Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 June 1880 — CARFIELD. [ARTICLE]

CARFIELD.

The Public Career of a Machine Partisan. Illa Connection with Boss Shepherd’s District Ring. His Responsibility for the Back-Pay Steal. Nome Highly IntcreNting Reading. The Now York Sun, of May 8, 1880 —exactly one month before Garfield’s nomination—contained the following article : CREDIT MOBILIER AND DE OOLYER. James A. Garfield is now serving his ninth consecutive term aw a member of the House of Rcnresentativea. At the end of his term he will succeed Mr. Thurman in the Senate, as night succeeds day. Gifted with fine natural parts, possessed of some literary ability, given to study, popular in manners, and with a pleasing stylo of speech, few men have begun public life with such advantages. No public man has sacrificed his opportunities more unworthily. Mr. Garfield entered the army in 1861 as a Colonel of volunteers, and loft it a Major General in 1803, with a record which, though not shining, was quite creditable. The Republicans of the Western Reserve, who had sent Joshua R. Giddings to Congress until he became recognized as the father of the House, took up Garfield on his return from the .war, at 32 years of age, and have clung to him since then, despite the most damning proofs of his venality and jobbery in legislation. Fidelity to party in its tierce and intolerant spirit seems, like the ina«tle of charity, to have covered a multitude of sins in his case. Thrown into the midst of the reckless legislation for which the calamity of civil war furnished an opportunity, he soon developed the traits of character which have more recently made bis name notorious throughout the country. He became the advocate and apologist of the huge land grants and subsidies by which millions of acres of the public domain and tents of millions of money were voted to great corporations and rings. That may be called the beginning of the organized corruption which flourished during Grant’s two terms. Garfield voted for almost every job, and for almost every iniquitous scheme of the lobby that then controlled the leading committees. 'The construction of the Union Pacific railroad furnished the opportunity for a gigantic fraud. Congress voted money and land enough to build it without any considerable issue of bonds or stock by the company. The Directors were forbidden by law from engaging in contracts or holding other interests of profit. Therefore they could not become beneficiaries by the abuse of their trust until that obstacle was overcome. They soon found a way to do it. A company known as the Credit Mobilier, organized upon the French plan, had procured a charter from Pennsylvania, which proved to lie a. failure in its hands. This charter was purchased. A ring of officers and Directors of the Union Pacific road obtained absolute control of its affairs. They contracted with themselves under another name for the construction at exorbitant prices. They swindled the United States, the bondholders and the stockholders for the benefit of their own clown corporation. In 1867, Oakes Ames, James B. Alley and others, known as the Boston party,” got possession of the Union Pacific and the Credit Mobilier. At that time Ames was a member of Congress, and a manufacturer of reputed wealth. The great contracts passed into his hands, and the dividends of the Credit Mobilier had already attracted attention. Elihu B. Washburne introduced a resolution in the House which alarmed the jobbers for their immense profits. Colfax, then Speaker,'and one of the creatures of the ring, silenced this movement for a time by parliamentary tricks. Still, the Credit Mobilier monopolists were uneasy, and proposed to buy off opposition. In January, 1868, Ames wrote to McComb, who afterward started the investigation from motives of revenge, “ I have assigned as far as I have gone” (certain shares to different States); “the 50 per cent, increase I want for distribution here, and soon.” A few days after, he was still more urgent. He wrote again : “In view of Washburne’s move here, I go in for making our bond dividend in full. I want that $14,000 increase of the Credit Mobilier to sell here. We want more friends in this Congress.” As he I/mself said, the object was to put the stock “ where it would do the most good.” The stock was then selling at $350 a share on a par value of SIOO. It was issued in blocks of thirty, twenty and ten shares to members of Congress at par, and the so-called purchase was more than extinguished by the accrued dividends. It was a nice stock to hold.

The first disclosure of the corruption was made in the Sun during the summer of 1872, implicating many of the Republican leaders. A Presidential election was then pending, and they all vehemently denied any connection with the fraud. Garfield's statement was more explicit and bolder than that of any of his confederates in the crime. An investigation was ordered by the House soon after the meeting of Congress ; the examination of witnesses began on Dec. 12, 1872. At first Oakert Ames was disinclined to make any exposure ; but when the incriminated members combined to swear him down and to free themselves by rank perjury, his blood warmed quickly, and lie determined to let the truth bo known, though in the end there was much concealed. Garfield submitted to the committee a prepared statement on Jan. 14, 1873 : I never owned, received, or agreed to receive any stock of the Credit Mo"bilier or of the Union Pacific railroad, nor any dividends or profits ansinsr from either or them.

