THE DEMOCRATIC RECORD. 
 
 DARE THE NATION TRUST SUCH A PARTY? 
 
 When a political party goes before the 
 people with a claim for their suffrage and 
 the control of their Government and public 
 affairs, the first and most natural impulse of 
 the public mind is to know something of the 
 past public record of the claimants. In or- I 
 der to aid in this very proper and necessary i 
 investigation the following facts and figures 
 have been drawn from the official records ' 
 and published. They are presented without 
 note or comment. The reader will draw his 
 own conclusions, and at his leisure answer 
 from his own convictions the question : Dare 
 the nation trust such a party f 
 
 JACKSON AND HIS TIMES—“TOTHE VICTORS.'’ETC. 
 
 On March4,1829, Andrew Jackson, pledged 
 to retrenchment, economy, and reform, was I 
 inaugurated President of the United States. 
 
 \ Proclaiming the maxim that “to the victors 
 belong the spoils,” .Jackson let slip the 
 “Furies of the Guillotine” in a wholesale 
 proscription of the old and tried officials of 
 former Administrations John Q. Adams, 
 in the preceding four years, had made but i 
 twelve changes—all for cause. In the pre¬ 
 ceding forty years, all his predecessors to¬ 
 gether had made only one hundred and 
 thirty-two changes—of these Jefferson had 
 removed sixty-two; but Jackson, in the 
 genuine spirit of a Democratic reformer, in 
 one year removed, it was estimated, one ] 
 thousand five hundred officials—in one year 
 nearly twelve times as many as by all his 
 predecessors from the beginning of the Gov¬ 
 ernment. The officers removed were expe¬ 
 rienced, capable, and trusty. The charac¬ 
 ter of those who filled their places—“Slamrn, 
 Bang & Co.”—is attested by the reform which 
 followed. 
 
 ! 
 
 THE GREAT PUBLIC AND INDIAN LAND GRABS. 
 
 A rage for speculation in the public lands ! 
 distinguished the period. General Lewis I 
 Cas3, Secretary of War, who pocketed illegal- . 
 ly, as extra allowances, the sum of $68,000, . 
 united with Martin Van Buren, Secretary of 
 State, Benjamin F. Butler, Attorney General, 
 and others, in a land Credit Mobilier for 
 speculatiou in public lands—for speculation 
 in sales by the Government, of which they 
 were members. Amos Kendall, the Fourth 
 Auditor, and subsequently Postmaster Gen¬ 
 eral, in like manner united with a Boston 
 land company, for a fee of $50,000, in the 
 wholesale robbery of certain Indians in Mis¬ 
 
 sissippi of their lands—all swindling en¬ 
 terprises in contemptuous violation of the 
 law, of which they were the administrators. 
 (IT. R. 194 second session Twenty-fourth 
 Congress. 
 
 CHE GALPHIN SWINDLE. 
 
 in 1834 John Forsyth, of Georgia, suc¬ 
 ceeded Lewis McLane, of Delaware, as Sec¬ 
 retary of State, in Jackson’s Cabinet. In 
 1850 the payment of the notorious “Gal- 
 phin swindle” scandalized the nation. By 
 the Democracy it was denounced as “infa¬ 
 mous”—as “without a precedent”—as “a 
 clear and unmitigated Swindle I” Theii 
 memories were bad. In 1837, before the 
 Wise committee, John Ross, the Cheroke^ 
 chief, testified that in 1835, in th •. 
 Cherokee treaty of that year, an article 
 covering the “Galphin” was inserted direct¬ 
 ly through the influence of “Mr. Forsyth. 
 Secretary of State;” that it was urged, in 
 the negotiations of the treaty, that M, 
 Forsyth had great influence with the Pres 
 dent; that “Mr. Forsyth could and won! < 
 induce the President to grant a sum suffi¬ 
 cient to cover the Galphin additional to the 
 sum stipulated in the treaty if the Cherm 
 kees would sanction a treaty upon such 
 terms.” The article was consequently in¬ 
 serted. Mr. Forsyth admitted that he “ad¬ 
 vised” its insertion, as also his personal in¬ 
 terest in the payment of both principal an-1 
 interest. He had applied to both Secretaries 
 of War, Eaton and Cass; as Secretary of 
 State had certified the papers from the De¬ 
 partment of State to the Secretary of War. 
 General Cass had told him v that the claim, 
 was just ; and when the treaty was pend¬ 
 ing before the Senate had “conversed” 
 with Senators urging its ratification ; but 
 pleads that, to them, his “appeals” were 
 “founded solely on the justice of the 
 claim”—‘the hardship of the condition of 
 the claimants.” 
 
