Rensselaer Union, Volume 5, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 April 1873 — Mr. Colfax and His Neighbors. [ARTICLE]

Mr. Colfax and His Neighbors.

Tins reception of Mr. Colfax by his old friends, neighbors and political supporters shows the advantage of an honorable reputation. Poe, twenty years he has stood before his countrymen with an unblemished fame as a citizen, a politician, • a parent, relative and friend. Ills regu lar and unspotted life, his temperance and moderation, his freedom from all those errors that so often taint the politician’s career, his labors In the cause of virtue and good morals, will now be remembered and beeome the more conspicuous in the midst of the abuse of the envious and the clamorous virulence of the corrupt. Nothing, indeed, so excites the envy of the vicious as the possession of an unblemished fame; and the rash haste with which several of the opposition journals have ventured to impute to Mr. Qoifax their Own chief failings, will serve only to expose them more plainly to the people. Falsehood, avarice, indifference to moral laws, he has never exhibited. His whole political coarse has been marked by truthfulness and consistency, by singular moderation in his conduct toward his opponents, by a firm adherence to Republican principles; and as he labored for the preservation of his country in those sad hours when they who now assail him were plotting its destruction, so he haajshared In all the triumphs of freedom, and has been one of thqse whom his countrymen delight to honor. It was charged against Alexander Hamilton that he had created the national

debt that he and his friends might grow rich from the plunder of the public. He replied by exposing his own poverty. The charge against Mr. Colfax is that he accepted shares in a fraudulent company, received considerable dividends, and'denied that he ever accepted them. The charge of having purchased some of the stock at the solicitation of Ames, who was then believed to be a man of integrity as well as wealth, Mr. Colfax admits, but states that he soon returned it/ having discovered the character of the company, with the loss of what he had already paid. Since that time he has never owned any of the stock, nor received anything from it. But Ames, who at first stated that Mr. Colfax had never received a dividend, and confirmed his statement, now at a second < \ “rirrir.rged him with gross deception, and alleged that he paid him a check for $1,200 in 1808. He produced a check drawn to the order of 8. C. for that amount, and, we believe, a memorandum from his note book, Mr. Colfax denied at once that he had ever seen the check before. His opponents examined his bank account, and finding there a deposit of $1,200 in June, 1868, brought the fact forward as a proof of his having received and made use of the $1,200 check. - And Mr. Colfax then proves by credible-witnesses that he had received about that time $1,200 from different sources, which he had deposited and used. The cashier upon whom Ames’s check was drawn adds an impression that Ames drew the money for it himself. Thus the .accusation against Mr. Colfax’s integrity and truthfulness rests solely upon the testlmony of Anres,- Avho has made two different statements about the transaction directly opposed to each other, and Who could be accepted as a trustworthy witness neither in the judg ment of history nor of law. No one would trust the memory or the fidelity of a man who upon oath gives two versions of the same occurrence directly at variance. No reliance, therefore, can be placed upon the account of Ames, and, except his own testimony, there is not a tracc of evidence to confirm his story—no receipt, no certificate, no indorsement, “The testimony against a public official," said Jefferson, “should be affirmative”; but neither affirmative nor negative proof exists against Mr. Colfax. liis only opposing witness contradicts himself, and proves his own falseness. Whether a person in office is permitted to bny or even hold stock in which the Government may be interested is a question easily answered. No official should make any use of the opportunities of his position at the expense of the public. Hamilton, in the case we have noticed, would not allow any of his relatives, or even his friends, tq buy government stock. He held SBOO worth, which he had long owned, unsold until he left office. The stock which Mr. Colfax had bought he at once abandoned when he found that it might expose him to dishonorable influences or bring him into conflict with the Government. lie saw he had been led Into error, aud at once gave up the slock, at a considerable loss to himself. His fault was venial; he strove at once to repair it. To. the charge of haying made money at the public loss he replies byjjxhibiting, like Hamilton, the moderation dOti a own fortune, and the honorable sources from whence it came. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the” people of Indiana should welcome their eminent statesman with new zeal while ids enemies strive to cover his fame with calumny, and destroy the well earned reputation of a laborious life. Nothing would gratify his assailants more than to reduce Mr. Colfax to a level with themselves. Had he betrayed the principles of freedom, entered into treasonable combinations, striven to undo the honorable progress of the past, qptd throw the nation back into anarchy and despair, no whisper of disapprobation would have escaped from the men who now assail him; ho might have been their favorite leader. His chief crime is that he was true to tlit! Interests of freedom in the recent campaign. The highest proof of his rectitude and. honesty for posterity will probably be the characters of his chief assailants; from his more honorable opponents he is receiving a thorough vindication. And it is certain that no reputation will pass to future years more spotless or enviable thi«n than that of Schuyler Colfax. — Harper's Weekly.