Amos was recalled Jan. 23, 1872, and testified to the stock he had issued to Garfield, the dividends allowed him, and the balance of money paid into his hand, which Garfield pretended was a “loan.” He submitted a memorandum of the account in detail. It came to the knowledge of the committee that Garfield had visited Ames with the object of inducing him to retract or modify his testimony, and ho was reexamined on the 29th of January, as follows: , Q. You may state whether, in conversation with you, Mr. Garfield claims, as he claimed before IM, that the only transaction between you was borrowing $360? A. No, sir, he did not claim that with vic. Q. State all you know in reference to it A. I told him he knew very well that that was a dividend. I made out a statement and showed it to him at the time. In our conversation he admitted it, and said there was $2,400 due him in stocks and bonds. He made a little memorandum of SI,OOO and $1,400, and said there was SI,OOO of Union Pacific railroad stock, SI,OOO of Credit Mobilier stock, and S4OO of stock or bonds. Q. When was that memorandum made ? A. It was made in my room. I cannot remcmlier the date. It was since this investigation commenced. Q. Have you the memorandum that Mr. Garfield made? A. I have the figures that ho made. [Paper shown in Garfield’s handwriting.] Q. You say these figures were made by Mr. Garfield ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was his idea of w;hat was coming to l»im ? A. Yes, sir. Garfield sought to tamper with and suborn Anics, and the attempt ended in his claiming a larger share in Credit Mobilier than had been allowed to him, after having solemnly sworn a fortnight previously that he “never owned, received or agreed to receive any stock of the Credit Mobilier nor any dividend or profit arising” therefrom. The climax was capped when Ames produced his diary with the original entry against Garfield, dated Tuesday, Sept. 29, 1868, setting forth his account for ten shares of Credit Mobilier. These terrible revelations were allowed to pass unnoticed. Garfield did not dare to go before the committee and confront Ames, because he knew there were still other proofs in reserve. Ho waited until Ames was in his grave, and then, with Schuyler Colfax and others who had been bribed, he attempted to whitewash the infamy. But, passing from that period to more recent times, let us examine Ihh record after he became Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and, as one of his purchasers said, “ held the purse strings of the nation.” The forty-second Congress, in which the Republicans had large majorities in both houses, has gone into history as memorable for scandalous legislation. Among many disgraceful acts was that author- . izing the infamous Sanborn contracts, by which informers and spies were enabled to seize the books of merchants, and, by connivance, to blackmail them, and at the same time to plunder the treasury of immense sums. That law was the result of a corrupt combination between certain members of Congress, certain treasury officials, and one Sanborn, with one Jayne as the master workman. , Some idea of the magnitude of their operations may bo formed from the fact that Sanborn drew froiq

