E 675 R43 1872 MAIN B 3 536 005 The present campaign, as conducted by the Greeley Democracy, has been campaign of slander and falsehood. From the inception of the move ment to the present time the whole stock in trade of the Liberal party has been slander and personal abuse Men who once bore the reputation 01 statesmen have abandoned questions of State policy, have laid aside the legiti mate weapons of argument. Reaction has set in. Disgust follows in all honest minds at a campaign con ducted in such a manner. Men who assail other s motives are liable to have their own severely criticised and exam ined. How far some of these Reform leaders can bear such process can be seen in the following pages. They have made charges without number, but have failed to prove a single one. They have raved and stamped and insisted, but the proof has not been given. They stand convicted before the world of having as serted the existence of facts which thev have failed to prove. We propose to pre sent a few facts in regard to these re formers. We shall accompany our as sertions by the proof and leave the Amer ican people to judge of its sufficiency. We leave the field dr. personalities to our opponents and only deal with transac tions growing out of, or directly con- nectecl with, their official record. LYMAX TUuMBULL. A model reformer A questionable act Receives a $10,000 fee as attorney for the Government. Lyman Trumbull, United States Sen ator from Illinois, is one of the leading reformers. He is actively engaged in the canvass far Mr. Greeley, and in the event of his election would no doubt be called to fill a Cabinet position. That the country may understand the kind of reformation which he would inaugurate, we present the leading features of a transaction which is not based on rumor, but proven by the official records, The* following letter from the Attorney Gen eral will explain the nature of the case in which Mr. Trumbull appeared as at torney for the Government: ATTORNEY GENERAL S OFFICE, Washington, Dec. 81, 1867. SIR: I beg leave to call your attention to case No. 380 on the calendar of the Supreme Court of the Unit d States for this term, en titled ex parte McCardle. It appears that McCardle was arrested by the military authorities in Mississippi for pub lishing certain articles in a newspaper of which he was the editor, alleged to be in vio lation of the reconstruction acts. Being in military custody, a military commission was ordered to try him. He made application to. the district court of Mississippi for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was granted, a re turn made by the officer having him in custo dy, and a hearing had. and the decision of the district judge was that he should be re manded into the custody of the military au thorities. From this decision McCardle has taken an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr Black, who appears as counsel for McCardle, yesterday made a mo tion before the Supreme Court to have the case advanced upon the docket in order to a speedy hearing. No action has yet been taken by the court upon the motion." I do not propose to appear in the case. s tho matter appertains to your Department, I will suggest, to you the propriety of en) ploy ing counsel to represent the parties having McCardle in cu-tody, so that the ca>e may receive proper attention before the Supreme Court. i have Hie honor to be, very respectfully, HENRY STANBERY, Attorney (General. To the SECRETARY OF WAR ad interim. On the 8th of January, 1868, General Grant, acting as Secretary of War, ad dressed a note to Senator Trumbull, ask ing him to appear in the case as counsel for the War Department. Mr. Trum bull accepted the brief on the llth, and on the 22d of the same month addressed a note to Matthew H. Carpenter, re taining his legal services in the same case. On the 28d of March, 1868 Mr. Stanton addresses a note relative to the case to Mr. Trumbull, infoiming him of the court s assigning a day to hear the Georgia case. We have thus given all the accessible facts connected with the case down to the day of the trial. From the corre spondence published we may infer 1st. That the Secretary of War ad in terim, being a soldier and not a lawyer, wished to secure the advice of Mr. Trumbull as a professional man, so that the case should not be neglected. 2d. That Mr. Trurabull not having the time to devote to the case was au thorized to call ift Mr. Carpenter and Judge Hughes. 3d. That Mr. Carpenter and Judge Elughes were the only attorneys in the case who were legally entitled to receive fees from the Government. 4th. That Mr. Stanton gave his advice ind supervision in the case without ex- >ectation of reward, and Mr. Trumbull lad no more legal right to a fee than Mr. Stanton himself. The proceedings before the Supreme 3ourt were simple, and occupied but lit- le time. Mr. Carpenter made the argu- nent, and throughout appears to have icted as the counsel-in-chief. Anticipa- ,ing an unfavorable decision, Mr. Trnm- bull hastened to frame an amendment o a bill then pending in the House. The bill was passed, vetoed by Mr. John son, and again passed over his objection. This bill confined jurisdiction in all such cases as MeCardles to the United States circuit and district courts. If it had passed when first urged by the friends of the reconstruction acts it would have rendered the professional services of Mr. Trumbull unnecessary, and disturbed his title to the $10,000 fee. But the measure he had opposed before the argu ment, he favored after it, and its final pas sage saved the Government from humili ation, and accomplished what the Su preme Co art would have probably denied. In reviewing the case we are forced to the following conclusions: 1st. The Secretary of War had the rigl.it to call upon Mr. Trumbull or any other Senator for professional advice. 