The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1884-09-23
Senator Hoar for the Defense.
~ - From Harner's w.sLlr-p.n

- &AosAA ~~~ARoA o w oOhi y-kkcps
The friends OF Mr.. Blaine have at last
seen the folly of attempting to persuade
Republicans By pralsing the Republican
party and denouncing the Democratic
party to support Presidential candidate
4hom they hold to be unworthy. Such,
Rspublicans have praised one party and
|denounced the other quite as warmly as
their fellow-Republicans who propose to
vote for Mr.. Blaine. But the higher the
standard Of official conduct and of par
|ty principle and character is raised, the
more difficult 1t Ia to show them that for
|the sake OF the party they ought to do
something which In their judgment is en-
ltirely unworthy OF the party. All the
Blaine speeches. therefore, for the firs
three months of the campsign were to-
TALLY ysfntile to win or to- drive hack prus
testing Republicans. and at last the
Blaine advocates begin to treat the real
question, the official conduct OF Mr.
Blaine when Speaker. But they speak
only to show how wise was their silence,
for their reluctant and unwilling expla-
nations do not explain. 1t may be safely
assumed that Senator Hoar's letter is
the hest defense that can be made for
Mr Blaine's railway transactions. The
Senator undertakes to traverse the speech
OF Mr.. Schurz at Brooklyn. But in q
cogent reply Mr.. Schurz has conclusive
lv disposed of the Senator's defense
He shows from Mr.. -Blains's own letters
Tsnd from undispnted fscts the inaccuracy
Iof Senator Hoar's statements, and he
points out the extraordinary character
of the Senator's ethics.
Thus Mr. Blaine's repeated and per.
sistent reminder to Caldwell and Fisher
that his ruling had virtually saved the
roai-a reminder which was renewed
aud reiterated for the purpose of aiding
him 10 obtaining pecuniary interest in
the speculation Hoar treats as q
perfectly natural aud casual allusion to
an interesting coincidence. Casual alIu-
sions to interesting condolences are nev.
er suspicious, and require no demonstra.
ton. But persistent references to past
official action as indrcement for pecu.
mary favors are not casual allnsions.-I
They are intimations of kind which
Senator Hoar would no more give with
the purpose of private gain than he
would do any other discreditabls act.-I
As Mr.. Schurz truly says:
"When the Speaker SAYS to railroad
man 4 rendered you and your road in a
perfectly proper way great favcr, and
l am glad | did it, that is one thing j
But when the Speaker says to the rail-
road man, Il did you such and such
service by the exercise of my power, and
now | want you to give me valuable
interest in your enterprise; i know I am
not going to be dead.hesd in it, and l
see various channels in which can he
usefur-is not that quite another thing ?
But that is just what Mr.. Blaine did"
Senator Hoar also says that "Mr.
Blaine is not charged With any corrupt,
improper, or wrong act whatever" This
is a curious misapprehension, or very
singular use Of words How does Mr..
Schurz in his speech put the casei
"Here we find the Speaker of the
House of Representatives in business.
like way participating and urgently ask
ing for greater share in larger enter
prise. the pecuniary success Of which is
in great measure dependent on the ac-
tion of the same House over which be
presides, and in which he wields great
tbs purpose of getting rich =
We End him pointing out the exercise OF
his official power as channel in winch |
be already has made him self useful, and |
consequently can make himself more
useful, in order to obtain more of val
liable interest in such an enterprise, thus
literally trading upon his official trust
and opportunities. To cover up these |
things We fiud him resorting to all sorts
OF barefaced untruths, deceptions, and |
on the most solemn occs-
sions The concealments resorted to,
and the side perspectlves opened by the |
official investigation, are fully sufficient
to justify the inference that the case dis. |
closed is only one Of many. We hni
that he did get rich while in office, with
out any other regular business. HIS
most devoted friend publicly admits his
fortune to be about half million, while
the estimates Of others go far beyond
that. But the lowest estimate, half
million Is wealth not only to any one
starting with nothing, but to all Of our
countrymen except few. Tnis is the
character Of the case"
Is there no improper or wrong act
here2 Is not such conduct in the strict
est sense an act, and can it be trulv said
that to be charged with such conduct is
not to be accused of wrongful acts !?