Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1880-10-30
THE N LETTER.

We printed what is now nationally
known as ''Garield's Chinese letter.
last week, without vouching for its au'
thenticity. 1t may be found also in this
issue. Gen. Garfield has written the
following letter:
MENTOR, O.. October d, 80.
Hon: Marshall Jewell. Chairman National
Republican Committee, 24l Jefferson avenue.
New York:-Dear Sir:-In my dispatches OF yes
ierday and this evening (Which ale also sent you
by nlaiD | have denounced the Morey letter as a
base forgery. Its stupid and brutal sentiments
never expressed nor entertained. The iitho-
sraphed cory shows II very clumsy attempt to
initiate my penmanship and signature. Amy
one who Is familiar with my handwriting will
instantly see that the letter is spurious. Very
truly yours, J. A. GARFIELD.
Almost every republican paper IN the
country has at the head of Its columns
words attributed to Senator Hampton,
which he repudlates. and so!emnly AYERS
that he never uttered. Senator Hamp-
ton is 3 brave. truthful gentleman,
whose veracity has never been ques-
toned.
How is it about Gen. Garfield? Is he
an unimpeached witness? Let us see.
In Il letter to Prof. Hinsdale, dated
March 10. 1878, (Bundy's Campaign
Life, page 2O9). Gen. Garfield said of
the salary grab:
~ have not drawn the additional salary. and
do not know that ] shall Certainly l shall not
for the present, and probably not at all. But
this will not say in the midst of This Storm"
One week after the date of this letter,
on the Goth OF March, 1S73-as appears
from proceedings published at the time
in the local newspapers:
1.-THE republicans of Gen. Garield's district
assembled IN convention 1T Warren, Trumbull
county, o., and adopted u res olutiOn asking him
TO resign his seat IN the house Of representatives.,
and declaring that by voting tor the retroactive
salary bill he had forfeited the confidence oil MS
constituents
Nine days later Gen. Garfield again
wrote to Prof. Hinsdals. Here is the
letter:
WASHINGTON, April 4, 1873.
81 agree in all you say on the question of back
pay; but neither truth nor ability seemed TO
avail. anything IN the face OF this temptation. 4
not OMly hare neUeT dratcn the extra pay,
but nearly ttco tUeeks ago l ordered the SER
Geant-at-arms 10 close my account, aud dlrsc,
ted my back pay due me, 81, 500, TO be covered
into the treasury beyond my reach, or that OF
my heirs in case OF my death. That has been
lOne, OuI l ItlL tlhI unuer no CIRCUMSTANCES
would l allow it 10 be known publicly. at least
for the prcseIt. 1t may. however, be necessa-
ry by and bv to let the fact come out. What do
) GU think 90
Did he tell the truth? Look and see!
1t is sad to have to write such things OF
Il man asking to be made president OF
the United States, but should he not be
the more held up to public execration it
he swerves from the path of rectitude
and virtue? Two weeks before April
1 is March 81. He said. March 10, two
days before March 81, that he was un-
decided about the matter. Subsequent
~ he said that nearly two weeks ago,or
March 81, he had covered the amount
back into the treasury. Was this truep
1t was not, as is clearly shown by the
account in the treasury, exhibited by
this official letter.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, }
OFFICE OF TIE SECRETARY,
WASHINGTON, June -. 1851.
III. Dusey, Esq, East DesMoInes, Ia--Sir:-
In reply to your letter of the 18th INST, asking to
be informed on what date tn. Hon james A. |
Garfield paid into the treasury his back pay and
HOW the treasury books show this transaction, l
tIl' Z I u III Ou tiilt IL - y lIS iSS-
ards of this Office that the sum of 81, SIS tcds
deposited to the credit OF the treasurer Of the
United States in the name OF James A. Garfield,
IN account Of retroactive increase of salary
Oa TIE 22nd Of april, 1878, and that this
.rrnount was covered into the treasury by miscel-
tu;Ieous covering warrant No. 704, second quar-
ter, 1874, and cannot be withdrawn except by |
act OF congress. Very respectfully,
j. X. UPTON, Assistant Secretary.
March Goth his constituents gave him
a jolt which opened his eyes, and it was
not until April 22d that he consented,
under whip, to relinquish his hold OF the
S4,54S. 1t was two weeks after and not
two weeks before the 4th of April, as he
wrote Prof. Hinsdale. before be made
up his mind to pay the money back, aud
as a matter OF fact he had not paid 1t al
all when he said that he had.
That is one count. Now ior another.
We have the official documents issued
by a republican congress, aud printed
by a republican public printer, to show
the following /:
From Gen. Garheld's Sworn Testimony before
The Poland Committee, january IA, 1851
never owned, received, or agreed to receive
any stock OF tn. Credi. MobIlier or OF the Union
Pacific railroad, nor any dividends arising from
either oil them
From Judge Poland's Report. Feb. Is. 1873
Garheld's Testimony Perjury.l
The facts in relation to MIR. GARFIELD, AS found
by the committee, are that he agreed with MIR.
Iines to take ten shares oil Credit MobllIer stock,
but did not pay for the same. Mr.. Ames recelv.
e: the eighty per cent. dividend in bonds and
sold them ior nincty-seven per cent, and also
received the sixty per cent. cash dividend,
which, together with the price OF the stock and
.-.--. - =. tln . - cppl NH e,rn .-na /
paid over to MIR. Garfield by a check on the
serSeant-al-arms, and Mir. Garfield then under
otOud this sum was the balance OF dividends al
ter paying Tor the sock.
What did the republican press say of
this transaction at the timer We cite a
few extracts:
From the New York Times, Rep, Feb. 10, '73.
Messrs. Kelly and Garfield present a most dis |
Iressing figure. Their participation In the Cred
II Mobilier affair is complicated by the most I'M
fortunate contradictions OF testimony.
[FrOm the New York Times, Rep. Feb. 20, '13.
The character of the Credit Mobilier was ne
secret. The source of Its profits was very well
known at the time congressman bought it.
rEoi gh Cakes Ames may have succeeded IN con-
c-aIiug his own motive. which was to brlbe
congressman, their acceptance of the stock was
nut on that account innocent. The dishonor oil
the act, rs Il participation in an obvious fraud. |
, i'll remains.
some OF them have INDUCED in testimony with
reference to the matter which has been contra
tIcted. The committee directly rejects the testi-
rnOuy of several OF the members. This can only |
lie done on the groun 4 that it is untrue. But IN
TUE testimony given under oath is morally, ii
cot legally, perjury.
1t is the clear duty of congress to visit with
punishment all who took Credit Mobilier stock
from Oakes Ames-
[FIom the New York Tribune, Rep, February
10, 1871
James A. Garfield, of Ohio, had ten shares;
never paid a dollar; received $3.50. which. after
the Investigation began, he was anxious to have
considered As y loan from Mr.. Cakes Ames 10
himself.
Well, the wickedness of all of it is that these
men betrayed the tIust of the people, deceived
,neir constituents, and by evasiOns and false
hoods confessed The transaction to he dissraceiui
From the New York Tribune, Rep, February
70, 1873
Nj. Ames establishes very clearly the point
that he was not alone in this ofiense. If lie Is to
te expelled for bribery, the men who were
bribed should go with him.
| From the Buffalo Commercial, Rep, February
Il, 1878
Mr.. Blaine coInes out of II without 4 stain up
on his record. Hi5 culiet2uss, GARFIELD i
Co.,) certainly did hold the stock and LIED
ABOUIIr.
This should be enough; but there is
more to come. Gen. Garfield. in 1876,
went to New Orleans, prepared testimo-
ny for the returning board, some Of