 Hence, lobbied in 1835 by Forsyth, Jack- 
 son’s Secretary of State, approved by Gen¬ 
 eral Cass, his Secretary of War, and justi¬ 
 fied in 1837 by the Democratic majority of 
 the Wise committee, engineered through 
 Congress, in i 849, by another distinguished 
 Democratic reformer, Mr, Burt, of South 
 Carolina, and the principal paid by James 
 K. Polk, the question of interest was 
 only reserved and its liquidation by Polk 
 only defeated for want of time. 
 
2 
 
 TU POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT “INSOLVENT ” 
 UNDER DEMOCRATIC RULE. 
 
 In 1834, after a hard battle, (from 1830,) 
 Senators Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, and John 
 M. Clayton, of Delaware, forced an inquiry 
 by the Senate Committee on Post Offices and 
 Post Roads into the condition of the Post 
 Office Department. It found the Department 
 *‘insolvent,” a helpless prey to maladmin¬ 
 istration, corruption, robbery, and fraud. 
 In the preceding administration, under 
 John Q,. Adams, the Department had been 
 not only self-sustaining, but had contribu¬ 
 ted annually $1,103,063 to the revenues of 
 the nation. But now, in a few brief years, 
 under Democratic reform, it was bankrupt, 
 a burden upon the Treasury. (S. R. 422, 
 first session Twenty-third Congress.) 
 
 Mr. Felix Grundy, of Tennessee, the Dem¬ 
 ocratic chairman of the committee, was op¬ 
 posed to the investigation. 
 
 Postmaster General Barry refused to recog¬ 
 nize its authority. H_ declared that he was 
 responsible, not to the Senate, but to the 
 President, and through him to the peo¬ 
 ple. He refused to furnish the committee 
 the information it requested, and it was 
 forced to prosecute its labors under the 
 greatest difficulties, among mutilated rec¬ 
 ords and fabricated accounts in the great¬ 
 est confusion. But even under such disad¬ 
 vantages it developed a condition of affairs 
 utterly without a parallel in all our previous 
 history. 
 
 THE “EXTRA-ALLOWANCE” FRAUDS IN DEMO¬ 
 CRATIC TIMES. 
 
 One of the greatest abuses of the Depart¬ 
 ment was in its extra allowances, aggregat¬ 
 ing hundreds of thousands annually, fre¬ 
 quently given without an increase of duty or 
 service, without the authority of law, and in 
 many cases where there was an increase of 
 service, “unreasonable, extravagant, and 
 out of all proportion with such increase.” 
 These extra allowances actually exhausted the 
 whole postal revenues of States, and were grant¬ 
 ed practically as pensions to party favorites. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC SPECIAL-SERVICE PLUMS. 
 
 The ‘ ‘ incidental expenses ’ ’ of the Depart¬ 
 ment—not its “contingent expenses,” which 
 were separate, distinct, and additional, but 
 its 11 secret-service fund,” in a single year, 
 (1829,) increased to $56,471, “exceeding 
 that of any former year,” but in 1832, 
 during the Presidential election, it suddenly 
 swelled to $88,000 ! It was principally the 
 newspaper fund. After deducting the sup¬ 
 port of traveling partisan emissaries, under 
 the title of “postal agents,” it was the fund 
 out of which J ke numerous party presses 
 were permitted to richly share the plunder. 
 So the Greenes, of the Boston Statesman, 
 the elder Greene (Nathaniel) being post¬ 
 master at Boston, and certifying the accounts 
 which were for “printed blanks, twine,” etc. 
 So the Hills, of the New Hampshire Patriot , 
 
