollars which wa
paid over TO Mr.. Garfield, making tn
actual bribe two thousand dollars o
stock which cost him nothing an,
the surplus which cost him nothin!
and the surplus which he received il
} money. When the exposure came h
threw up anu repudlated his stock
but had there been no exposure h
might have retained it. His accep
: lance Of the surplus of dividends be
You'd what was necessary TO pay TO
the stock looked like All acknOWledg
! ment that the stock was his. Their
! must be some better explanation tia
t has yet cen presented before til
: country Will think otherwise. w
t are willing aud anxious to see u de
: tense which is not as damaging as til
: original charge. Will any repubiica
: contend that If the three hundred all
twenty-niue dollars which Mr.. Gsl
field received from Cakes Ames Wa
Il surplus of dividends on his stock b
is tit 10 b. president? If, as MIR. Gar
field tried to have it appear at tn
time, 1t Was borrowed money, VIII,
did he borrow SO singular a sun
The detense put forward for tn
= five thousand dollars received i'll tn
De Golyer business is equally lame
8 1t is not denied that he received tina
t sum, but it is asserted hat it was
counsel lee. 1t is not yet shown wha
S service Mr.. Garfield rendered to ear.
i it. 1t was equal to a full years salar
g as congressman, a salary which i
e earned by many speeches on the hsol
much arduous labor in several con
0 mittees, and many services for hi
constituents. 1t is averred hat h
o never made a speech nor did all
d namable thing for thai large couns
fec. If h. did let his friends presem
n a bill of particulars. Ii they can fl.
v nothing to insert in such q bill IL
z them cease prating about a couns,
money was paid him because he W.
e chairman Of the committee on apprt
%priatious. We waive the indeeorul
of taking a counsel fee in the intel
est Of a JOB for which Mr.. Garfield
II committee was asked to make Apr,
o p%riations, and simply suggest that
precise statement be made of ii
= services he rendered os counsel.
the list Of services proves to be
blank what Interpretation will be pr
q on the offer and acceptance of II
J.. counsel fee?
s. MIR. Gartield's defense is thus {;
re in such weak aud unskillful han,
u that he should take it up himself. "
+. respectfully offer him the courtesy
~ u columns feI that purpose. "
lie will cheerfully give him all the spa,
y he may require. His supporters Wi
D. damage him ir~retrievabiy if he lcav,
e his case i'll their hands much longe
l. They lave inflicted so much iujur
4 already that it will require all h
T. skill to throw their blunders into II
IL shade.
IS "
l. Lexington Market.
l.