2d. Mr. Trumbull had the right to give such advice, or decline giving it, but had no legal or moral right to collect a fee for his services. 3d. The fee was not only illegal, but was an exorbitant one, unwarranted on the grounds of labor performed or the importance of the case. We claim that the acceptance of this fee by Mr. Trumbull was contrary to law. We base our claim on the statute of April 21, 1808, forbidding members of Congress entering into contracts with the Government, and the opinion given thereon by William Wirt, formerly At torney General of the United States, and one of the ablest lawyers of his time. This opinion covers a case simi lar to that of Mr. Trumbull s, and is so clear and explicit that we give it in full: ATTORNEY GENEKAL S OFFICE, July 18, 1826. SIR: The question which you submit for my opinion is whether your employment of mem bers of Congress as assistant counsel to the district attorneys of the United States be within the prohibitions of the act of April 21, 1808, "concerning public contracts?" I am entirely satisfied that this sort of en gagements was not within the view of Con gress when the act was passed, but that the species of contracts which led to its passage were of a different character, as stated in the report of a select com mittee of the 29th March, 1822, upon the subject of the employment of a Senator of the UnitedTftates in the exami nation of certain land offices in Ohio, &c. The practice, too, in several instances stated in that report seems to have limited the con struction of the act to the specific species of contracts which were known to have led to its enactment. But yet, the language of the law is so broad and so explicit, nut only in its positive enactments, but in its exceptions; and its policy, too, is so broad and general, that 1 cannot discover any satisfactory dis tinction by which the contracts in question can be withdrawn from irs operation. The first section forbids all contracts be tween officers of the Government and mem bers of Congress. It is true that the language of this section seenn, for the most part, to be applicable only to the kind of contracts which produced the law; and had the question rested on this section only, there would have been good ground for confining the operation of the act to those kinds of contracts to which if owes its origin. But the second reflects p larger construction on the first, by excepting from its action a species of contract as far re moved from the natural sense of the first sec tion as the kind of engagements now in ques tion, to wit, the purchase of billsof exchange from members of Congress. The exception proves that Congress intended, by the, first section, to use language broad enough to cover the excepted cases; and that hence it was necessary to introduce the positive ex ception. Now, if, as is thus implied by the Legislature itself, the first section is bioad enough to comprehend the sale of bills of ex change, I see not why it is not broad enough to comprehend the sale of professional ser vices or any other species of work and labor, in any other alt, mystery, or science, as well as that of the law. And again, if the prohibi tions do not extend to engagements for pro fessional services with gentlemen of the law, do they extend to engagements with gentle men of the medical faculty? If not, a mem ber of Congress might be stationed as a sur geon at a military post, on an annual stipend, without any violation of the law. But let us pursue the inquiry one step fur ther. The second section of the act having expressly excepted from the operation of the law two" cases only, to wit, contracts with corporations, and the purchase of bills of ex change, the fourth section uses the following pointed and comprehensive terms : "That if any officer of the United States, in behalf of the United .States, shall, directly or indirect ly, make or enter into any contract, bargain, or agreement, in writing or otherwise, gther than such as are herein excepted, with any member of Congress, such officers so offend ing," &c. Now, I think it cannot be denied that an engagement with a gentleman of the bar, whereby, for a valuable consideration, he is to render his professional services in a given case, is a contract, a bargain, an agree ment, in the legal sense of these terms, (and in aone other are they to be regarded;) and it is a bargain, contract, or agreement, other than the two which had been previously ex cepted by the act. It is therefore a contract forbidden expressly by the fourth section of the act. Should it be objected that this is sticking in the letter of the law to the disregard of its policy, I cannot accede to the objection. The policy of the law is to prevent the exer cise of the executive influence over the mem bers of Congress by the means of contracts ; and whether the contract be for the service of a lawyer, a physician, or a mail-carrier, an army purveyor or a turnpike-road maker, it seems to me* to be equally within th > policy and mischief of the law. The only difference is in the permanency of the engagement, but a succession of single engagements is quite as mischievous as a contract in solido, and if the distinction is to be allowed, the law might. easily be evaded. Finally, even if the construction of the law were dubious, yet, as executive officers, it would become us to remember that it is a remedial law, enacted as a bar to executive influence; that, in the construction of all such lavvs, the rule is to give them a large con struction for the advancement of the remedy and the suppression of the mischief; and that it is much safer to err on the side of forbear ance than on that of possible endrdachnaeat. WM. WIKT. The POSTMASTER GENERAL. 