Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1880-06-24
GARFlELD'S RECORD.
A Clear Explanation of the
Charges Made Against Him.

There are three points in General
Garfeld's record t. at require explana-
ton, and they relate to the Credit Mobi-
lier, the Salary Grab and the De Golyer
pavement. The most terse and forcible
statement on behalf of the General that
we have seen, is that of the Albany
Evening Journal, as follows:
Il. 1t is true that General Garfield was
assigned $4,000 of the stock of the
Credit Mobilier; it is true that he receiv-
ed some dividends on his investment,
but there is nothing in the transaction
which impeaches his integrity. The
Credit Mobilier charges were brought to
the attention of Congress in 1872, and in
December of that year committee con-
sisting of three Republicans and two
Democrats was appointed to investigate
them. This committee Immediately en-
tered upon the discharge of its duties,
and after eXhausting all sources of evil
dence, on the 18th of February, 1873,
submitted Il unanimous report, recon-
mending the expulsion of Oakes Ames
and James Brooks, and entirely exonor-
ating Mr.. Garfield, Henry L. Dawes, and
the other Congressman whose names
had been mentioned in connection with
the charges. The part of the report
which relates to Mr.. Garfield and the
last mentioned Congressman is as fol-
lows: The committee do not find that
either of the above named gentlemen, in
contracting with Mr.. Ames, had any
corrupt motive or purpose, or was aware
that Mr.. Ames had any; nor did either
of them suppose that he was guilty of
any impropriety or even indelicacy in
becoming a purchaser of this stock.
The committee have not been
able to find that any of these members
of Congress have been effected in their
official action in consequence of their
interest in Credit Mobilier stock. +
The committee find nothing in the con-
duct of either of these members in
taking this stock that calls for any re-
commendation by the committee
III. He did not vote for the salary
grab clause Of the bill which contained
it. But that bill contained other pro-
visions unexceptiOnable and vital to the
Il fNft IA mt
cause it contained these vital provisions
and not because of the grab clause he
voted for it, as did scores of others, both
Democrats and Republicans, who were
opposed to the grab But while he
thus voted, unlike Speaker Randall and
other pureists of tie Democratic party,
he refused to take q dollar Of the money.
He allowed what the law gave him to
remain in the Treasury, ari It is there
still.
"III. 1t is also true that lie acted as
counsel for De Golyer while he was be-
ing Investigated before the Board of
Public Works of the city of Washington.
He acted professionally and took his fee
for his services. Other Congressman,
Democrats as well as Republicans, who
are supposed to have brains enough to
be of any use to their clients, have serv-
ed as counsel in other cases when they
could do so without interfering with
their Congressional duties. But no one
thought of finding fault with them for
so doing. unless, for political reasons
they wished to smirch their characters
as in the case of Senator Conkling,
who was abused without measure be-
cause he used his great gifts on the side
of the New York Central Railroad in its
famous tax suit with the Government" /"