The daily gazette., 1880-06-15

Republican and the Nesos interview
him and ascertain whether it was not
true that he was made witness in the
case hich resulted in Garfleld's ex-
posurel 1t cannot cover up these
damaging facts by abusing the GA
zETTR.
But we must not omit another para
graph from the Herald, 1t says:
''If the Suns charges are proved
General Garfield is not fit to be Presi-
dent. They are SO utterly damaging,
iftrue, that We reproduce the Suns
statement in another part of this pa
per. The parallel which the Sun
draws between the ca sc of Mr.. Colfax
and that of Mr.. Garfield is forcible and
striking, and tends to show that the
ruined Colfax is an injured man if
Garfield Is innocent. They had the
same amount of Credit Mobilier stock
assigned them they alike denied that
they had received any ; the denials of
both were rebutted by strong evidence;
but one of them has been seventeen
years in disgrace and the other is NOM
mated for the Presidency. If the
overwhelming ruin Of Colfax is just it
behooves the friends Of General Gar
field to show how their cases differ
We are willing to judge Of Mr.. Gar.
field Is defence with, the same candor
and impartially as if the accusation
were new, and as if we had never pro-
nounced strong opinion against him.
But the fact that the charge is old does
not absolve him from the necessity of
refuting it.
We are now gravely told that it was
only small matter of three hundred
and twenty-nine dollars, as if the dis
honest acceptance of that sum were
not as fatal as the acceptance of
larger amount. If his constituents
condoned his offence on this ground
the country will not approve of their
leniency. Besides it is sheer misrep-
resentation to say that the alleged
bribe was limited to that amount.
What is charged is that he had Credit
Mobilier stock to the amount of two
thousand dollars that he never paid nor
expected to pay cent for it; that the
dividends on other stock which went
with it were so enormous that they paid
for the Credit Mobilier stock and left a
surplus Of three hundred and twenty
nj ne dollars which was paid over to Mr..
Garfield, making the actual bribe two
thousand dollars of stock which cost
him nothing and the surplus which he
received in money. When the exposure
came he threw up and repudl aled his
stock but had there been DO exposure
he might have retained it. His accept
ance of the surplus of dividends beyond
what was necessary 10 pay for the stock
looked like an acknowledgment that the
stock was his. There must be some
better explanation than has yet been
presented before the country will think
otherwise. We are willing and anxious
to see a defense which is not as damag-
ing as the original charge. Will any
republican contend that il the three hun
dred and twenty-nine dollars which Mr..
Garfield received from Oakes Ames was
surplus of dividends on his stock he is
fit to be President? If, as Mr.. Garfield
tried 10 have it APPEAR at the time, 1t was
borrowed money, why did he borrow SO
singular sum?
The defence put forward for the five
thousand dollars received in the De Col
yer business is equally lame. II is not
denied that he received that sum, but il
is asserted that it was counsel fee. 1t
is not yet shown what service Mr.. Gar
field rendered to earn II. IL was equal
to full years salary as Congressman,
a salary which is earned by many
speeches on tbe floor, much arduous la
Dor in several committees, aud many ser
vices for his constituents. 1t is averrad
u at he never made a speech nor did any
namable thing for that large counsel fee.
If he did let his friends present bill of
particulars. If they can find nothing to
insert IN such bill let them cease rrat-
ing abont counsel fee, for 1t will be
evident that the money was paid him be-
cause he was chairman OF the Commit
tee on Appropriations. We waive the
indecorum of taking counsel fee I'm the
interest of job for which Mr.. Garfield's
committee was asked to make appropli-
ations, and simply suggest that a precise
statement be made of the services he
rendered as counsel. If the list of ser
vices proves to be blank what interpreta-
ton will be put on the offer and accept
ance OF the counsel fee ?"
We have been trying to treat this mat
ter fairly and openly. We deny the right
OF congressman to take counsel fees to
secure the passage of bills that come
before Congress. Garfeld's case is the
more damaging in this regard and he
ought TO be excluded from tha White
House because he belongs to the corrupt
ring that made Grants administrations
stencil in the nostrils of all hone ST
people. There is hardly doubt of hi:
guilt in both these cases.