3 If arwf additional evidence is required to prove the illegality of Mr. Trumbull s transaction, we refer our readers to the act of August 23, 1842. We call atten tion -to the plain language of that law: "No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salani, pay, or emoluments is or are fixed by law or regulation, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever > for the disburse ment of public money or for any other service or duty whatsoever^ unless the same ail all be authorized by law and the ap propriation therefor explicitly set forth that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation." 5 Suit. U. S.i 510, 2 section. It is sufficient to add that Mr. Trum bull s services for pay were not only not authorized by law, but expressly forbidden. lie had the right to volunteer his ser vices, but no right to claim "extra com pensation" for the same. The records of the War Department show that he received for his slight services $10,000, and this during a session of Congress while receiving pay as Senator of the United States. We leave these facts in the hands of the people. No one can doubt the im propriety of the transaction on Mr. Trumbull s part, and few of his most ar dent friends can defend its legality. As a prominent reformer it must seriously impair his usefulness and tend to shake the confidence of the public in the move ment he is leading. A transgressor of the law himself, his testimony against others, can have but little weight. The nation has already passed judgment upon him, and when his present term shall close in the Senate the voice of his native State will be heard: "Lyman Trumbull, you have been weighed in the balance arid found wanting " CAUL SCIIURZ. Speculation in land Sad faith on his part Making money at the expense of others Minister to Spain Receives $12,- 3i/7.68 /or his services Athis post of duty Jive months and six days Still owes the Government $1,012.82^1 model re former. The Illinois Staats Zeitung, a leading German paper in Chicago, gives the his tory of a land speculation entered into in 1855 by Carl Sch-urz. The principal features of this dishonest transaction are as follows: In 1855 Schurz purchased eighty-three acres of land situated near Watertown, Wisconsin, for $10,000. He paid in cash $1,500 and mortgaged the property as se curity for the balance. He afterwards executed a second mortgage to secure the payment of $3,200 to one F. A. Hoff man, of Chicago, from. -whom he borrowed that amount. The first mortgage was held by John Jackson, of Brandon, Ver- divided the land, laid it out in lots, and called it "Schurz s addition to the city of Watertown." These lots were placed on the market, but no record was made of the division on the city record book, while the mortgages were recorded at the office of the recorder in Juneau, Dodge county, eighteen miles away. Sev eral lots of this plat were sold by Schurz. /Vmoiig the purchasers were George W. Perry who paid 8600, G. Hi Idermann $150, John Spiegelberg $150, John McDonald 8150, and Ferdinand Mailer 8150. He nlso sold the right of way to the Chicago and North western Railroad Company for $2,500. The money for these sales was paid to Schurz and receipted for by him. The lots sold wej*e in the deed, marked, numbered, and described on the plat of said "addition" assurveyed by one Henry Steeger, and " duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds in and for the county of Jefferson. " JSTo such record was in exist ence. It was further agreed on the part of Schurz "thatthe premises above described are free from all incumbrances whatever. " In the year 1867 the mortgage on this property, (covering the lots which had been sold with the express agreement that they were free from encumbrance) was foreclosed. The purchasers mentioned above, lost their land and with it the money they paid to Schurz. John Spiegel- berg not only lost his lot but the house he had erected thereon at a cost of 8600. These facts which bear on their face dishonesty and fraud, are corroborated by Colonel Wedelstaedt, editor of the Missouri Stuats Zeitung, also by the affi davits of those victimized by and familiar with the transaction. Emil Rothe, formerly justice of the peace in Watertown, Wisconsin, who had certified to the deeds of said lots and who is now acting as editor of the Volks- freund, a Gfreeley organ in Cincinnati, makes no attempt to deny the alleged facts, but excuses the action of Mr. Schurz on the ground that he became involved in the crisis of 1857 and was unable to carry out his agreement. Colonel Wedelstaedt, of St. Louis, who made a personal investigation into the facts while on a visit to Watertown, re plies to this defense that Carl Schurz is in no way excusable, as he had oi-nitteA to record the subdivision of the plat, sold said lots as being properly recorded when such was not the fact, received the money, and has ever since refused to re fund the amount to those who lost their property through his* failure to carry out the agreement into which he had entered. Facts like these tell their own story and are but samples of others that have been given attesting to the same facts: WATEUTOWN, August 29, 1872. STATE OF WISCONSIN, County tf Jefferson: On the twenty- ninth day of August, 1872, there appeared before me Amos Baum, a notary public of the State of Wisconsin, George W. Perry, of this city and State, and On the first day of November, in the year of 1856, I bought from Carl Schurz, then a resident of Watertown, Wisconsin, a certain parcel of ground known and designated as lots No. one, two, three, and four, in block No. 12 of Carl Schurz s addition to Water- town. I paid for these, designated pieces of ground the sum of six hundred dollars cash in hand, and received from said Carl Schurz a warranty deed. Knowing at the time tint there was an incuuiberance on these parcels of ground, 1 trusted and bought, in good faith, upon the promise given by said Carl Schurz, that he would remove and pay off said incumbrance. Carl