Judicial bill, authorizing the contracts Is be made. It was a “rider” and not in anyway germane to the bill. But the Republicans then had the chronic habit of mounting their very worst legislation as riders on the regular supply Jills. The bill, thus amended, was reported to the House April 8, 1872, and the job was badly 6oaten. Then came the fine hand of trickery to play its part. Mr Garfield, instead of allowing ths t»lll to go back to the Senate, where the action •Z the House might be concurred in, moved d.icctly for a Onnnittee of conference, so as to pun ‘DAifuooxg ‘oArpusiSsri oq) o? t|uauipuauit 11 pixnipojpn ‘firm sjuroquvg jo i: pun ‘X.ms'BOjj, oq; jo pitqaissy p.uiu ‘qjuoft orp iuojj .io)budq uaqi ■joaavbh : abav siq| uj anop wb.w qof oqx "ijooq .qu’pqs oq; pa.inntjsip oai:i[ .laAau ppio.w A'uirj -m pup ‘Ap.iqdiuoa 'po.up sjqarj.nqj joj pi([ •aaiA.iot sqpioui oojtp ioj Ooo‘Sils Xniwßn.q oi|) ,<t six men legislate coercively for 300, with uimself as Chairman of the House side. O' course the job was put back on the bill, and it passed the Senate where it had originated. But fie House stood firm, and again, by a majorit f one, refused its assent on a call of the yeas and nays. Twice defeated, the bill was recommitted to the same conference, and when rci orted the job had a long tail of verbiage, atached to deceive some and to operate a. n excuse for others whose prejudices ha meanwhile been conquered. Mr. Garfiek then applied the previous question, an then drove the bill through by ten majority. Addition, division, and silence won the day. Gen. Garfield is mainly responsible for the passage of the salary grab and back-pay steal the history of which may be briefly recited Gen. Butler reported a bill from the judiciary Committee, Feb. 7, 1873, to double the pay of the President, and increase the salaries of the Vice President, Cabinet, Speaker, Justices of the Supreme Court and members of Congress. The scheme had been thoroughly canvassed, and waited a favorable chance to be launched. Three days later Gen. Butler moved to suspend the rules’ so as to attach this bill as a “ rider ” to the Miscellaneous Appropriation bill then pending. It was beaten by thirty-nine majority, which included some of the stronger friends of the proposed plunder, who voted that way for effect. The first fire was thus drawn, and Butler knew where to plant his batteries. The Legislative Appropriation bill came back to the House, February 24, loaded with one hundred amendments. The natural course was to have had them printed, so that members might examine the new items. But there was a game to play, and Garfield took the lead. By virtue of his Chairmanship, he moved that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole on the special order. Suspicion had been awakened and adjournments had been voted down previously. Dawes was put in the chair, and the door was opened for the grab. Garfield had assured members that the bill would not be called up that‘night, and the House was thin except on the stealing side, which was in the secret of Garfield’s treachery. A special vote was demanded on the Butler amendment, now moved as a.“rider” to the pending bill. It was defeated by fifty-two majority, Butler himself voting against it. But he immediately moved to reconsider and to adjourn. Nothing was now wanting to rivet the vote but to refuse to adjourn, and then to clinch it by refusing to reconsider. The issue was clear, but right in the face of the large majority just recorded the House adjourned by a still-larger majority, leaving the reconsideration alive and kicking. The next day Butler’s motion to reconsider was first in order, and when Farnsworth moved to lay it on the table and finish the business a majority of thirty-nine answered in the negative. The next vote fixed the Congressional pay, and the bill, with this graft, was sent to the Senate, and thence to a committee of conference. On the last day of the session Garfield reported the bill back, doubling the President’s salary from the 4th of March, instead of the end of the fiscal year, and raising the pay of Congress from $5,000 to $7,500, retroactively for two years, with a long catalogue of augmented salaries for public officers. He pretended that there was danger of an extra session unless the report was adopted and told the House, “ It may be an unwise expenditure in some respects, but in most cases the increase is proper and ought to be rnadp.” It was finally driven through by a majority of six.

Garfield’s connection with the Washington ring is also well known to the country. One of the most notorious of the corrupt contracts made by Boss Shepherd was that, awarded to De Goly’er A McClellan, of Chicago, for laying a wood pavement. ’J lie contract covered zoo,000 yards, at $3.50 a yard, which the superintendent of contractors swore could be put down at $1.50, every item of cost included. So there was a clean profit of $400,000 to be divided. To further this job, which was preliminary to others to follow, the sum of $97,000 was expended. It was given out in the spring of 1872. At that time Richard C. Parsons was Marshal of the Supreme Court, and had converted that office into a headquarters for the lobby. He was known to be an intimate friend of Garfield, and the ring wanted Garfield's aid as Chairman of the Appropriations. The agent of the contractors employed Parsons, with a fee of $15,000, as “counsel,” although there was no cause to argue, no contest of any kind, and no tribunal to appear before. It was a sham to throw dust in the eyes of the public. Parsons paid Garfield $5,000 as his share, July 12, 1872, for which ho was forced to admit bafore the last investigation that he made no argument, oral or written, had never appeared before the Board of Public Works, and had only once spoken to Boss Shepherd on the subject. That “fee” was a bribe out and out, and nothing else, as was subsequently shown. Garfield became the agent of the ring, and through his influence and activity $3,500,000 were voted to and his confederates in less than sixty days, between the Bth of January and the 3d of March, 1873. It would be easy to continue this discreditable record, and to show that in almost every instance of venal legislation Garfield’s name is to be found on the side of jobbery, stealing and fraud. These facts cannot be disputed, and they will stand to his dishonesty, whether he remains in public life or goes into enforced exile.