The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-06-17
THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRES.
IDENT.

nv Tue nallus OF inc people. 1ne hepupHcah
mountain, after laboringfvc days at Chicago,
brought forth nominees for president and
vice president in the persons of General
James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur, Of
New York. We propose to review briefly
some of the acts, since he has been in con-
gress, of General Garfield. Of General
Arthur we have nothing to say
in this article. We know that it
is one Of the misfortunes Of American politics
to charge almost every public man at some
time in his career with fraud and corruption,
but when such charges, as they most fire.
quently are, are groundless and born Of party
hate, they soon fall to the ground and do no
harm, but the charges that have been pre-
ferred against General Garfield have not
only never been disproved, but on the con-
trary, have been substantiated in the most
unequivocal manner and by the very strong
est of evidence, and they are charges,
too, venal, debasing, that outrage de-
cency, and the criminal laws OF the
land, acts that merit tho felon's
cell. Eighteen years ago General Garfield
entered congress from Ohio, and, take the
records of that body, and it will be seen that,
every measure for taking money out Of the
treasury, every scheme tainted with suspi-
cion, has been supported and advocated by
| VI al hat apbnrp
tract job was. We have read of it and know
that by it the merchants of New York were
robbed of millions Of dollars by combina-
ton of treasury officials, lobbyists and men,
bers of congress. General Garfield is re-
sponsibe for the passage Of that bill. 1t
originated in the senate and was rejected
by the house. A committee OF
conference was appointed OF which
MIR. Garfield was chairman for the house,
and this enabled him to drive the measure
through, and then to guy the house on the
final report. He WAS one of the active
ageats in the Credit Mobilier fraud, along
with Schuyler Colfax, who to-day drags out
dishonored life in private. Cakes Ames
not only proved him to be one of the BRIDE
takers in that disreputable affair, but he con-
victed him of perjury, as Garfield swore be-
fore the committee of investigation that he
"never owned, received, or agreed to receive,
any stock of the Credit Mobiier or of the
Union Pacific railroad, nor any dividend or
profits arising from either of them"
and while the investigation was going
on Ames testified that he
came to him ana claimed that he had not
received his full share according TO the agree
ment, and he, Ames produced the memJran-
dun in Garlleld's own handwriting upon
which this was based. He was not the
author Of the salary-grab, but he did more
than any other member Of congress to secure
its passage. He was chairman of the com
mittee on appropriations, and while the bill
was pending he gave his solemn pledge to
absent members that il should not be called
up during their absence, but no sooner were
they gone to their homes than he called it
up, it being late ut night, and rushed it
through. 1t never could have passed
the house, but for this treachery,
BY it $1,1000O0 were taken
from the treasury at one swoop. 1t was
while lie wa, chairman of the house commit
tee on appropriations that SO much money
was taken from the treasury to pay the
"Boss" sheperd swinaIes, and then it was
that the De Golyer corruption was ena ted.
The agents of De Golyer &c McClelland, a
firm of contractors for laying wood pave
ments, made u contract with certain powerful
persons to draw from the treasury S750,0O0
for paving certain streets in Washington
City. They knew that Mr.. r. Q. Parsons.
of Cleveland, Ohio, was Mr.. Gariield's
nearest friend, and they went TO him
and paid him $4,000 for his
legal services. OF this money $1,000
were paid to Mr.. Garfield on the 10Th of
July, 1872. When congress met the next
December, Garfield, as chairman of the COM
mittee on approp iations, rushed through the
house in six VT eks bills for the Washington
paving aud Improvements ring, aggregating
S3500,000. When the Glover committee in-
vestigated these transactions, Garfield and
his friends claimed that the $4,000 he re-
ceived were for fee as lawyer, yet he adj
mitted himself that he never made an
argument befJro the Washington City board
of public works and never prepared an
opinion, so what legal service did he render
How could he render, honorably, legal SER
vices in the case when he was member of
Congress and chairman of the committee on
appropriations, when he wonld have to take
action in Congress on the matter? When
Attorney General Williams was exposed for
appropriating the contingent fund OF his
office for the purchase and maintenance of a
carriage and horses for his family, Garfield
had the effrontery to ask Congress
to continue the appropriation for
that purpose. In 1869, Grants indian
| naaoo nolicv WAS inaupnrated and a aboard