Schurz stated, over his own signature in the deed, that the desig nated pieces of ground were legally survey- ed, laid out, and the plat duly recorded in the recorder s office of the county. To this state meat, the then justice of the peace, Emil Rothe, certified. Carl Schurz, however, did not keep his promise to lift said incumbrance, nor did he have the plat recorded, as the law prescribes, and the holder of the mortgages ou said property, Mr. John Jackson, fore closed said mortgages, and had the property sold through the sheriff, on the first day of April, 1867. Two years before this time I found that Carl Schurz had never paid mort gage, interest, nor taxes, and as I found that I would, by this manipulation, be thrown out of the title of the pieces of land [bought from Schurz, and had paid for, I went to work and was only able to regain legal possession and title again by paying $250 to the above named John Jackson under a compromise. GEO. W. PERRY. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of August, 1872. AMOS B\UM, Notary Public, Wisconsin. HUSTBRFORD, August 29. 1872. COUNTY OF DODGE. State of Wisconsin: John Spit-gelberg, a citizen of Husterford township, county of Dodge, and State of Wisconsin, personally known to me, appears before me John G-. Daily, a justice of the peace and notary public of the county of Dodge, State of Wisconsin, and depose h as follows: I, John Spiegel berg, citizen of the State of Wisconsin, bought in the year of 1857 from Carl Schurz a certain lot known and desig nated as lot No. 4, in block 13, of Carl Schurz s addition to Watertown. I paid for this lot th sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, in gold. Carl Schurz promising and pledging imself again and again that he would pay off the mortgage on his place of which he sold a parcel to me. This transaction was made in good faith on my part. I went to work, improved said lot, built a house upon it, which cost me nearly six hundred dollars, and believed the representations of Carl Schurz so much easier as he *vas a country, man of mine. I held possession of this, my property, until the year 1867, when the whole tract, of which the lot I bought was a parcel, was sold by the sheriff under a mortgage and debts, which Carl Schurz had incurred, and 1 was not only depossess^d of my lot, but also lost, my bouse and home for which I had paid, worked, and labored for years to pay back some money I borrowed when 1 built my house. This sudden calamity which befel me. through the meanness and knavery of Carl Schurz, has not only caused the above stated loss to me, but did also bring me upon the brink of ruin at the time, so much more keenly felt by me, as [ then had a large family of small children, who wtre thus deprived of a shelter and koine. I forgot to state that Carl Schurz did make out a warranty deed signed by him and his wife, and handed this deed to me at the time I paid the money over to him JOHN" SPIEGELBER^. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day ot August, 1872. JOHN/ U. DAILY, Notary Public. ,Carl Schurz is one of the most active and unscrupulous leaders of the sham reformers. He has arraigned the Presi dent for making unworthy appointments, but makes no mention of those that were recommended and approved by himself. To show the character of the man for whom he has exerted his influence for certain consideration, we have but to mention the name of Lusisky, of St. Louis. According to the Missouri Staats Zeitung, this gentleman was a candidate for reelection as city treasurer. He paid Mr. Schurz $1,000 for his influence and support, u and received the same. He was reflected, proved to be a defaulter to the amount of $150,000, and is now serving his term of imprisonment in the State penitentiary. Though it is morally cer tain that the money paid to Mr. Schurz belonged to the city treasury, he has shown no desire to return it. His career as Minister to Spain proves him to he in need of reformation him self. He arraigns the President for be ing absent from his post of duty, yet his own record shows that while Minister to Spain hedrevya year s salary for five months and six days actual service ren dered by him. The facts which prove this are of official record and cannot be denied. He commenced to draw pay as Minister from March 28,1861. He ar rived at his post July 12, 1861, and re turned home on a three months leave of absence, December 17, 1861. For his services as Minister, five months and six days, and his three months leave of ab sence, making in all eight months and six days, together with contingent ex penses, $978 40, he was allowed by the Government $11, 294 86, whereas lie drew $12,307 68. His accounts have been aud ited at the Treasury Department, and the amount overdrawn, $1,012 82, stands as a charge against him. Although this overpayment was known by him at the time, 1862, tie has not to the present date paid over this balance to the Govern ment. It is probable that a suit will be entered against him for the recovery of this amount. It may be .mentioned as illustrating a peculiar characteristic of Mr. Sohurz, that while he was at home doing noth ing he was careful to draw on Baring Bros. & Co. for his salary. Bv this means he secured payment in gold while our noble defenders in the field were forced to accept their pay in depreciated cur rency. Yet Mr. Schurz is a leading re former and makes honesty and fair deal ing texts for his public speeches. Is he competent to preach what he has failed to practice? JAMES E. DOOLITTLE. ] The Senator s speculation in cotton How he secured a quarter interest Wlir.it lie knoivs of his own fidelity A model re former and letter writer. James R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, is another reformer, laboring zealously for the election of Mr. Greeley. Like Trum- bull and Scliurz, he, too, strikes