Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 August 1883 — STANLEY MATTHEWS. [ARTICLE]

STANLEY MATTHEWS.

Some History Worth FroiWog, aaA Stem mente Worth Hofirilwg. [From the New York Sun. J Responsible Republican newspapers and Republican leaders have repeatedly charged that Gen. Garfield appointed Stanley Matthews to a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court in fulfilment of an agreement by which Mr. Jay Gould contributed a large sum of money to aid in electing Garfield as President in 1880. This charge the Sun believes to be true, from the different forms of testimony supporting it and from certain internal evidence which carries with it moral conviction. The latest contribution on this matter was derived from Mr. Dorsey, reported in the Sun of the 16th inst., as follows: “When this was repeated to Garfield he said that Mr. Gould ought to know that he entertained the same view that Mr. Gould did respecting the interests of these corporations, and he wanted Mr. Gould to be assured that if elected President, and if it should fall to his lot to nominate a member of the Supreme Bench he would take care to appoint a man whose views in that regard were the same as his own. “This was taken to Mr. Gould. He announced himself as entirely satisfied with it, but he made the gentle sugges tion that -it be put in the form of a pledge and in writing. This Was done, and it is alleged that the pledge can be produced, as it is understood to have been committed to the keeping of a gentleman who holds it subject to the order of both parties. “Then Mr. Gould warmed uprte the Republican party. Himself and another subscribed. $450,000, as is expected to be shown before the investigating committee. * * * Garfield subsequently nominated theft «aa to whom this agreement had ~ reference, Stanley. Matthews* tec 4he --Supreme Bencgy apd Gould by one majority.” This isaaftparecise a»dt<p«aiive statement, made by one who was closer in WSfiter of the Commercial, who may be said to have been the pivot upon which tfaw management 'Of'tbe PresidentiaHainpaign traced: J HA* is it met? The Commercial.. Gazette says; “The statement to the effect that there Was an agreement between Gould and Garfield that the latter should appoint Judge Matthews to the Supreme Court is necessarily false, for the reason that it was not known, and there was no reason te suppose; until, the 4th of March, 1881, that Garfield would be called upon to fill the vacancy occasioned by Swayne’s resignation/’ Technically, tms is true, but it does not reveal the whole truth. The statement is really an evasion of the truth. The intention of Judge Swayne to resign his seat on the bench was well known after Garfield’s nomination. In point of fact, that purpose had been declared to his friends at the preceding term of the court. No time had been named for the resignation, because Judge Swayne had kept the final act undecided in his own mind, for personal reasons. Judge Clifford was at that time in infirm health, far advanced in years, and with a very precarieus hold on life. He died in October, 1881. Here, then, were two vacancies on the Bench reasonably certain to occur within a short time, and both of which were likely to happen at the beginning of Garfield’s term. Mr. Gould was largely interested in knowing these probabilities, and he probably had more exact information on the subject than any other person. Garfield understood the situation perfectly when he assured Gould that “if it should fall to his lot to nominate a member of the Supreme Court he would take care to appoint a man whose views in that regard were the same as his own.” And when the agreement was put in writing Mr. Gould had a lien on the prospective President from which there was no escape if the contingency named in the instrument should come to pass. They both expected it would come to pass, as in the order of events it did. Judge Swayne resigned his seat in the winter of 1880-81, and the fraudulent President nominated Stanley Matthews for the vacancy. Matthews had been one of the visiting statesmen at New Orleans, he was the confidential counsel of Hayes before the Electoral Commission, and he, with John Sherman and Charles Foster, negotiated the bargain at the Wormley conference, by which opposition to the count was ar- j rested in the House of Representatives. ■ Matthews in the Senate was the most conspicuous opponent of the Thurman act. He appeared virtually as the attorney of the Pacific corporations on the flpor. He was seen in conferenw with Gould, Huntington, and their sat 1 ellites, whe had assembled at Washing ton with a most formidable lobby, and with the appliances to conquer prejudice, in the hope and in the full expectation of defeating the bill. But, with a promised majority, the corporations weye finally beaten.. U(lbl0 •. Although it is usual to confirm the nomination of a Senator or a former 1 Senator without opposition, except for special cause, the appointment of Matthews was resisted strongly from the outset and until the end of the see- ' sion, when it died with the Congress. Now Garfield’s turn came. The written agreement was there to confront him. He had of his own accord, at Mentor, told a distinguished Stalwart that he did not intend to appoint Matthews. Nevertheless, one of his ( first acts was to nominate Matthews for ' the vacancy. The opposition to his confirmation was revived, and was vigorously conducted. Finally he got through by one vote, procured by barefaced deception on two false pairs. John S. Barbour, said to be the finest organizer in Virginia, has been placed at the head of the Democratic State Central Committee, with the intention of making a systematic and vigorous campaign.