HE friends of Mr. have at last seen the
folly of attempting to persuade Republicans by
praising the Republican party and denouncing the
Democratic party to support a Presidential candidate
whom they hold to be unworthy. Such Republicans
have praised one party and denounced the other quite
as warmly as their fellow Republicans who propose to
vote for Mr. . But the higher the standard of
official conduct and of party principle and character
is raised, the more difficult it is to show them that for
the sake of the party they ought to do something
which in their judgment is entirely unworthy of the
party. All the speeches, therefore, for the
first three months of the campaign were totally futile
to win or to drive back protesting Republicans, and
at last the advocates begin to treat the real
question, the official conduct of Mr. when
Speaker. But they speak only to show how wise was
their silence, for their reluctant and unwilling explanations
do not explain. It may be safely assumed
that Senator letter is the best defense that can
be made for Mr. railway transactions. The
Senator undertakes to traverse the speech of Mr. at Brooklyn. But in a cogent reply Mr. has conclusively disposed of the Senator's defense. He shows from Mr. own letters and from undisputed facts the inaccuracy of Senator statements, and he points out the extraordinary character of the Senator's ethics.
Thus Mr. repeated and persistent reminder
to and that
his ruling had virtually
saved the road — a reminder which was renewed and
reiterated for the purpose of aiding him in obtaining
a pecuniary interest in the speculation — Mr. treats as a perfectly natural and casual allusion to an interesting coincidence. Casual allusions to interesting coincidences are never suspicious, and require no demonstration. But persistent references to past official action as inducement for pecuniary favors are not casual allusions. They are intimations of a kind which Senator would no more give with the purpose of private gain that he would do any other discreditable act. As Mr. truly says:
“When the Speaker says to a railroad man, ‘I rendered you
and your road in a perfectly proper way a great favor, and I am
glad I did it,’ that is one thing. But when the Speaker says to
the railroad man, ‘I did you such and such a service by the exercise
of my power, and now I want you to give me a valuable interest
in your enterprise; I know I am not going to be a dead-head
in it, and I see various channels in which I can be useful’ — is not
that quite another thing? But that is just what Mr. did.”
Senator also says that “Mr. is not charged with any corrupt, improper, or wrong act whatever.” This is a curious misapprehension, or a very singular use of words. How does Mr. in his speech put the case?
“Here we find the Speaker of the House of Representatives
in a business-like way participating and urgently asking for a
greater share in larger enterprises, the pecuniary success of which
is in a great measure dependent on the action of the same House
over which he presides, and in which he wields great power —
for the purpose of getting rich. We find him pointing out the
exercise of his official power as a channel in which he already has
made himself useful, and consequently can make himself more
useful, in order to obtain more of a valuable interest in such an
enterprise, thus literally trading upon his official trust and
opportunities. To cover up these things we find him resorting to all sorts
of barefaced untruths, deceptions, and concealments on the most
solemn occasions. The concealments resorted to, and the side
perspectives opened by the official investigation, are fully sufficient
to justify the inference that the case disclosed is only one of
many. We find that he did get rich while in office, without any
other regular business. His most devoted friend publicly admits
his fortune to be about half a million, while the estimates of others
go far beyond that. But the lowest estimate, half a million, is
wealth not only to any one starting with nothing, but to all of our
countrymen except a few. This is the character of the case.”