the hitrh notes on honesty and official i n tegrity. He won his first honors during the impeach ment trial of An drew Johnscta, failed soon after to secure a re-election to the United States Senate, and has since led a pre carious political existence among; the Democrats of hisown>tate. The Liberal movement opened a new door for his po litical ambition, and he was not slow to enter it. Like other distinguished re formers, he has made a wrtue of neces sity, and hopes through the Confederate party to regain what he lost with the Republicans, and obtain what he has failed to get from the Democrats. We shall present a single chapter from his life as a Senator, leaving the people to judge of his purity as a reformer and his honesty as an official. The letters which we print were taken from the original, in bis own handwriting. Mr. Doolittle has not denied their genuineness. He cannot, for they are open to the inspec tion of all who are familiar with his writing. He may deny the statements of Mr. Conatty, but the letters prove themselves. As they corroborate the statements of Mr. Conatty, which are sworn to before a notary public, the public will bn inclined to believe them true. We first introduce Mr. Conatty, and leave him to tell his own story : STATE OP NEW YORK, City and county of New York, ss : Thomas J. Conatty, being duly sworn, de poses and says : I reside and have resided since the fall of 1865 in NVw York city; I was appointed to a clerkship in tiie office of the Secretary of the Treasury, in Washington D. C., in 1863; it was in the month of Janu ary; I resigned my position there in Novem ber, 1864, on account of failing health. HOW A COTTON PERMIT WAS OBTAINED. I leirned about this ti iietnat many gentle men had obtained permits from the President to trade in cotton in the Southern States; be lieving it was a favorable opportunity .for a lame business operation, I applied, through influential friends of mie, among whom was Hon. J R. Doolittle, then United States Sen ator from Wisconsin, to the President, for such a permit ; I subsequently obtained the permit to trade in cotton in the States of Ala bama, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana ; I hid not seen Senator Doolittle for two or three weeks after obtaining it, ; I never meditated making Senator Doolittle any offer or consideration for any service he may have done me before or after 1 obtained it, because I had too exalted an opinion of his character, nor had I any idea he expcted any recompense from me up to the time of the following occurrence: HOW DOOLITTLE GOT A QUARTER INTEREST. Some two or three weeks after I obtained street-car in Washington, and told him I had obtained it. He congratulated me on the successful termination of the matter. He re flected a little, and said nothing further ex- cept to ask me to call at his committee room in the Senate the next morning. I called the next morning, in accordance with his re quest. On that occasion he said substan tially, "You have a good thing and will make a pile of money, and can afford to be a little generous." I did not know what he meant. Fie then said to me in substance, "You know I am a poor man, and have nwt made any money since I have been in public life. I think you can afford to let me share in the proceeds, and be none the poorer." And with this he handed me the letter hereto attached, marked letter No. 1, which he said he had scribbled off, wishing rne to copy and send it to him as my own. At the same time he handed me letter No. 2, hereto attached, dated the following day, which he said would be his response to my generous offer contained in letter No. 1. I was too much surprised to make any response. I took these two letters from his office with me to Baltimore, where I then resided. Next day I copied letter marked No. 1, changing the phraseology of one of the sentences referring to myself that would be indelicate had they co ne from me His reply I had already received, as stated above, having retained both letters in my possession. This was substantially all that occurred on that occasion. HOW THE SENATOR HELPED HIS PARTNER AND HIMSELF. On the 30th of December I left Washington for New York city, and received, while at the Astor House, on or about the 1st of January, through the post office, letter No. 3, hereto attached, and accompanying it letter No. 4, also hereto attached, introducing m^ to Gen eral Banks, both in the same inclosure. Gen eral Banks was then about to proceed to Louisiana as commander of the Federal forces in the Department of the Gulf, and could have been of essential service in this cotton operation. While I was in New York I learned that some change had been made in the list of articles which were prohibited from being exchanged for cotton, and I wrote to Senator Doolittle to get for me. from the War Department a list of the prohibited ar icles. In response I received, while still in New York, letter No. 5, hereto annexed. Subsequently, in the carrying out of this enterprise, I pro ceeded to New Orleans, and in the month of May, 1865, presented this letter of introduc tion to General Banks in New Orleans. Gen eral Banks received me kindly, and after reading the letter handed it back to me. say ing "this might be of some future service to you." 1 said it might, and took it. THOMAS J. CONATTY. Sworn to before me this loth d.ty of Au gust, 1872. M. M. BUDLONG, Notary Public, New York city and county. In the presence of Thos. Franklin Stith. LETTERS. [The letter which Doolittle himself wrote for Conatty to serd to him the original in Doolittle s hand writing.] No. 1.] WASHINGTON, Dec. 29, 1804. DEAR SIR: I have been engaged for two years past in the Treasury Department, where I have been assiduously f)t work, early and late, until I seriously feared my health might give way. 6 fidelity there has inspired in the