New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-07-01
THE SLAyDERER SPARKS.


II il ALWAYS to be regretted that q private
citizen like MIR. Elkins should be compelled to
defend himself against the wanton abuse OF
official power for partisan purposes. Ii doeS
not appear that General Sparks ever had any
excuse whatever for connecting the name OF
Mr.. Elkins with grant which he olhciaiy
declared to have been fraudulent. In erect
Mr.. Sparks was guilty OF a libel, which is ho1
the less but much the more indcfehsiDie
because committed in the protested discharge
of public duty. Examination OF his statement
will show that there was not the slightest
occasion for him, in the discharge oil any puphc
duty. To refer TO the connection OF Mr.. Elhiiis
with this case, or to his relationship with
surveyor in New Mexico, or to point to MI.
Elkins at all a. the alleged owner " OF ire
grant If anybody had ever alleged any such
thing the fact has not yet come 10 pubic
knowledge. But however much 1t may nave
been "uleged," the statement was one winch
an official could not deccntly make IN docu-
ment referring to official business without
having abundant authority. If the President
really means what Ire says when he talks OF
putting ont any official who abuses his Office for
partisan ends. he can begin without any hesita-
Ton III inc Or0fIdl lLiiu '''N~' "'''
Commissioners. who has apparently done
nothing else since he was appointed.
However dsagrecable it may be for citizen
to be compelled to fasten wanton SANDER upon
n public officer, Mr.. Elkins has found 1t easy To
do that thing very ehcctually III the case oi
General Sparks His own statement is entirely
supported by that of w. w. Mcfarland the at
torney who had charge of this claim on behalf
of foreign owners. and who sclcctcd Mr. Elkius as
a competent lawyer in New Mexico 10 act In his
behalf The sole connection OF Mr.. ElkIns win
the claim or the company arose from this en-
plovmcnt rs an attorney, and in the organiza-
ton he acted for the party as II director having
n nominal interest As the facts are of record,
it will doubtless be easy to produce any
evidence that even the most il-natured oppo-
nent may desire to establish the statements
which Mr.. Elkins makes. In brief, there seems
to be abundant reason to accept without
hesitation his affirmation that he was never III
any sense the owner alleged owner OF the
grant, and never had any other connection
with ii than as an attorney employed by Mr.
Mcfarland.
But Mr.. Sparks will have still greater
difficulty il he ever attempts to reconcile his
assertions about the grant itself with the
written opinion OF Secretary Bayard which was
printed yesterday. Ii appears that Mr. Bayard
not only indorscd the claim in the strongest
terms. but committed himself unrescrvcdly
upon the very points which General Sparks
chooses to assa. The presumption is that Mr..
Bayard knew what lie was talking about, the
more because it would have been particularly
disgraceful in him to give an opinion rs n
lawyer in support of n swinding land claim, ut
a time when, as a Senator of the United States
and n member of the Private Land Claims
Committee, his support of any claim OF the
sort, worthy or unworthy, was certain to be
sharply criticised. II can hardly be said That il
was altogether becoming for n member OF that
committee to accept n fee for service of such
nature. But that il matter which Secretary
Bayard can settle with his preternaturally pure
admirers, who were too holy TO conntcnance
the participation of other public men in
business transactions.