 the Shadrach Penns, of the Louisville Public 
 Advertiser, the Albany Argus, New York 
 Courier and Enquirer, the Washington Globe, 
 the national organ, etc. The prices paid to 
 F. P. Blair of the Globe were “enormous.” 
 Of the $22,957.08 of “incidental expenses” 
 during the Presidential election of 1832, 
 $13,673.31 were paid to the editors of news¬ 
 papers. Of that Blair received $8,386.50 1 
 During the election he received from this 
 secret fund alone about $116 daily for every 
 day his paper was issued. The details are 
 disgusting. Maladministration, corruption, 
 and fraud run riot. The aggregate excess 
 of expenditures in four years, as compared 
 with the preceding four years, under Adams, 
 was “$3,336,859!” The amount of funds 
 actually “sunk” by the Department since 
 1829 was “$1,032,933;” and the aggregate 
 of its “ indebtedness” April 11, 1834, was 
 “$1,123,600 !” To avoid immediate exposure 
 by the collapse and closing of his Depart¬ 
 ment, the Postmaster General was forced, 
 besides his loans from contractors, to unlaw¬ 
 fully contract loans, bearing interest, from 
 the banks. There was no evading the judg¬ 
 ment. (S. R. 422, first session Twenty-third 
 Congress.) At the next session the report of 
 the Democratic Committee of the House was 
 even more damaging than the Senate’s. 
 Hence, under the unanimous verdict of the 
 Senate, Postmaster General Barry was com¬ 
 pelled to resign- to accept promotion to the 
 
 mission to Spain, with its lucrative outfits and infits. 
 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY “ PET BANK” ROB¬ 
 BERIES. 
 
 About this time the affairs of the old Bank 
 of the United States and its branches began 
 to wane. By law the bank was the deposi¬ 
 tory of the Government revenues, and in 
 consequence was the Treasury of the nation. 
 In 1834, by a daring act of usurpation, Pres¬ 
 ident Jackson removed the deposits. He 
 transferred them to certain “pet” State 
 banks of the Democratic reformers, who 
 claimed the revenues of the nation as the 
 “spoils” of “The Party !” The destruction 
 of the Bank and subsequent explosion of the 
 “Pet Banks” involved the loss of millions, 
 the ‘destruction and ruin of thousands of the 
 business men and the business of the coun¬ 
 try—of $500,000,000 of private capital—and 
 the consequent suffering and want of tens of 
 thousands of all ranks and classes through¬ 
 out the Union. The Democratic reformers 
 nevertheless applauded. They laughed at 
 the misery and ruin they had caused, belit¬ 
 tled their magnitude, and maintained and 
 justified the removal in all its bearings. 
 
 INVESTIGATIONS AND EXPOSURES. 
 
 In 1837 the Garland committee published 
 the “Wool-clip” correspondence between 
 Secretary Woodbury and the deposit banks, 
 exposed the criminal partisan favoritism of 
 the Treasury in the distribution and man¬ 
 agement of the deposits or revenues of the 
 
3 if, 6 
 
 DZ% 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 nation as the “spoils” of “The Party,” and 
 prepared the country for the disastrous ex¬ 
 plosion of the “Pet Banks” which followed. 
 (H. R. 193, second session Twenty-fourth 
 Congress.) 
 
 The Wise committee unearthed “Forsyth’s 
 Nankeen;” exposed the complicity of the 
 high-toned Georgian Secretary of State in 
 the “infamous Galphin swindle;” exposed 
 Postmaster General Kendall’s complicity, with 
 “a $50,000 fee,” in the Boston scheme for the 
 wholesale robbery of the Mississippi Indians 
 of their lands; and developed Secretary 
 Cass’s corrupt favoritism in the dispensation 
 of his patronage. (H. R. 194, second session 
 Twenty-fourth Congress.) 
 
 FORGERY, ABSENTEEISM, EMBEZZLEMENT, AN» 
 EXTORTION. 
 
 One|T. B. Waterman was & protege —a copy¬ 
 ing clerk in the Pension Office, appointed by 
 the General. Waterman forged the initials 
 of Secretary Cass to an account; Waterman 
 confessed the forgery, and the General paid 
 the account. (II. R. 194, second session 
 Twenty-fourth Congress.) 
 