head of the I department, I have received a permit to trade | and to purchase cotton to the amount of fifty thousand bales. This has been freely given me ; and now, my dear sir, allow me to say that during all my stay here I have witnessed on your part in the high position you occupy the same fidelity, and, I may add, such a position and course of conduct that my heart has been drawn out to you ; arid, as this permit may enable me to" realize a great fortune to o great to be properly administered or enjoyed by any one man 1 have determined that, as a present on my part, and in the belief that you could better use a portion, should I be successful, than I could use all, I will remit to you the one-fourth part of all the profits 1 may realize over and above all my expenses. I do this in the hope that, while I may be come rich in this operation, I may secure to you a competency also. Hon. J. R. DOOLITTLE. When he handed Mr. Conatty the above letter to copy and return, he also handed him the reply to it, dated De cember 31, 1864. The following is the model reformer s reply: [Private and confidential.] No. 2.] WASHINGTON, Dec. 31, 18G4. MY DP: AK SIR : Your magnanimous propo sition, contained in your letter from Balti more of yesterday, fills my heart vyith feel ings which I cannot express. Such instances of disinterested friendship are so rare, so few among the sons of men are endowed with such a high and noble generosity that I am without words to tell you how much it affects you [me..] I h <we no claims upon you except those of a disinterested friendship sincerely cher ished. -As to this permit to trade in cotton, you have obtained it without any word, or in fluence, or thought of mine, even direct or in direct, for until your communication to me 1 never had any knowledge, or thought even, that you contemplated such a thing. And yet this fact alone, which gives me no claim upon you, is the only possible ground upon which I accept your generous, 1 will say more, your most magnanimous offer. Had I aided you in the least, directly or in directly, in thought, word or deed, I could not have accepted it if I would, and I would not if 1 could. I hope you may realize your sanguine ex pectations, and be able to place yourself, without injury to any other human being, in a condition of peciin ary independence, so that when this fearful war is over you may retire, to private life, again to cultivate those literary pursuits you so much love, and whlcl are more precious, after all, than gold and sil ver. And should your success be such that in the munificence of your proposition you can enable me to do the same, you will con fer a great benefit upon your sincere friend, J. II. DOOLITTLE. T. G. CONATTY, Esq. Having arranged his quarter interest to his own satisfaction, he has an inter view with Gen. Banks, who was soon to assume command in the cotton regions. After this inverview he sends thefollow- ing to his partner in the speculation: [Confident! 1.] No. 3.] WASHINGTON, Dec. 31, 1864. DEAR Sin: 1 saw General Banks, lie will rmf l^av^ until flrmm-p^ rniU t-i HH wishes tb see Louisiana admitted, or the way sure for her admission. Probably you had not better waifcfor him. You can write me fully and freely when fou get on to the ground. I will, if you re- nit to me, purchase bonds for you here or at New York, according to arrangement. Isup- 3ose you wish to make permanent invest- nents of the funds if you realize them. I send you a letter to Banks. Write, and lot only aboufr business, but about the state of things generally. May God bless and prosper you, will be the arnest prayer of yours, sincerely, J. 11. DOOLITTLE. T. J. CONATTY-, E-q. At the same time he sends the follow ing letter of introduction to Gen. Banks: No. 4.1 WASHINGTON, Dec. 31, 1864. MY DEAR SIR: Allow me to introduce to your acquaintance, and to your entire confi dence, Mr. T. J. Conatty, who for the last two years has been assiduously at work in the Treasury Department; so assiduously that his health has been somewhat threatened. He visits New Orleans upon a matter of great importance, nt only to himself, hut to the public welfare the reopening practically of the cotton trade. He is a gentleman of high character, and one whom I feel assured you will be clad to know, and, so far as may be compatible with your official duty, to aid in Ms undertaking. With full faith that we, shall overcome the rebellion in the end, ai:d with assurance of ray high personal regard for you, I remain, sincerely yours, J. R. DOOLITTLE. Major General N. P. BANKS. In order to make the speculation a per fect success he calls at the War Depart ment and Treasury to obtain all the in formation possible. As United States Senator, he had access to records beyond the reach of common speculators. He sends the following note to Couatty: No. fi.] JANUARY 4, 1865. MY DEAR SIR : I saw D nn. ani St-inton and the Treasury about the list of articles. The War Department made out a list. It was sent to the Treasury. They suggested some alterations. It was sent buck to Stan- ton. It lies still on his table unacted on. I will forward a copy just as soon as possible to you at New Orleans. Probably the news papers will contain it. As ever, yours, J. R. DOOLITTLE. T. J. CONATTY. The following will explain the nature of the trans iction brought abonc by the disinterested friendship and official activ ity of Mr. Doolittle, the model Greeley reformer from Wisconsin: THE PERMIT. Under the system adopted, the papers known as a permit were as follows : On No vember 17, 1804, H. A. Risley, "agent au thorized to purchase for the, United States products of States declared in insurrection," made a contract with D. P. Moore, T. J. Conatty, and William Helmish, comprising the firm of Moore, Conatty & Co., bv which the latter agreed to sell to the. United States . 