Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1880-07-01

THE opponents of Garfield will have
to abandon their charges of baek-pay
grab against him. He was the second
man to return the grab to the treasury.
-Barnesville Enterprise.
The Baltimore Herald, Democratic
paper, was at first disposed to throw
mud at Gen. Garfield about the Credit
Mobilier matter. Upon investigation,
however. it has changed its views, and
frankly admits that the evidence clears
him of any implication in that corrup-
JiOn.
The above paragraph from the Enter
prise was copied into the Gazette last
week, followed with complaints that the
Enterprise is not non-partisan, as it
claims to be. The truth is the managing
editor of the Enterprise votes the Dem
ocratlc ticket, and the presumption Is
that he is not apt to be unduly liberal in
his estimate of Republican candidates.
The Gazette complains that the En-
terprise did not tell "the ,1hOle truth in
regard to Garfields connection with the
salary grab," and then proceeds to say
that he was chairman of the committee
which reported the bill-that he report
ed in favor of the grab and voted for it
if he did not want his share of the
grab why did he take it-but he wanted
it, took it. and meant to keep it, but the
steal was so outrageous, and raised such
storm of Indignation over the country
that Garfield was afraid 10 retain his
ill-gotteH wealth, and made haste to pay
it back. This the Gazette terms true
history of Garfield's salary grab" Con-
cerning these reckless and unfair state
ments of the Gazette We desire to say
l. 1t is true Gen. Garfield was chair
man Of the committee which reported
the salary grab; but why did did not
that partisan sheet have the fairness to
inform its readers of the circumstances
connected with such report, instead OF
endeavoring to convey to their minds
the impression that it was committee
gotten up by Gen. Garfield especially to
concoct the salary grab? Why does the
editor in his "true history of Garfeld's
salary grab conceal from his readers
the fact that the increase of pay of men,
bers was put into the appropriation bill
against the earnest protest of Gen. Gar
field, and that as chairman of the Com
mittee on Appropriations he fought that
measure until he became satisfied that
it would have to remain in the bill or the
bill be lost, and an extra session of Con-
greSS made necessary, in order to make
the needed appropriations to carry OIL
the government? This, doubtless, would
have resulted in another prolonged
struggle over the same matter, and
would have cost the country more than
the increase of pay provided in the ap-
preparation bill which his committee
then had charge of.
ii. If he had not taken it and cover
ed it back into the Treasury, it could
have been claimed and recovered by
him or his legal representatives at any
time. So far as "hiS share of the Swag,"
as the Gazette denOminates it, is con-
cerned, Gen. Garfield put it beyond the
reach of any one to recover it for all
time. But how was it with Mr.. Samuel
J. Randall, whom the Democrats elected
Speaker so soon as they got control of the
House, and whom the Democrats in the
streets of Cincinnati, at the very hour
the Gazette was printing this unjust as
sault upon Gen. Garfield, were glorify-
ing with banners and music? He took
tchot the Gdzette calls his share of the
S,Udg," and hos kept it to this day. No
unkind word has the Gazette got to ut
ter of him; on the contrary, its editor
endeavored to import him into this
county last year to teach our people pO-
litical morality; and then must pervert
the truth in order to stab Garfield.
Ill We ask all fair-minded men to
consider the statement of the Gazette,
that she wanted it, took it, and meant
to keep it." &C., in the light of the facts
as set forth in the two preceding para
graphs, and of which we challenge a
successful refutation. Here is news
paper, which is widely read throughout
the county, and in which its readers
have right to expect truthful and fair
with simply perverting facts, but must
indulge in the most reckless declarations
as to what an individual meant. How
does the editor of Gazette klO,0 that
Gen. Garfield wanted it and
meant to keep it" and twas afraid" Sc. ?
What confidence can be put in paper
which circulates such absurd declara-
tions ?-declarations which no sensible
and reasonable man can put any conf
dence in whatever. We might assert
that Gen. Hancock meant to let Mrs.
Surratt escape, instead of hang her, but
fearing it would raise such "a storm of
indignation all over the country" he was
afraid" but would any one place any
confidence in such a reckless assertion?
And yet it would be entitled to as much
credit as the absurd declaration of the
Gazette about Gen. Garfield.
Shame upon cause which is reduced
to such straits, and shame upon con-
stituency which will tolerate such alb
surd declarations from one who assumes
to be leader and a teacher.