National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-01-23
Halstcad's Fresh Assault Upon Gar


rc1iscr he wrote, on the 18th:
I did cxaggcrato the impression that attacks
upon Garhelds record could make upon the coun
try. He had done so much good work that the
people grew weary of hearing of his small mistakes
Ills character and public services proved an over
whelming answer TO hc orrors through business in
crpcTtcHcc aud senstitcHcSs 10 pOrcrty.
What dear good friend this is. With
what delicacy he touches up his former
picture of Garfield. The question at
issue originally was whether the charge
of Oakes Ames or the denial thereof by
James A. Garfield was true. Halstead
was on the side of Ames When Garfield
had lived down the scandal and was
named for the Presidency Ilalstead was
greatly distressed. lie felt that with the
man he had abused so mercilessly ele-
waited to the Executive chair he would be
but a poor outlaw. And so he put ON his
big look and had his irresistible Com
mercim newspaper cry out Pooh pooh
TO you" lie thought "the chatter about
Garfield the most contemplate thing
about Chicago" He printed let
ter in which the writer said
that Garfield was marked all
over with Credit Mobilier smallpox"
And when Hugh Hastings asks why he
thus scandalized General Garfield he
says the former expression was by him
Struck out whep IL appeared IN proof, but
it got into the first edition of the paper"
The simpleton Does he not give him
self away completely? How came it TO
appear in proof2 Did it write itself?
No; he wrote it, according TO his own
confession. As TO the latter phrase, he
says it was in the correspondence. Yes,
but it was in the Cincinnati Commercial.
No subordinate would have dared to print
it concerning Senator-elect ofOhio ifhe
had not found it agreeable to Halstead.
But after the nomination, and when the
| despised and contemned victim of Hal
stead's venom was on the road to the
White House, the gay and cured courtier
changed his tune. The change came so
suddenly, however, that the refrain of
the old one was retained. He talks of
Garfeld's small mistakes" But he was
never charged with small mistakes.
The people were weary of hearing of
his alleged high crimes in Office. They
decided that he was guiltless of the
charges made against him by Oakes
Ames and monotonously reiterated by
! lIalstead, Reid Il Co. Halstead wriggles
through crooked sentences about Gar
fields "errors committed through busi-
ness inexperience and sensitiveness to
poverty" What infamous suggestion is
here contained? Dare its author trans
late it? 1t shall be done for him. 1t is
plea for Garfield of: Guilty as charged
in the indictment, with an appeal for
clemency on account of cXtenuating cir
cumstances my poverty and not my
will consents" said the apothecary who
sold the quick poison to Romeo in viola
by Halstead for "errors" which he says
Garfield committed. What errors? Alas
that any man who has presided at the
White House should leave behind him
any case to be so argued.
Halstead did write to Richard Smith,
accusing Garfield of being "up to the
neck in Dom Piatt's moth-exterminat-
ing swinde." Mr. Halstead admits
in a communication to Fridays Star
that he did so write to Mr.. Smith
This he says he did because he chad an
apprehension that as presidential candi.
date the moth contract charge would be
injurious" Subsequently" (when GAR
fields nomination seemed probable) the
sprightly Halstead says he sent tele.
grams to Smith, "giving the name of the
Congressman who made the accusation,
with his alleged authority, suggesting
that he had, perhaps, in his hurried letter,
over-estimated the possible influence of
the matter, that it might not be of import
ance, and requesting that the letter be
withheld"
Observe that Halstead allows the sting
to remain. He does not call the accusa.
ton in question, but simply thinks it nc
great shakes Of an ofIense, even if true.
This is in keeping with the whole drift
of his letter to Hugh Hastings and his
statement in last Fridays Star. From
the latter we quote the following:
Mr.. IIalstcad did not originate charges agains
Garfield or consider that his acknowledged error
Wefc cflnlnNl, Nuu Ollcn sHlu, WIN uDSulntc can
dor that lie believed Garfield, absorbed in public
affairs uud inexperienced in the methods of bust
ness men, had been misUsed by some of his friends
but that he was essentially sound; that the boyisi
Integrity of his character had not been affected.
1t is the wonder of our time that the
/ good name of dead President, who has
been almost canonized in the hearts ol
hepeople, should now be subjected to the
polluting touch of two such Journalistic
desperadoes MS Whitelaw Reid and Mural
Halstcad-the former claiming him as O
subordinate pal in most corrupt ant
abominable political practices and tho
latter first admitting him TO he guilty o
high crimes, and then loltily granting
him pardon on the ground that his pov
erty was great and his integrity boyish.
This is not Il discussion of General Gar
field. He has passed beyond discussion
A Nations acclaim acquitted him of the
bad deeds charged upon him by the
combined Democratic and Greeley press
of 1873. The same kind Judgment will
ascribe TO malicious prompters the
grievous mistake he made in the removal
of Collector Merritt last March. But we
do discuss the pirates who sail the politi-
cal seas, us do Halstead and Reid, claim
ing to hold letters Of marque signed by
the dead man whose life they did SO
4 much TO make miserable, Of whose suffer
ings and death they have made mer-
chandise, and for whose garments they