50,000 bales of cotton, "product of the, States I of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, to be transported by the way of the Mississippi river and its tributaries, and delivered to" an a gent of the Government, to be sold, or sent to New York for sale. After paying, ex- penses, one-fourth of the proceeds were to belong to the United States, and three- fourths to \[oore, Conatty & Co. On January 21, IStir., Moore, with the consent of the Govern ment, assigned his interest to Conatty. Coin cident with the date of the contract a free conduct was given hy Mr. Risley, and also a document of which the following is a copy: EXECUTIVE MANSION, Nov. 17, 1804. An authorized agent- of the Treasury De partment bavins?, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, contracted for the cotton above mentioned, and the parties hav ing agreed to sell and deliver the same to such agent It is orcLrcd tluvfc cotton moving in compll- ?ice with and for fulfillment of said con tract, and being transported to such agent, or under his direction, shall be free from seizure or detention, by any officer of the Government; and commandants of military departments, districts, posts, and detach ments, naval stations, gun-boats, flotillas, and fleets, will observe and obey this order, and give the said Moore, Conatty & Co., their agents and transports, free and unob structed pissage for the purpose of getting said cotton, or any part thereof, through the lines, other than blockaded lines, and safe conduct within our lines while the sa me is moving in compliance with regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, and for fulfillment of said contract with the agent of the Gov ernment. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Can any honest citizen have faith in a reform movement engineered by Doo- little & Co? Is their testimony against an honest administration entitled to weight? YV* leave these questions for the people to answer. JOHN F. FARNSWORTII. Why he supports Greeley What his con stituents think of him The market value of Patriotism Receives $1,500 for send ing his regiment over the Pittsburg and Fort Wayne Road. John F. Faiyisworth, the model re former from Illinois, who has misrepre sented his district in the House of Rep resentatives for some time past, has at last reached his proper level. Repudi ated by his constituents, without influ ence in the party he seeks to betray, his political salvation depends on the suc cess of the Greeley movement. His char acter as a politician is best illustrated by his position up to the action of the convention which denied him a reno mi- nation. He assured his friends that he was in favor of Grant and his policy. They worked for him under this belief, but; failed to sustain his sinking fortunes. He was defeated by the convention and soon after openly espoused the cause of Mr. Greeley. Fifty-six of the d< 1 who had stood by him in the convention, residents of .Kane county, Illinois, have addressed him a letter in which they prove him guilty of deliberate treachery, and say, in concluding, that they "he- lieve that John F. Far ns worth has, forthe hope of office, sacrificed all that is noble in man, viz: Honor, honesty and truth. We [might leave this latter-day con- vert to Greeley ism just where his con stituents left him devoid of honor, hon- ;sty, and truth, but we have an item to ^resent which ought to go to his credit is it belongs to an important chapter in lis patriotic record. We take the fol- owing extract from the report of the Select Committee of the House of Repre sentatives appointed to investigate con- racts and agreements by or with the government, growing out of its opera- ions in suppressing the rebellion, made to the House December 18, 1861. [Re port No. 2, 37th Cong. ,2d sess., page 109.] CHICAGO, November 3, 1861. Henry K. Peyson, being duly sworn, was examined as follows: Question. State what connection you had with the Pittsburg and Fort Wayne railroad? Answer. I was the attorney and agent of the receiver of the road. Q. What regiments from this State have passed over this road? A. The only one I had anything to do with was that of J. F. Far ns worth. Q. Upon what terms was that regiment passed over your road? A. At the regular Government price. Q. What influences, if any, were used to Obtain the transportation of that regiment Ovr your road? A. 81,500 were given. Q By whom was it given, and to whom? A. It was given by me to Colonel Farmworth. Q For what purpose? A. As an induce- ment,undoubtedly,forhimtogooverourroad. Q. Where was that payment made? A. In Chicago. 8. At what time? A. Before his departure. . What negotiation was there previous to this contract being made? A. We are the nearest route to Washington, by considerable, and the most expeditious, by a great deal, as any one knows who knows our facilities. When the troops first commenced moving from Wisconsin I was in NVw York, and we lost the first five regiments from that State. I was confident we lost them through bribery. The first three regiments went by the way of Dunkirk and Erie, and, while they might have gone through in two days, they were over a week upon the road. The next regiment went by the Michigan Southern road, and down hy Cleveland and Pittsburg. We found thr,t mo ney was being paid and thatall the regiments were being taken away from us. 1 wrote to Mr. Cass, the president of the road, about it, and he wrote back that he was not willing to pay money to secure them. I wrote him that I was not going to sit liere and see all the regi ments lost to us, and that I should offer as high as any one. I did so, and that was the commencement of our business in that line. Since then we have always got the regiments. Q. What were the negotiations between you and Col. Farns worth? A. Simply what I tfave stated. I made the offer of that amount and he accepted it,and