The weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1878-1881, 1880-06-29
RECORD.

Since Garfield's nomination his record has
been looked into by prying eyes whose owners
have memories extending back a few years,
and the discoveries made are more startling
than edifying to the republicans trying so
hard just now to admire him.. For the past
lar to urge against him, except that he has
| served under the "bloody shirt banner, and
that his course in congress has revealed an
entire absence of the firmness and consistency
which is generally known as "back-bone,'
md which, when Influenced and guided by
good principle, forms so desirable an attribute
in a public man. But when We look a little
further back We find a record not so untar-
nished and its blemishes cannot be explained
| away as the tritiDg stains left on his fair fame
by the mud singing OF democratic malice.
In the first place no theory OF democratic
malice will explain the little fact that Mr..
Garfield when in congress voted for the iniqui-
ious back pay grab. Not only did he vote for
it, but he drew his back pay, a proceeding for
which his constituents IN Warren, Ohio, in
llaSs iiCGtlii1 NSSSilolct, Iei'Siy iTidSS9Su
him to resign his seat in congress-to step
down and out and give place to a man whose
official course would not disgrace The people
sending him there.
Then there is the Credit Mobilier affair
which can bc'explaincd in a few words. The
Credit Mobilier was an incorporated joint
stock company engaged in the construction Of
the Union Pacific railroad, and having Cakes
Aucs. a congressman from Massachusetts,
as general manager. In -, in a lawsuit con-
corning the corporation, it transpired that
several congressman, Blaine and Garfield
among others, as we'll as Vice President Col
fax, were holders Of the stock. This caused
an immense scandal, nc one diSputing the
improperly Of congressman holding stock in
a corporation whose profits might easily be
affected by their votes on bills concerning it.
During the congressional investigation tia.
cnsued ColfaH lost his reputation, and was il
retricyobly ruined as Il public man, by being
convicted of perjury i'll making oath that he
never owned Credit MobiIier stock, whereas
it was conclusivelv proved that he bad.
Garfield. Blaine and the rest acknowl-
edged that they had owned the stock,
and l0r this they were not even
ccnsured, although Amcs, for the mali
ner Of disposing of it, was c~eIsur~l by u vute
Of the house, and considered deserving Of
expulsion. How one party to such a trausac-
ton could be guilty, and the rest innocent !;
how the giver of the bmbe could be culpable
and the receiver remain blamelcss never was
made very clear, but whether Garfield t.Gs
blalneless or not can readily be jILged from the
nature CT his ''purchase." Acting onthc advice
Of lis friend Ames, who toli him it was u
good thing" Garfield bought ten shares Of
Credit Mobilier. At that time the stock com
manl3h a premium Of one hundred per cent,
but the good natured Alnes was so kind
hearted as to sell it To Garfield at par. Be
sides this, lie asked no money in payment for
it. The stock was paying enOrmous divi-
denls, and in acccptingthe ten shares Gar
field merely stipulated that Ames should re-
tain the dividends accruing on the came until
their aggregate should equal their cost at par
price. This was agreed to and the next
transaction between the two was The payment
from -Aines to Garfield Of $500. this being the
excess Of the divi nends declared up to that
date over aud above tie amount due from
Garfield for the stock. From this it will
be understood that tie latter, without
laying Ont a dollar, without incurring the
least risk, came into possession Of ten shares
Of stock and Of S@329-for nothing. Was lie
SO innocent: was he so ignorant Of Tie world
as not to recognize bribery in so ~clunsily dis
guiSed 4 form?