Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 July 1880 — Garfield’s Defence. [ARTICLE]

Garfield’s Defence.

All the artifices of the cunning De* Golyers to screen their candidate have come to grief. Not one is left to hang a hope upon. First they bro’t out Judge Black’s letter, written February 15th, 18X3, and boastfully exclaimed “that settles it}” Another portion of Garfield’s testimony WO have not quoted, is as follows: Mr. Ames never gave nor offered to give me any stock or valuable thing »,s a gift. I once asked and obtained from him, and afterward repaid him, a loan es S3OO. That amount is the only valuable thing [ ever received from or delivered to him.— See Poland Report, page 129. Now, Ame 3 said he did “offer,” and practically give this stock to Garfield* If it stood only on the oaths of Ames and Garfield, both republican members of Congress at the time, one oath might be set off against the other. But it don’t rest in that way at all. Ames produced the written memorandum of Garfield Ito fortify his testimony, and so put ft, as against Garfield’s, beyond the pale of controversy. And there is the added force of Garfield’s frailty, that be refused to respond to the solicitation of the committee to come before it and make any explanation of this conflict of testimony between him and Ames. Why did he refuse? There was the check for $329, and Garfield’s written memorandum, both substantiating Ames and discrediting Garfield out of his own mouth. Never went a clearer case to a jury. But it was the Black letter we started upon. This letter says Garfield did take the stock, flying right in the face of his testimony, that he had

never— do, never owned, &c. As the New York Herald puts it; “ Garfield swore that he had never touched the gun; Judge Black pleaded that when be handled it he did not know that it was loaded. The plain contradiction between the oath of the defendant and the argument of his counsel maxes the republication of Judge Black’s letter a perfect boomerang.” And now eorne Pofand, and Banks, and say they have unlimited faith in their candidate, and plead the baby act also in behalf of Garfield. What their avouchments are worth the reader can readily decide for himself from their verdict made up in their report made to the House Feb. 18, 1873, already printed by us, no longer than last week. Judge Black’s letter accomplished its purpose—to soften the judgment of the committee, and to get Garfield off easy. As to the loan, Ames said there was no loan übout it, but Garfield wanted him to swear it was but he had never lent Garfield any money in liis.life, Garfield swore ke borrowed S3OO, and re turned it. Arnes, a careful, calculating, yankue business man. with bis witsall abouthirn, and ready reckoner in duy-books, ledgers, und memorandum books, contradicts that, and Garfield don’t contradict him —that is, he refused to meet this cumulative testimony of his guilt when offered thu opportunity. So faces away the flimsy artifices to screen Garfield.

The Garfield Acceptance is a characteristically eccentric paper. Mr. Garfield accepts the Chicago Platform, and if he understands what its progenitor called ”the nearest next to uothing that was practicable,” he might claim credit for a certain proportion of perspicacity beyond its top knotted author. It is almost as unexpressivable a performance as would emanate from a badly besmirched candidate whose only outlet is meaningless platitudes. His heart seems to “bleed”as overflowingly for the negro as the Fraud, Hayes, whose heart pans out in a perfuncto ry way, and as perfidiously. A slap at State Bights, under the synonym of State supremacy, is a mild sop for the “stalwarts,” but will scarcely appease fheir demand for something in a candidate that is positive. “The right of the nation to determine the method by which its own legislation shall be created cannot be surrendered,” sounds roundly, and is intended to—catch gudgeons only. The “nation” makes no voter—it confers no right of suffrage. The States do that and it is the y who elect representatives to and thus make a “national legislature. This is clap-trap of the regulation radical order. “The prosperity which is made possible in the South by its great advantages of scil and climate will never be realized until every voter can freely and safely support any party he pleases that is to say, under the dictation and eye of Federal election supervisors and marshuls, and infantry and artillery. That is Garfield’s apprehension of this, and by that interpretation we understand precisely what Garfield means by “fully and freely supporting any party the voter pleases.” On the question of tfie tariff he is as muddy as his official reputation. He is for paper and coin as a medium of circulation. The Chinese problem he tackles with scrupulous caution, and fights all round the edges. He is for Civil Service Reform, just in thePecksnifflan style of his prototype, Hayes, and that is saying all that need be said about his views. The Ohio style of civil service is too odious,to command favor, and Ml Garfield’s public career offers no inducement to accept him as an oracle on the subject. He represents in himself a loathsome evidence of contempt for all the decencies and proprieties of public official life, and no greater travesty of Civil Service Reform stands on two legs to-day.

In a recent sketch by Gen. J. S. Brisbiu, (heretefore a well-known republican), of the brilliant and patriotic record of Gen. Hancock, published in the Philadelphia Times, appears this sentence: ’’The people of this country will not soon forget there was a day in its history when, if Gen. Hancock had not shown the highest capacity as a military commander, there might be no republic to govern.” We must except to the closing words: “There might be no republic to govern.” There never has been a day since this country emerged from colonial vassalage into the full stature of an indestructible Union of indestructible States,” when in our life time we were willing to admit such words as true, If anything were needed to prove them fallacious our recent experience is at hand to do so. The eight years reign of Grant, the flendishness of the reconstruction abnormities, and the theft of the chief executive office of the country, the thieves rewarded from the public treasury through the fattest plums in the official basket, were greater strains upon the integrity of the people to preserve their republic than the fearful contest of arms which preceded. The sublime patience of the Democracy and a large body of politically unaffiliated citizens under these outrages stand out to rebuke any such thought. There was more peril in these gross abuses of temporarily acquired power in a time of peace than in the giant struggle made to sever the Bnion of these $ Dates. The attempt to make secession a success was a blow at the permanence of one government for prescribed put poses over all the States. Had it suooeeded, which was impossible, we should have bad two rival republics instead of one in the area oqyered by the United States and its territories. The other and more dangerous foes aimed at the destruction of all that gave vitality to a republican form of

government. The Union was menaced by Secession —the Republie by the Radical leaders and their enactments. Such language as we have quoted from a well meant eulogy of General Hancock cannot have been delibererately considered by its enthusiastic author, though It serves for a text to further accentuate the reasons preponderating in favor of his being elected President. No language that impairs the integrity of the patriotism of the mass of the American people should go unchallenged. To assume that a defeat in the battle of Geyttysbuig would have rendered the salvation of the Union doubtful, and of all tbiugs the uerpetuity of the republic, is not called for nor justified iu any form of eulogy. That of Gettysburg was the erucial battle of that distressing era in our history. Our triumph there made what came after it in furtherance of the end sought easier of accomplishment. General Harcock’s military genius valor and eian was the inspiration that made it a victory, and he was thus the commanding hero of the great event No man would more readily resent the exaggeration which would rob his comrades, however humble in station, of their share in this achievement than Gen. Hancock, and his always total abnegation of self is a conspic uouscharacteristic of the mas. Mark his modesty when the day was won und he fell wounded: “Tell General Meade," he directed his Aide, Col. Mitchell, “that the troops under my command have repulsed the enemy and gained a great victory.”

The editori»l corps of the Repub. llean this week was filled to overflowing, and so are its columns with —misrepresentations Gen. Thompson, Bro. James, Messrs. Chilcote. Spitler, “Iro-quois”, et. al,. dished up fulsome praise and expressions of joy over the efforts of a rew engaged in their service, and hope to save themselves from defeat thi ough tho exertions of these few. However, the Nationals claim these parties can do less harm in ihe position they have assumed than they might as professed greenbaokers. As open allies of the radical ring they cannot influence true Nationals.