the money was paid before the regiment left, but after they were, in the cars. The loss of such a man to a party is the party s gain. Like his brother re formers, he left the Republican party when lie found that within its ranks he could no longer carry out his corrupt designs. lie had lost his former influ ence with the Administration because he had by his own acts forfeited its con fidence. He still clung to its skirts, in thevain hope that his constituents would return him to Congress. But they repu diated him as an unworthy servant, and this last straw broke the rotten link that bound him to the "Republican party. He threw off the mask and came out in 1m true colors, a sham reformer by na ture and practice. FREDERICK HASSAUREK, EDITOR CINCINNATI u VOLKSBLATT." How he supports reform A thrifty specu lator in politics. Hon. Frederick Hassaurek, editor of the Volkxblatt. formerly United States Minister Resident to Ecuador, a man of ability, whosn neighbors know him too well, has recently pronounced for Gree- ley and Brown, after having kept per sonally silent since the Cincinnati Con vention, and as an editor preserved strict neutrality. There appears to have been a reason for this silence, and there are probably fifteen thousand or more in the shape of dollars for his sudden volubility. Mr. Hassaurek is not only careful of his purse, but of his reputa tion also as an effective stump speaker, His campaign pronunciamento, deliv ered recently, near Cincinnati, was printed and sent out a week in ad vance," carefully arranged with appro priate marks of approval and ap plause, to the number of seventy times, where applause, cheers, laughter, etc., were in the author s opinion, sure to come in. Mr. Hassaurek is claimed to be ftn important addition to the ranks of pronounced reformers; hence the justification for examining into the basis of such pretensions. Here are some pertinent facts : During th early part of August, two Ohio Republicans, known as active poli ticians, appeared in Washington, and urged with all the influence they could bring to bear, that the Republican Com mittee should aid in raising $15,000 to fce paid to Editor Hassaurek. They stated that the latter had sometime be fore offered his services as a speaker on behalf of C4rant and Wilson, with the influence of the VblksblaU thrown in, for the sum of $30,000. It was also un derstood that a stated number of copies of the Volksblatt were to be circulated gratuitously. After considerable dick ering, the amount was reduced one half, and this our Ohio friends, acting for themselves, undertook to raise. The Washington managers, who act for their party, if at all, at once declared they were not in that business; purchased services wore always untrustworthy. New York was then made the fit-Id of effort, and it is understood that private parties offered to guarantee $2,500 monthly for four months, making $10.000 in all. Again the attempt was made to induce the Washington Committee to add the $5,000 wanting to complete what Mr. Hassau rek required for his valuable services. The Committee, however, absolutely re fused to do anything about it, and the negotiation fell-through. Some attempts were made from Ohio to change the com mittee s decision, ft is needless to say that these efforts failed, as Mr. Hassau rek soon after cast in his lot with | Greeley and Brown. The foregoing j statements are matters of fact, and can I be established, if necessary. The Cin cinnati Gtzelte says editorially: The fact thitsncn negotiations were pend ing was wnll known to several persons here, and strong objections were m.irte by many leading Republicans, on the ground that they were demoralizing, anrl if not so, II tssaurvk was not worth even his reduce 1 price. The whole matter was frequently discussed here for some time before he made his Giveloy speech at A.von<iale. Mr. Hassaurek is a worthy addition to the reform ranks. Of him, like others herein mentioned, and some whom it is unnecessary to name, after November next, it will be written, "in life they were (un) lovely, and in death they should not be parted." Citizens of the Republic, what think you of these reformers ? Is the party which owns these men as leaders worthy of support? Can any good come from an administration guided by such hands"? If honesty and economy are needed, can such characters insure them? What they have been in the past they are likely to be in the future. An impure fountain cannot give forth pure water, neither can any substantial re formation come from th elevation to power of these leading reformers. They are fair representatives of the party they labor for. The few honest men. in its ranks are lost sight of in the crowd of hungry and unprincipled office-seekers that howl for its success. Reform is a pretext with these unprincipled lead ers public plunder their object. Foiled in thir attempts to use the Republican party for the advancement of their sel fish ends, they have left it for another party of their owp creation. They have chosen a pliant character for their head and front, and hope to deceive the peo ple into the belief that they are in reality the friends of good government. The people have already unmasked them. They have investigated the charges pre ferred against the present Administra tion and have found them false. They will consign in November these leaders, with the slanders which they have ut tered, to the same grave which awaits the party that fostered them. The Republican party, purer and bet ter, through the desertion of these false reformers, will go on in its path of duty filling its noble mission of plnlanthrophy and justice. It will come out of the con flict granderthan ever, its past triumphs brightened by its future promises and itsgood name and thatof its noble leader, beyond the reach of the enemies of tne Republic. J.C. BERKE EY I IBRA