New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-01-28
,,,yv opK nAuy TRIBUNE. THURSDAY, JANUARY ss 1886

form when he not only countenances put AUS
and abets so fragrant an offence against PUBIC
morality as Mr.. Garland's connection WITH 'ho
telephone spectators.
For the purpose of comparison it may be
profitable to recur TO the campaign OF delania-
ton which preceded Mr.. Clevelands eiecVlon'
What was the chief charge made against Mr,
Blaine iy iioss who now have no fault 10 ilnu
with Mr.. Garland's telephone transactions l.
related to his Little Rock ruling and SUBSCRIBERS
correspondence with the managers or that en-
terprise. The ruling itself was entirely proper
and merely tended to separate an innocent
measure, which had passed the Senate ny
unanimous vote, from notorious raliroau JoO'
When that ruling was made, neither The speaker
nor those With whom he subsequently hau OuSi-
ness relations were interested in the enter
prise. Mr. Blaine neither ruled nor voted on
any measure connected with Little Rock after
he had invested in its securities and induced his
friends to do so under personal guarantee
nor was there any evidence that ne ever USED
his official influence in behalf or the ROAD aIIeI
he had dealt in the bonds. The transactions ala
not affect his official duty or obligations IA
member Of the House. He succeeded in placing
a long line of stock, lent $4,000 to the com
pany, attempted to avert its bankruptcy, made
good tho losses OF his friends and lost heavily
by the whole operation, but was not guilty OF
any betrayal of public trust, and did not use his
official position to promote his private interests.
Indeed. Mr.. Blaincs main offence in this
matter was his reference to the ruling III the
course of the correspondence The mancr III
which he alluded to it prccuded the assun ptl0n
that he was seeking to make that ruling the
ground for obtaining financial favOrs, since he
took pains to belittlc his own service, to assure
his correspondent that it was accidental and
that he had only done what it was his plain
duty to do But aside from this reference to his
ruling, TO which a. n matter of fact no attention
was paid by his business associates, there was
nothing in the Little Rock transactions affect
ing in the rcmotcst degree his public relations
as a member and officer of the House. There
was no corrupt act, and critical examination
of his reference to the ruling precluded the idea
that there was even guilty intent. Yet tins
was the chief charge against Mr.. Blaine and
the main ground of the campaign of defamation
in which Mr.. Curtis, Mr. Beecher, Mr.. Schulz
and their associates took part.
If these gentlemen were so excited by the
petty revelations of the Mulligan letters what
must be their anguish Of spirit now, i'll finding
the President whom they helped to elect con-
doning Mr. Garland's prostitution of public
Office to private ends! How contemplate the
casual reference to the Little Rock ruling must
appear to them now, as they contrast it with Mr..
Garland's course in taking Gas his friend
alleges 81 800, 900 of telephone stock as Il gift
and III earning it subsequently by his influence
a. a Senator and his connection with the Depart
ment of Justice! Why do they not speak out
and defend, if they can, this new standard of
public morality?