 D. Azro A. Buck was a model reformer. He 
 was appointed a clerk by Secretary Cass, 
 July 8, 1835. About the same time Buck 
 was also elected a member of the Vermont 
 Legislature. Hence he did not report at the 
 War Department for duty until December. 
 In January, 1836, General Cass paid him for 
 five months’ service, when Buck had ren¬ 
 dered but one. (H. R. 194, second session 
 Twenty-fourth Congress.) 
 
 Lieutenant Thomas Johnson, a disbursing 
 officer, lost, in gambling, two United States 
 drafts for $1,000 and $1,500, respectively. 
 These drafts were protested by a deposit 
 bank—the Union Bank of Louisiana, at New 
 Orleans—and an appeal for their payment 
 was made to the War Department. The facts 
 were all known. The Hon. Ambrose H. Se¬ 
 vier, of Arkansas, and the Hon. Richard M. 
 Johnson, of Kentucky, (model Democratic 
 reformers,) interested themselves in their 
 payment, the pious Attorney General (B. F. 
 Butler) uttered a favorable opinion, and Sec¬ 
 retary Cass drew a warrant for their payment 
 even after Woodbury had declined. (H. R. 
 194, second session Twenty-fourth Congress.) 
 
 At the same time Garret D. Wall, then 
 United States District Attorney at Perth Am¬ 
 boy, N. J., and subsequently United States 
 Senator from New Jersey, a distinguished 
 Democratic reformer, assessed his modest 
 fees for his influence with the Administra¬ 
 tion. (H. R. 194, second session Twenty- 
 fourth Congress.) 
 
 In 1839 resistance to investigation was no 
 longer possible. “No more packed commit¬ 
 tees,” was the fiat of the nation—no more 
 committee* appointed by James K. Polk ; and 
 accordingly the House, by ballot, elected the 
 celebrated Harlan committee. 
 
 Now, the proofs were overwhelming. 
 
 THE SWARTWOUT SWINDLES. 
 
 In April, 1829, Samuel Swartwout was ap¬ 
 pointed by President Jackson collector of the 
 port of New York. He was notoriously im¬ 
 pecunious, a reckless gambler in stocks, 
 largely in debt, always in want of money, 
 and wholly irresponsible financially. Hig 
 default began within a year from the date of 
 his appointment, and continued during eight 
 years—for years with the knowledge of the 
 authorities at Washington— -for years {from 
 1834 to 1837) without the bonds required by law 
 to the Government for the safe-keeping of the mil¬ 
 lions in his hands. (H. R. 313, third session 
 Twenty-fifth Congress.) 
 
 His default was for $1,225,705.69. The 
 causes of his default, as the Harlan commit¬ 
 tee declare, were his irresponsibility in pecu¬ 
 niary character when appointed ; the culpa¬ 
 ble disregard of law and neglect of official 
 duty by the naval officer at New York, by 
 the First Auditor and First Comptroller of 
 the Treasury ; the discontinuance of the use 
 of banks of deposit; the consequent accumu¬ 
 lation of vast sums in the hands of a stock 
 gambler so improvident and reckless as 
 Swartwout; and the negligence and failure 
 of the Secretary of the Treasury to discharge 
 his duty as head of the Treasury. In a word, 
 by the abandonment at New York and Wash¬ 
 ington of all the checks thrown by law around 
 the collection of the revenue. (H. R. 313, 
 third session Twenty-fifth Congress.) 
 
 Swartwout was not removed. His com¬ 
 mission expired March 28, 1838, and, being 
 apprized in time, he, on the 16th of August, 
 fled to England with his plunder, followed 
 within a fortnight by William M. Price, (the 
 district attorney for the southern district of 
 New York,) a confederate in crime, and, like 
 Swartwout, a defaulter in the sum of $72,- 
 124.06. The default of General C. Gratiot, 
 Chief Engineer United States army, was for 
 $50,000. 
 
 CORRUPTION AND FRAUD REION 8UFBEME. 
 
 In every bureau of the New York customs 
 maladministration, corruption, and fraud 
 reigned supreme, and here, with the origin 
 of Democratic reform, began the “tyranny” 
 of assessments for party purposes, levied for 
 national and local elections upon the cus¬ 
 toms officers and in the navy-yard at New 
 York, as throughout the country and in the 
 executive departments at Washington. 
 
