The Sunday herald. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1866-1887, 1880-10-24
@ .SIINEING MID ~

|
this year in the interest of Garfield and
Arthur than any other paper in the country,
which has descended from It's high estate as
fair and decent journal, for the purpose Of
forwarding bad cause, raises its hands in
holy horror at the abuse which IL says has
been heaped upon General Garfield. He has
been, says the Tribune, "more villanously
"abused than any other candidate of either
"party for years" And then it adds that
while Hancock's supporters "were loading
"thoir speeches and crowding their journals
"with the meanest ISLANDERS about General
"Garfeld, hoisting them on banners and
transparencies, and causing walls and
"pavements to break out with them, the Re-
"publicans have contcnted themselves with
argument" The Democratic papers and
speakers have done nothing more than quote
from Republican opinions about Garfield.
Their "nud singing" consisted in a refer.
ence to the facts about Credit Mobilier and |
the De Golyer pavement contract, as brought |
out by the Investigations Of Congressional |
committees. II there was any mud to throw |
it was all obtained from Republican sources.
Did the virtuous Tribune throw mud when |
in its issue of February 10, 1873, when the |
facts about Credit Mobilier were all fresh, IL |
said:
James A. Garfield. of Ohio, had ten shares; never
paid dollar; received $780, which, after tho nvcs
tigaton began, he anxious to have considered
| n loan from Mr.. Oakes Amcs to himself. Well tho
wlckedncss of all OF 1t Is that these betrayed the
trust OF the people, deceived their constituents, and
by evasons and faisehoods confessed the transaction
| TO be disgraceful.
Or did II throw mud when II said on Feb
ruary 26, 1873
Mr.. Amcs establishes very clearly the point that he
not alone In this ofensc. II no Is to be expelled
for bribery, the men who were bribed should 60 with
| him.
Did the New York Times, which now holds
Garfield up as political saint, throw mud
when it said on February 10, 1878:
Messrs Kelley and Garfield present most distress
ing figure. Their participation In the Credit Mobiller
affair is complicated by the most unfortunate contra
dictions OF testimony.
Was it singing mud when it said on Feb
ruary 20:
The character of the Credit NIobicr was no secret.
The of Its profits very well known at the
time Congressman bought 1t. Though oakes Ames
may have succeeded In conceang his own motive,
,ne STOCK was no. on .na' aeeonn. innocent Ine as.
fraud s,n rsma,ns some os ,hsn, have ,nau,gs, ,n
testimony with reference to the matter which has
contradicted. The committee distinctly rejects the
testimohy OF several Oh the members. ihis can ohy
DO uohe Oh the GROUND that IL Is untrue. hut untrue
testimony given under oath Is morally. II no Legally,
perjury. 1t is the clear duty OF Congress to visit with
punishment all who took Credit Mobier stock from
Oakes Ames.
Did Messrs Poland of Vermont Banks
of M,ss,ohrs.t,s ,,a Nocr,r, NJ J,wo
q
Sing muu Wheh they reporteu as ioilows 10
the House of Representatives:
Tho facts In reyar TN Mr. Garfield as founJ nv the
copmittec ara that he ayreed with Mr. Anes IN take
" tan shares NJ Credit Mo,er stock but ala not nav
for m. .ama Ar Amss rocs,vad tha ghtr nor can,
d,vdends In honds and so,d them for ma,
cent, and also received the sixty per cent cash divi
aehd' which, tosether WIN the price OF the STOCK ana
"xsr 70 Mr n,rss,s Nv onso. On tho
Arms and Mr. fairfield then understood this sum wa.
the balance OF dividends after paying for the stock
)i Was Murat Halstead of the Cincinnati
c.,
SO" '"' '".' "A''' "'
W the day peiore the hepuDiicah homihatioi
lc was made that "Garfield had no record tC
ID 60 RIM on ~
N n,,oc.,,,,..
"a" ""i nei' inii'i'"'"'e e'o"''i'"eh'' ai'i'e
u mud at him, when only four years ago tht
is Republican Convention at Warren, Ohio, ar
re ro ;n,.d hin, ,s fo,,ows
' so
we iurther arraigh ana charge MN with corrup
u or'oery III sehs his ohca' ihnuehce ~ chairman
oi peeo,yer pavement Ring to Aid them in SECURING
contract the Board of Public Works of tho Dis
III rlct of Columbia; selling his Influence to aid sal
TiHB uPou peoPIe VI ulstrlct
T. times It's cost AZ sworn To nv one Of the contractors
NJ selling his Influence aid said ring In procuring
ST contract to procure which 1t corrnpty paid 1870
Ae 80 -, - us .'.. ,..ua. ..o. .a
- that he was acting as lawyer selling his influence
er manner so papabe and clear as to be so found an
declared by an impartial and competent court upon
,, | issue solemnly tried
D;a th. N.w yor,, n,,to,,o,l.,, ,o,r or.
hc ''N A''' 'P'"''' nv" '"'
ur ""rheiu n'osl earnest supporters, sing hiu
it, "heh III its Issue Oh July oo' 1914 IL saiu
- The testimony taken In the Investigation OF IL
.as,roa AZ oo" tnr III. a,,,an '
contract accented by the District government. AM
Parsons, notorious jobber, made an argument f
the paving company, and then got Mr. Garne,d
ITO nmanoa Il, to s,v"r ~, oo,',s' Mr ara,
,e. ment was successful How could 1t be otherwIs,
ia lie was chairman of the Committee on Approprl
lions Every cen, Oh money vo,ea 70 ,ne s,r,e' u, ~
sv ANYTHING he asked. and Mr.. Garfield knew it when
asked. and received for his services fee which
been grossly extravagnnt but for his Official pos
Ao ''0h.
'ho NoP"o'i'"' 'iA"' ~ IN o'''J i'"''1
NJ quo'e from hepnpilcah sources 10 SHOW 'h'
es James a. ""rheio 10 utterly uhh' u
eir own people ha'e cohue"heu h''h'
it Mr.. smalley, writing from Cleveland di
ac- or two after the late election, says:
in The rebuke given by Ohio and Indiana to the m
of .nloWers Is e'pee,s g,sms 70 .no p,s ans, "e,s
II, | ,, IL, ~, ,,.. ..,.,, ,, ,.oo, ,n,hno, nm, n,