New-York tribune., 1886-02-10
BLE4R-EYED INDEPEDDENCE.

| Independent journals which aided in eecting
Mr. Cleveland in campaign of malevOlent de-
| famation, have been demOralized by the tele-
phone exposures. There are some honorable
exceptions; The Ereaing Post we are glad to
say. has not fincned from facing the facts OF
the case but the majority of them have been
executing an egg dance on the ragged edge OF
the scandal and max ing frantic efforts to divert
public attention from the main issues. Some
of them are laboriousy discussing technical
points of patent law; others are inveighlng
against the Bell monopoly and denounclnG
patents, which have been uniformly sustained
by the United States courts. as the outcome OF
| fraud and official cOllusOn; and others again
are rummaglng in the Mulligan dust heap.
! They suppress the fact that Mr. Garland re-
| ceived 81 800, 900 in telephone stock as git,
| when legislation designed to promote the Inter
ests of the enterprise was before Congress.
They avoid discussing the fragrant prostitution
of public functions to private ends involved III
the Memphis litigation last August. They can
see no immortality In the working OF two De-
partmcntS of the Administration IN the inter .st
of speculative statesmen. who will amass great
fortunes if the Bell patents are invalldated.
Hhe relations of heads of bureaus in the In
terror Department to the Pan Electric Company
they leave wholly out of account, and the
harshcst thing they can find to say about the
Attorney Generals position Is that it is rather
iudclicatc! For example. The Boston Uerdd
remarks:
We nave said that Attorney Garanfs position
indeicate 10 should be cmembercd that thcte has
been no dishonesty lying on his part. Those who
defended the most innocent of the Credit Mobiiicr
tld hly Vtr alE
Garland Those who could vote fot Mr. Blaine for
President ought TO look uP to Garland rs paragon oi
prOpriety.
No dishonesty, no dshonOr in a Senator'S
taking 81 100000 OF gift stock, the value of
which depended entirely upon legislation aud
Government itigalionl No lying IN the Attor-
newt Generals letter of explanation To the Prcsl-
dent which coparccner Rogers has contradlct"d
at a vital point No betrayal of public trust,
no breach of official decOrum, in his allowing
the Department of Justice To be used In en-
hancing the value of his private investments. or
in his retaining a share IN blind telephone
pool when the legal resources of that Depart
ment are placed at the disposal of ring OF
speculative statesmen
What antics these Boston independents can
display in "a carnival OF cant. 80 MIR. Garland
is a paragon of prOprlety IN comparison with
Mr.. Blaine Well, two years ago you and your
cpparcencrs in defamation devoted SIX months
to the ransacking OF the Republican candidates ;
business affairs and private correspondence
What did YOU find Z That Mr.. Blaine had ever
voted for any measure affecting the value of his
private investments 7 Not once That hc had
! ever made ii ruling in favor Of enterprises IN
which he WAS financially interested I Never
| That he was concerned in the Credit MODllicr
or Back Paw scandals No. That he had ever
! prosututed public functions TO private ends I
| There was no proof of this OF of any other
charge. The only point at which Mr.. Blalnc's
Dnblic and business relations touched was his
casual reference in business letter To n ruling
he had made before he bought and sold Little
| Rock bonds, aud the terms of that reference
| prccluded the idea that the ruling was meant
as IA basis of reward for Legislative services
Yet Mr. Garland. with his glit-stock and open
prostitution of his official functions. is para
gon in comparison with Mr.. Blame! As for the
! Credit Mobllicr parallel read what that sterling
organ of old-lashoncd Democratic honesty,
| The Nele- York Sum- has to say and learn what
| independent journalism really is!
Now tho only difference practically between tho Cases
OF the Credit MObrr the Pan Electric Is that the
former was already established Of profit and It's
distributed brlbcs % members OF Congress
for expected votes while the latter del ended on those
members OF COngross make 1t successful speculate IA
by the strength OF their and poe, public Iifc
Morally there particle Of difference between the
| two cases.