The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1884-08-16

the investigation he limited at his being situa-
ted in the enterprise no better than the public
he was confronted by Mr.. Mulligan
with a memorandum book in Mr.. Blaine's
own handwriting showing that Mr.. Blaine had
received gratuity or commission about
$130,000 in bonds and $751; in money.
Thereupon there was dead silence on the part
of Mr.. Blaine. He had nothing more to say
than that he did not want his private affairs
inquired into. 1t is painfully evident that
here again Mr.. Blaine stands convicted, not
by his enemies and defamers, but by his own
pen, of having made solemn explanations of
his conduct before the House of Representa-
tives which were obviously untrue.
These are the things referred to when l
said that Mr.. Blaine, in the issue of veracity
between him and Mr.. Mulligan concerning
that famous interview, had put himself at
decided disadvantage by untruthful statements
about other parts of this business.
The third point urged in extenuation is that
there was no subsequent legislation concern
ing that railroad, except, as Mr.. Blaine said,
an act ''merely to rectify previous mistake
in legislation" But, whether to correct a
mistake or not, it was very important act
1t was to repeal proviso that the granted
lands ''should be sold to actual settlers only,
in quantities not greater than one-quarter of
section to each purchaser, at price not ex-
ceeding 81. so per acre" The repeal of that
proviso was certainly calculated to enhance
the value of the land grant very materially,
and also that of the land grant bonds, of
which Mr.. Blaine had become a holder.
Many members of the House voted against
the repeal, but it was carried
The fourth point urged in favor of Mr..
Blaine is that after all he did not make any
money by the operation. 1t appears that the
I ,oI hat
catfish; that Speaker Blaine had disposed of
a number of bonds among his neighbors and
friends at high rates; that some of these,
when the enterprise failed, grew ugly; that he
found it best to take back the securities and
refund the money; and so he claims that on
the whole he lost instead of gaining IL this
is so, it shows that this was not one of the
operations through which Mr.. Blaine made
his fortune. But would his failure to make
the money he desired and expected to make
change the character of the transaction? You
might as well say, This man is a truthful man.
To be sure, he lied, but nobody would believe
him. Or, this man is an honest man; to be
sure, he tried to pass counterfeit money, but
nobody would take it. Would the conduct of
the Speaker of the House on account of this
failure be official power not offering itself for
prostitution? No, it would only be official
power offering itself for prostitution without,
in this instance, realizing its price.
Is there, then, nothing in the official record
to put those fatal letters in better light?
Search and sift that record as carefully as you
may, and you will search and sift it in vain.
You will find other curious things. You will
find this Speaker of the House controlling
a large interest in another land grant road
liable to be affected by Congressional legisla-
ton, the Northern Pacific, "a splendid thing"
which he himssf "can't touch but which he
can offer to his friend Fisher, cautioning that
friend to be careful to keep the Speakers
name quiet. You find large and mysterious
sum of money passing through his hands,
which he chad not in his possession 4S hours"
but paid over to parties whom he tried TO pro-
tect from loss-a mysterious sum of money
much inquired about, of which Mr.. Blaine
proved himself anxious to show where it had
not come from, but avoided showing where it
had come from. We find him mediating
friend between different interests and organi-
cations connected with railroads, and we be-
gin to ask ourselves with wonder whether
there was a pie in which the Speaker of the
House did not have his finger.
OFFICIAL INTEGRITY THE FIRST NECESSITY.
We find something more. We find Mr..
any line of inquiry which might "expose his
private business" What? Here was the late
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
second officer in the Government, whose Off
cial integrity was questioned, before an inves-
tigating committee of the same House over
which he had presided; and he did not cry
out: Here are my books, here my bank
accounts, here my letters, here my Keys,
here my friends, here my enemies-take
them all! Search, sift, question, leave no
stone unturned, no dark corner uneXplored;
hinlA 4hA
suspicious to the sunlight. | have been
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
When my official integrity is seriously questi-
oned must stand before the people, not only
as onewho cannot be legally proved guilty,
but as one whom suspicion must not touch !"
No, he did not say anything of the kind. He
did not remember Alexander Hamilton ex-
ample. What example was that? When
some mysterious circumstance had become
known which threw shadow of suspicion
upon his official integrity what did Hamilton
do? Crouch behind the limitations of legal
evidence? Protest against exposing his private
affairs? Not he. With q courage that must
have wrung his own proud heart and pierced
with agony that of his wife, he tore the veil
from the mystery with his own hand, and at
the expense of confessing himself guilty of a
transgression of widely different and pecu-
liarly ''private' kind, he proved the stainless
ness of his official character. Rather would he
have those of his failings exposed which men
are most anxious to conceal, rather the hap
piness of his home endangered, rather his
reputation as husband and father questioned
than leave the faintest shadow of suspicion
upon his official houor. But what find we
here? An official honor of different kind.
We find Mr.. Blaine protesting again and
again: Il do not think that my private bust
ness ought to be exposed 81 do not want
all my private matters gone into that way"
What private matters? The pecuniary rela
tons between the Speaker Of the House of
Representatives and operators in land grant
railroads. Fiercely he struggled to keep the
Mulligan' letters concealed. On what ground?
Because, as he said, they were his 'private
correspondence" which, he pretended, no.
bedy had any right to see. And what did we
see, when at last that was found out what
Mr.. Blaine called his ''private" correspon-
dence? And what would we see if that were
exposed what Mr.. Blaine called his 'private"
business? Again, it is not one of his enemies
and detractors that asks this question. 1t is
Mr.. Blaines own language before the inves;
tgating committee that forces it upon us.
AnalyZe this case to classify it. Here we
find not mere solitary slip Of the conscience,
not a mere occasional yielding to the sedhc-
tion of opportunity to exc out a scanty eXis-
tence. Here we find the Speaker of the
House of Representatives in businesslilze
way participating, and urgently asking for a
greater share, in large enterprise, the pc
cuniary success of which is in a great meas
ure dependent on the action of the same
House over which he presides, and in which
he wields great power-.for the purpose of
getting rich. We find him pointing out the
exercise of his official power as a channel in
which he already has made himself useful
and consequently can make himself more use:
ful, in order to obtain more of valuable in
terest in such an enterprise, thus literally
trading upon his official trust and opportuni-
ties. To cover up these things we find him
resorting to all sorts of barefaced untruths,
deeeptions, and concealments on the most
solemen occasions. The concealments resort
ed to and the side perspectives opened by the
official investigation strongly suggest the in
ference that the case disclosed is only one of
several. We find that he did get rich while
Al L L..