Year: 1872

a local canvass in the neighboring State Of
Pennsylvania, the press of New-York is stead
ily and resolutely laboring in the cause of Re-
form, while the local Republican press OF
capital, with single exception,
has not word to say. Yet even IN this aD-
stinence there is marked distinction. Take
for example the Administration organs In
Philadelphia. There is there, as everywhere
reputable and disreputable journalism. We, of
course, have no idea of specifying, but assume
this fact. Disreputable, uninfluential journal
ism sustains Hartranft and his accOmplices IN
all their deeds of wrong, and does it boldly.
That portion of the press which is respectable
processes what may be termed Federal alle-
glance, adhesion to the Administration, and is
disinclined to do anything which may seem
to thwart its views; gives shamefaced,
half-hearted support to the Hartrantt cause,
and, defending it on one really lmmaterlal
point, passes over all that is vulnerable, and
conceals the actual sore which is so foully
purulent. Take for example what may be
termed the leading business journal OF Phila-
delphia, The North american, for which, from
long and friendly sympathy, we can say no
word but of respect In its columns all that
is referred to in defense is the relatively mild
swindle of the Evans War Claim, but not o
word about the Yerkes combination. The
Evans case, being yet involved in mystery,
admits of timid advocacy, although the fact is
very patent that in it Hartranft refused to
give up the vouchers out Of which the fraud
grew Gf fraud there be) until by way Of loan
he received from Evans some $1,000 or
$500, which was repaid. 1t has an
ugly look, but is not so very bad
that The North american cannot make some
sort of apology for it. Not so the "Yerkes-
"Hartranft- Myers" case. That is too bad and
too plain for sophistry, and hence on this Ihe
North american, obeying its instincts OF de-
cOrum, is as silent as the grave. 1t won't In
suit it's respectable readers by defense of
what Is indefensible, and hence, on this head,
is dumb. Now it occurs to us that such an
abnegation of duty is hardly reconcilable with
either strict morality or with what is due to
the great business interests which such jour-
nal Justly claims to represent Philadelphia
cannot afford to endure the tyranny of noto-
nously dishonest men at Harrisburg, with no
other compensation than the feeble rays OF favor
which Federal Administration is supposed
to shed on it. We claim for our community
we mean our business community - no
special moral prominence, but it is too wisely
selfish to fall into an error like this. Sure are
we that while it would be utterly impossible
that such a certified malfeasor as Hartrantt
could be nominated as Governor of New-Y York
by any party; yet if he were, there would be
universal revolt among the business men or
the Metropolis, and no newspaper, however
influential or heretofore respectable, would
venture to eude or defy it. In such an
emergency, help and knowledge from
distance would not, as in Philadelphia, be
needed Deeply interested as we confess our
selves to be in the great cause OF polltlcai
and economical reform everywhere, and no.
where more so than in community where
we boast so many friends, we now venture
on a Socratic experiment in politics, and ad-
dress to The Philadelphia North american,
and through it to the men of business it rep
resents, a few precise interrogatories, pledg-
ing ourselves to publish any categorical
answer that, from any responsible quarter,
NAV be given. For facility of reference, we
number the questions of our catechism.


1. Is the practice of the Myers-Hartranft
Ring legitimate of lending the cash assets of
the Treasury-amounting to milhons-to I'M
known bankers and brokers, some OF when
are bankrupt, and one of whom is convict


2. Do men of business-the faithful execu-
tors of public and private trusts-approve OF
the AuditOr-General and State Treasurer pur-
chasing State securities at depreciation and
selling them to the Sinking Fund at an ad-
vance. thew and their broker sharing the diff
ference as their profits


3. Did the State Treasurer, Immediately
before his election the second time, borrow Tor
his yriyate use from one Of the State deposi-
taries $4,000, and afterward repay it by
Treasury draft on the public fundsY Ii yea,
is this approved OIL


4. Is it not a badge of fraud that all the
accounts between the broker (since convicD
and the financial officers of the State were kept
either in fictitious names or, what Is equlva-
lent in reversed initials 7


s. Is it consistent with the proper discharge
of duty for accounting officers with small sal
aries to speculate to enormous amounts In
stocks during their whole term of Office
Mackey to the amount of Sl46OOO III two
months. and Hartranft of $6S1, 900 Ill less than
two years


6. Is it part of the function of Controller
or Auditor-General to use official information
for ends of private gain-to claim taxation on
corporate capital in order to deDress the stock,
and, that failing, to speculate on rise, as
Hartranft did in the case Of the Oil Creek
Railroads


Z. Was or was not the fraud on the City
Treasury of which Mercer and Yerkes have
been convicted facilitated, if not promoted, by
the countenance given by the State authori-
ties? and did it not result in deficit in the
State Treasnrv which if at all WAS made