The Chicago Nominee

The' RèpÜblicffiBS rif tliis city are feelling-unusually liappy over a notnination ■ . t int. is not qiiiïesobadasfcfewyexpected. Th most' of them prayeñ "fbat Grant rmight not be torced apon fhem; a large íttare loped to beaMeto-eacape beingr OAlled upon to vote fortín trickster.iTirf raihwd corruptioriist of Maine; while inear'.y all fondly hopeé to be treated ■o another dark horse srm''ar to the campaign of 1876 abont whom little could be said because of bis obscurity or brief career before the public. After a weefc's Iabrtti3 elïort the monntain laiwred and hrought forth Garfield of Ohio, present memlier of ■congress from the Cleveland district snd recent -snator-1ect to succeed Th ;rman March 4, 18S1 . Grant's f riends remained firta to öïb last. Blaine's supporters led by "Wisconsin's dele,, gatês on the thirty-sixth ballot brrj-e ;r.vay and by unitinc: wilh Sherir an's, Washbume's and Edmunds' s'jpp0It. ers the ex-minister, majo.gQ rredit mobüier operator, lñbed congressman, De Golyer attogy saI_ ary gtabbet was noinir.rtted by a vote of 899 lo 30-5 for Grant 42 for Blaine, 5Lor Washburne n'J(j 3 for Sherman. The candiddt whom the republicana at first I elioved to be so acceptable, cleanly ar.j above suspicion, will, after the f uil, blaze of serutiny is turned upt n ',iS record, be found not so strong as Oipected'. His conneetïon with the r.redit Mobilier a ring organizedto control tiie Union Pacifi&railroad.in which a Boston party headed by Oakes Ames got possession of that road is a matter of public record. TJnder exposure in tíie campaign of 1872, an inveftigation was ordered by the house soon after the meeting of congress; the examination of witnesses began on Dec.12, 1871. At first Oakes Ames was disinclined to make any exposé; but when the incrimiaated raembers combined to swear him down and to free themselves by rankpérjnry his blood waimed quick1 -id he determined to Iet the trutli be known, thougb. in the end there was runo1' con :ied. Garfie1.:'. submitted to the committee pared statement on Jan. 14, 1873: T never ov ned, received, or aqreed to rèceive a-ny stock of the Crédit Mojdlier of the Union Pacific railroad, nor any divHends or profits arising f rom eitker of them. Ames vras recalïed Jan. 23, 1872, and testifled to the stock he had issued to GarfleM, the dividends allowed him, and the balance of moncy paid into his hand, which Garfield pretended was ;i "loan." I-Iesubmittted a memorandum of the account in detail. It came to the knowledge of the commiUee that Garfieid had visited Ames with the object of inducing him to retraet or modify his testimony, and he was re-examined on the 29th of Jan., as followa: Q. You may state whether, in converaation witn you, Air. Garüfeld claims, as he claimed before us, th-.it Ve only transaction between you was borrowing SñOO? A. Xo sir;"he did not claim that witn me. Q. State all yon know in reference to it. A. I told him he knew very well tbát that was a dividend. I made out n .Vc.itement snd showed it to him at öie time. In oar convereation he adted it. and said there war, 2,4OO .lue him in stocks and bonds. He mr.de a Kt; Ie memorandum of $1,008 Rnd $1,400, saia tüere was i.wu ot umon f acííic railroad stock, $1,000 of Credit MoLilier stock, and S-1Ü0 of stock or bonds. Q. When' vru that memorandum made? A. It was made in my room. I cannot remember the date. It was sinrc Uiis investigation commoïiced. Q. Have ynti the memorandum M ■ Garfleld made? A. I have the figur s that lip made. JPaper shown in G.i field's handwiitmg.] Q. You say these figures were made by Mr. Garfleldï A. Yes, sir. "q. That was his idea of wbat was coming to bim? A. Yes, sir. Garfieïd sought to tamper with and suborn Ames, and the attempt ended in his claiming a larger share in Credit Mobüier than had been allowed him, after having sworn a fortnight previousIy that he "never owned, received or agreed to receive any stock of the Credit Mobillet nor any dividend or proüi: arising" therefrom. The climax was capped when Ames produeed hi3 diar;with the original entry SL:iiist Garfiuid, dated ïuesday, 6ept 29, 1868, setting forth bis accouat for ten shares of Eredit Mobilier. These tenible reve!ations were allowed to pass unooticed. Garfieïd did not dare to go before the committee and confront Ames, becanse lie knew there were still other prooi's in reserve. He waiteJ until Ames was in his grave, ar:d then, witfi Schuyler CoKax andotliers who hari benn bribpdvhe attempted to whitewasli his infamy.. Gen. Garfield is mainly responsfble for the passage of the salary grab and back-pay steal. As of the Gommittee on appropriations, Garfield jeported on the last day of the session of 1873, a bilí doubüng the president' salary from the 4th of Murch, fnsteadof the end of the 8stÏ year, and raising the pay of congress from $5,006 to $7,500, retroaatively for two year-3, witfo a long cataiöjfue of augmented salaries í ■: pul 'lic officers. He pretended that there vas danger of as extra seé on unless the report was adopted and told the e, "It maybe an unwise i ture in sema respect, but in mosteases the iccrease is preper and ought to bo made." It vas finally driven thraugh by a majority oí six. tion with the "Washtort ring is ateo weU known to the ■ ry. Oac of the mo3t notorious of the corrupt contracta made by B S8 81 p to Ie Golyer & MeClelli . eago, for la ■a wood pavement Thia contract cover, ..- ...? thonsand yards a1 a -yard, which the su;eñnt adentol ' I lQwnat$l,50 ■ . o d ,i'ed. So w : aeiean . ■ ... di iv, - e'l. To m ifijob-, whic! was lary Lo othera to föllow, tbs s-.im of $07-,000 was expended. It givan öut In the spring of 1572.. At tht timo Bichará C. Parsona;was marshal of tb Bupj .'me. eourt.and b?d eouverted, that office into larters for the ■ He was [ lown tO'be an intímate ítiend the rin waute I - ■ appear beiore. L waa a shaui 10 throw dust in the eyes of the public. Parsons paid Garüeld $5,000 as nis share, July 12, 1872, for which he was forcert to admit before the lost investigatlon that he made no argument, orarerwritten, had never appeared hef ore the Doard of public works, and had onlyonce spoken to Bos3 Shepherd on the subject. ïh t "fee" was a bribe out and out, ?1 nothing else, as was subsequentïy shotvn. Garfleld became the agent f tlie ring, and through his iufluence and aetivity three millions and a half of dollars were votel to Boss Shepherd and his confedérate in less than sixty fJays, between the 8th of Jasuaiy and the 3d of Match, 1878. The nominatin of CÜcster A. Arthur for vice president is a mistake Which the party wijl regret. He is a thorough machine n,an and as dfilögate-at-large from Newy York voted every time for Grant. His record as collector of the port ojt Ne-w York was so bad that Prefjdent ïtayes was compdled to dism'.ss hin,. Never anything more than a. wartl politicia he is unñt for the and would never have been rai'ntioisd in connection with the oilice had not Garüeld's firiends thoijght it advisable to plácate Mr. (Jonkliiig by throwiug this sop to him. As time progressesGarfield and Arthur will be found 10 be a weak couabinatton, easily beaten by good noniinations made at Cincinnati. _____________