Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-02-12
New York Tribune.]
Blear-Eyed Independence.

| Independeut Journals which aided in elect
ing Mr. Cleveland in campaign OF maie.o-
lent defamation, have been demoralized BY
the telephone exposures. There are some
honorable exceptions; The Evening Post,
we are glad to say, has not finched from rae
ing 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
laboriouslv discussing technical points of
patent law; others are inveighing against tne
Bell monopoly and denouncing patents, which
have been uniformly sustained by the United
States courts az the outcome of fraud and
official collision; and others again are rum
maging in the Mulligan dust heap. They
suppress the fact that MIR. Garland received
| 81 500 900 in telephone stock az gift, when
| legislation designed to promote the interests
of the enterprise was before Congress. They
avoid discussing the fragrant prostitution OF
public functions to private ends involved IN
the Memphi. litigation last August They
can see no immortality in the working of two
Departments Of the Administration in the in
terest of speculative statesmen, who will
amass great fortunes if the Bell patents are
invalidated The relations of heads of
bureaus in the Interior Department to the
Pan-electric Company they leave wholly out
of account, and the harshest thing they can
find to say about the Attorney-GeneraPs posi-
ton is that it is rather indelicate! For exam
pie, the Boston Herald remarks:
We have said that Attorney General Garland's po-
sition 10 indicate, but it should be remembered
that there has been no dishonesty or lying on his
part Those who defended the most innocent Of the
credit Mobilier statesmen should not have word to
say against Mr.. Garland. Those who could vote for
Mr. Blaine for President ought to look to Garland
as paragon of propriety.
No dishonesty, no dishonor in Senator's
taking 81, 800, 900 of gift stock, the value of
of which depended entirely upon legislation
and Government litigation? No lying in the
Attorney Generals letter of explanation to
the President, which coDarcener Rogers has
contradicted at 4 vital point? No betrayal of
public trust no breach Of official decorum, in
his allowing the Department of Justice to be
used in enhancing the value of his private in
vestments, or in his retaining . share in a
blind telephone pool when the legal resources
of that department are placed at the disposal
Of ring Of speculative statesmen?
What antics these Boston Independents can
display in q carnival of cant! SO Mr. Gar
land is q paragon Of propriety in comparison
with Mr. Blaine =? Well, two years ago you
and your copareeners in defamation devoted
six month. to the ransacking Of the republi
can candidates business affairs and private
| correspondence. What did you find /? That
Mr.. Blaine had ever voted for any measure
affecting the value Of his private investments?
Not once. That he had ever made ruling
in favor of enterprises in which he was tinan-
eially interested ? Never. That he was con-
cerned in the Credit Mobiier or back pay
scandals No. That he had ever prostitu-
ted public functions to private ends ? There
was no proof of this or of any other charge.
The only point at which Mr.. Blaine's
public and business relations touched was his
casual reference in business letter to ruling
he had made before he bought and sold Little
Rock bonds, and the terms of that reference
precluded the idea that the ruling was meant
as basis of reward for legislative services.
Yet Mr.. Garland, with his gift stock and open
prostitution of his official functions, is par
agon in comparison with Mr.. Blaine! Az for
the Credit Mobilier parallel, read what that
sterling organ of od-fashioned democratic
honesty, The New York Sun, has to say, and
learn what independent journalism really is
| Now the only difference practically between the
cases of the Credit Mobier and the Pan Electric ID
shat the former already an established source Of
members of Congress for expected votes, while the
| latter depended on these members OF Congress to
make it Successful speculation BY the strength Of
| their names and position In public life. Morally
there is not particle of difference between the two
| cases.