Year: 1874

for instance, in the case of Mr.. Wilson and
Mr.. Dawes in the matter of the Credit
Mobilier Tho public mind of the country
censured these gentlemen for condonlng
terrible wrong to the Treasury, if not for TAX
ing an actual part in the profits that accrued
from it. But the second sense is that the
offence was simply heedlessness, and that they
should not be censured as We censure Colfax,
fer having done deliberate and repeated
wrong. AT the same time, when men accept
the honors and responsibilities of public
career they invite the loftiest criticism, and
their duty is to bear themselves so that there
shall not merely be au absence of reproach
bat the absence even of suspicion.


BY this canon of criticism let us look into
what are called the revolutions in Louisi-
ana. When Lieutenant Governor Penn was
in transient possession of the Louisiana State
House he caused its records and papers to be
searched, and found among other things, the
correspondence and check book of the fugi-
tive Kellogg. The stubs of the check book
showed some suggestive entries, which must
cause Kellogg to regret that his flight was so
hasty that he could not take away his private
papers. The public has been made acquainted
with the suspicious entries, but we prefer to
await further developments before Judging
whether the awkward revelations are as dam
aging as the opponents Of the Kellogg usurpa-


ton incline to consider them. We do not


believe in condemnng any man unheard,
especially men of influence, authority and


fame who have earned popular confidence


and are entitled to patient and respectful


consideration. Public attention has been


strongly fixed on the heavy retainers


paid to Carpenter and Butler for pro-


tessional services in the Supreme Court


when the writ Of prohibition was before that


tribunal Shortly after the Dnrell order


Kelogg's counsel, in resisting the issuance


Of the writ, consisted OF Caleb Gushing, Sen


ator Carpenter and General Butler, all of


whom appeared in court. Mr. Gushing made


a short speech, Mr.. Carpenter another short
| speech, General Butler taking no part in
4 the argument. Two Of these lawyers were


members of Congress, and the urfavorable in


ference is founded on the fact that their fees


seem out OF all reasonable proportion both to
II


the third gentleman. who was only a simple


lawyer. Mr.. Carpenter received four thou


sand five hundred dollars, General Butler
three thousand dollars, and Mr.. Gushing, who
acted as leading counsel and is superior to
either Of the others in professional stand
ing received only two thousand dollars. It is
therefore intimated by Kellogg's enemies that
Al. ofr ho 10 Co
and Butler virtual bribe, expecting to pur-
chase their services in Congress as we'll as in
the Supreme Court. This inference seems to
be premature, and is not sustained by the
whole state Of the facts so far as they have
vet been brought to the public knowledge.


If Kellogg intended those heavy retainers
as bribes he failed to accomplish his object.
Mr. Carpenter. IN his subsequent action as
Senator, was the foremost opponent Of the
Kellogg government, making the most power
tul speech delivered against it; and Butler, if
we recollect Alright, advocated and voted for
DurelP impeachment More recently, in an
interview granted to the HERALD correspondent,
General Butler denied the legality Of the Kel-
locg government. These facts cannot be left
out in estimating the insinuation OF bribery.
Attempts TO bribe legislators would very soon
come to an end if the money converted advo-
Gates into adversaries. Stress has been laid
on Senator Carpenters inconsistency on the
Louisiana question, and one prominent jour-
nal accounts for it by alleging that ne accepted
bribe of ten thousand dollars on the other
side. This is said without shadow Of proof,
and therefore cannot be considered. Nobody
has right to make such charges, more espe-
cially against man as eminent and honored as
the Senator from Wisconsin, unless he supports
them by evidence Mr.. Carpenters inconsis-
tency on the Louisiana question is susceptible
Of perfectly honorable explanation. When
he was retained as counsel in the writ of pro-
hibition case the subject was new to him
and he was merely required to investigate a
question of law. A lawyers duty to his client
does not bind him to impartiality, but the
reverse. He undertakes in consideration Of
lis fee, to make the best argument he can on
his clients side Of the question In the writ
of prohibition case Carpenters law was sound,
or at least it was adjudged to be sound by the
Supreme Court, who refused the writ When
the committee OF investigation was afterwards
proposed in the Senate he spoke in support of
the Presidents action, and mp to that time he
was perfectly consistent But after having
been appointed on that committee it became
his duty to make a thorough examination of
the facts, which resulted in n conviction OF
the utter illegality of the Kellogg government.
He Welded his first opinion to irresistible evil
dence. and set forth that evidence in speech
of such logical force as convinced all impair
tial men. If his mind had been biassed by his
| previous relation to client he yielded that
bias when he came to in vestigate the facts,
4 and the change, so far as yet appears, was