The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1884-09-17

ate. the least difficulty in under
standing them. The letters on
which Mr.. Schurz founds his two
charges are but four in number.
These are all he himself reads or
quotes from in his whole speech.
Two of those were written on the
same day, one referring to the Record
where the facts stated in the other
are found. These were ali read by
Mr.. Blaine together. With all Mr..
Schurz' power of clear statement, he
does not put this matter any more
clearly than it appears from the let
ters themselves in Mr.. Blalnes
speech.
But Mr.. Schurz says he is amazed
at Mr.. Blaine's energetic protest at
the prying into his private affairs.
Here was a speaker charged with
corruption. Should, he not haye
said Take everything, search, siit,
question, let in the sunlight? j
think he forgets the circumstances.
The American people do not forget
them. The House had ordered the
Judiciary Committee to inquire
whether the Pacific Railroad Com
panies had complied with the law
and properly applied the moneys,
land and bonds granted them by the
Government. Some months after
further resolve was introduced, IN
curing whether the Union Pacific
Railroad had received certain bonds
of the Little Rock and Fort Smith
Road at a price far below their val
ue. This grew out of a lumor that
MIR. Blaine was connected with
transaction of this kind. He, as the
country well remembers, had Just
made the Confederates in the House
extremely angry by his charge that
Jefferson Davis was responsible for
the horrors of Andersonville. The
Democratic Chairman of the Judi
c;ary Committee referred this inves-
tigation to subcommittee of three,
of whom the chairman was rebel
general, and another member OF
the rebel Congress. They investiga-
ted this transaction, and the evil
dence, absolutely and beyond all
question, exonerated Mr.. Blaine.
There was no evidence of the charge
but two pieces of hearsay. In one
case the person who had made the
statement said he had heard such a
report but didn't know where or
from whom; in the other, the per-
son reported to have made the as
sertion emphatically denied it. But
it was conclusively shown that Mr..
Blaine had nothing to do with the
transaction. l should like to have
seen the lion wrath of George Wash
ington, if, after the Revolution, a
committee of Tories had proposed TO
rake into his private correspondence
on such an errand.
Mr.. Schurz charges Mr.. Blaine
with falsehood, and says he is dis
credited as witness. He seeks TO
maintain this grave accusation by
two instances. First, he says, Mr.
Blaine told the house of Representa-
tives that "the Little Rock road de-
rived all its value from the State OF
Arkansas and not from Congress.
"In this he deliberately said what
was not true" This. Mr.. Schurz
thinks, is shown by Mr.. Blaine's
own declaration in his letter, that,
in his ruling, he did a favor to Cald-
well, who was the builder of the road
and who certainly was not the State
of Arkansas. Why, how can Mr..
Schurz so misunderstood the mat
ter? Mr. Blaine was arguing to the
House. whose members fully under
stood the transaction, thata member
of the House had a perfect right TO
hold stock in the road, because it
got its franchise and property from
Arkansas, and not from Congress.
He had stated in the same speech, a
few sentences before, the facts exact
ly as Mr.. Schurz states them. Con-
gress made the grant to Arkansas to
give to what road it pleased, and
Arkansas gave part Of it to the Fort
Smith Road. OF course, if the grant
failed, the road suffered. Mr.
Schurz might as well charge law
yer with lying who urged on the
Supreme Court what he thought
was the legal effect of a decision
they had themselves just made. as
impute falsehood to Mr.. Blaine on
account ofhis claiming to the House
what was the legal effect of their own
legislation, which be had just recited
to them.
The other falsehood is said to be
Mr. Blaine's statement that he never
had any of the bonds or stock of the
road, except on the same terms as
they were bought in the market
This is a lie, SAYS Schurz, because
Blaine writes to Fisher thanking
him for the liberality and generosi-
ty with which he has dealt with him.
Blaine's writing to Fisher refers to a
wholly different matter. 1t refers
to the allowance made to Blaine as
a commission for the sale to other
people. This, it appears, was made
by Blaine, who guaranteed this
stock to his friends in Maine. and
was afterwards obliged TO take it
back. There is no inconsist-
ency whatever in the two state
ments.
Mr.. Schurz further says that the
election OF Blaine will be a declara-
ton by the American people that
" honesty win be no longer one of
government | think Schurz is en-
tirely mistaken here, also 1t will
be a declaration on the part of the
American people that they do not
agree with him in his estimate of
Blaine. 1t will be a declaration
that they do not find in Biaine's
conduct and letters what Schurz
thinks he finds there. 1t viii be
declaration that they agree with DIR.
Clarke when he paid Blaine his
glowing tribute of admiration and
honor. when all these facts were
fresh and familiar. 1t will be
declaration that they agree with
George William Curtis, Uhc declar-
ed that Blaine's vindication OF the
principal charge against him was tri-
umphant.