Year: 1873

Leet and stocking jobbery and extortion
and the new Orleans Custom Hous
affairs. Nor did the exposure stop
there. A member from massachusetts,,
rising in his place in the House,
announced that g gigantic fraud had
been matured under the eye and
approved by member of the Cabinet
to rob the Treasury of over four hun
dred thousand dollars, annd only
waited for its completion the signature
Of subordinate off 3er in the Treasury
To arrest that fraud, he asked the
House to pass law instantly to
prohibit the payment of the money
and the House and the Senate, in view
of the notorious facts, passed the law.
Where is that Cabinent officer now
has he been dismissed !? Has the party
been purged of him, or does he not
rule as usual over his Department
We need not refer to tho Secor frauds
in the Navy Department, or the Fort
Smelling fraud in the War Depart
ment, or to the payment of the money
by the officers Of the pacific railway
Company to the head Of the Interior
Department, to show that, if public
morality has been elevated to an un-
precedentrd high standard, it has failed
to reach official circles. When in the
history of the Government has fraud
and corruption been fostered in such
high places as Of late years aud when
in the history of the Government has
any man been suspected even with
completely with frasd been permitted
to retain bis high office as If to brave
aud defy public opinion.


| The evelations of last winter are
too fresh to require a statement OF them.
Let Mr. Morton call over the roll ofthose
detected in and exposed 10 Credit Mobil
Ter fraud He will find no obscure names
| in that list He will fad names con>
spicious in tho political history of last
twelve years, and names Unidentified
ith the moral regeneration Of the
country. Where are they now? Has
any one ofthe men implicated respected
the high standard of public morals by
resigning his Office For over four
years they had secretly enjoyed the
! profits of Oakes Ames' liberal donation
of Credit Moblier, and when it was
accidently exposed did the guilty resign?
Did the Senate or the House expel the
convicted? When, in the previous
history OF Congress, was any member
accused and convicted of official turpi-
tude, did the body to which he
belonged fail to expel him, unless he
defeated expulsion by resignation
In this case, did uot the Senate refuse
to act on the case of It's own members,
and did not the House refuse to expel
the most conspicuous of its own actors
in the crime ?


Mr., Morton, last winter, in person
made a report that the purchase of
seats in the Senate was crime of such
magnitude that that body shonld, by
prompt declaration that elections by
such means were VOID, protect the
honor of the Senate and the country.
g lie demanded the virtual expulsion of
Senator supposed to have been elected
by bribery. Does not Mr.. Morton know
that there are several other cases where
It's charged that elections to the Senate
have been obtained by the same n can
and does he not know that in the
history of the Senate, prior to the last
twelve years, no such thing was ever
intimated, except in the case of one
Senator who, az this time, is a member
of the body


Mr. Morton frankly confessess in his
speech that the act of the last Con-
gress giving back pay was of a most
dangerous " character; and that the
money taken by the members was a
gift " to themselves for which there
was no consideration. How many of
the three hundred men in the two
houses of Congress have refused the
money :? Mr.. Morton rejoices that
there is not now an habitual gambler in
Congress but he is forced to admit