 The maladministration and corruption in 
 the collection of the revenue from the sales 
 or the public lands were as flagitious as in 
 the customs. Out of sixty-odd receivers of 
 public moneys fifty defaulted. A few in¬ 
 stances will illustrate the whole : 
 
 A RECEIVER’S OFFICE MADE A BROKERS’ DEN. 
 
 John Spencer was receiver at Fort Wayne, 
 Ind. In May, 1836, the Secretary complain¬ 
 ed to Spencer that his accounts were in ar¬ 
 rears, and appointed Nat. West, jr., of In¬ 
 dianapolis, as examiner, to investigate the 
 
4 
 
 office at Fort Wayne. Mr. West reports 
 the office a broker’s den for speculation and 
 shaving. Spencer was about to be removed. 
 Hon. Wm. Hendricks rushes to the rescue, 
 and urges that Colonel Spencer is “ an hon¬ 
 est and honorable man;” that his removal 
 “would, to some extent, produce excite¬ 
 ment,” “for he has many warm and influen¬ 
 tial friends, both at Fort Wayne and in Dear¬ 
 born county. Better let it be.” Mr. Woodbury j 
 concluded to “ let it be.” To Mr. Hendricks 
 he writes : “I am happy to inform you that 
 Mr. Spencer’s explanations have been such 
 that he will probably continue in office.” 
 Mr. Spencer’s explanations wore: “ My Dem¬ 
 ocratic friends think I ought not to leave un¬ 
 til after we hold our election for President,” 
 “which I have concluded to wait.” (H. R. 
 313, third session Twenty-fifth Congress.) 
 
 WiBey P. Harris was receiver at Colum¬ 
 bus, Miss. “General Harris” was indorsed 
 by his Democratic representative in Congress 
 as “ one of the main pillars of Democracy,” 
 as of “diffused and deserved popularity,” 
 and as “ one of the earliest and most distin¬ 
 guished friends of the [Jackson’s] Adminis¬ 
 tration in Mississippi.” In March, 1834, 
 Secretary Roger B. Taney complained of his 
 conduct, and after fifteen warnings, extend¬ 
 ing through two years, from Secretary Wood¬ 
 bury, “General Harris” was permitted to 
 resign, and to nominate and secure the ap¬ 
 pointment of his successor, “ Colonel Gordon 
 D. Boyd, of Attala county.” Whereupon 
 the Secretary quietly entered on the books 
 of the Treasury: “Balance due from Mr. 
 Harris, $109,178.08.” (H. R. 313, third ses¬ 
 
 sion Twenty-fifth Congress.) 
 
 FIFTY “HONEST ” DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS. 
 
 Colonel Boyd early fell into the footsteps 
 cf his illustrious predecessor. In June, 
 1837, Mr. Garesche reports the Colonel as a 
 defaulter to the amount of $50,000, but adds: 
 “All concede that his intemperance has been 
 his greatest crime.” “The man seems really 
 penitent, and I am inclined to think, in com¬ 
 mon with his friends, that he is honest, and 
 has been led away by the example of his pre¬ 
 decessor and a certain looseness in the code 
 of morality which here does not move in so 
 limited a circle as it does with us at home. 
 Another receiver would probably follow in the foot¬ 
 steps of the two. You will not, therefore, be 
 surprised if I recommend his being retain¬ 
 ed.” So it was decreed. In October, Boyd 
 was allowed to resign, and the Secretary en¬ 
 tered against his name : “ Indebted $50,000, 
 as per last statement.” And so with the re¬ 
 mainder—Linn, Lewis, Alsbury, Dickson, 
 Skinner, Hays, Simpson—fifty in all ; mak¬ 
 ing an aggregate default of $825,678.28. (H. 
 R. 313, third session Twenty-fifth Congress.) 
 
 JBS8R HOYT’S SYSTEMATIC BOBBERIES. 
 
 In 1841-’42 the Poindexter commission 
 investigated the maladministration of Swart- 
 wont’s successor, Jesse Hoyt, the special pro- 
 
 teye of Martin Van Buren, who was appoint¬ 
 ed in March, 1838. At the date of his ap¬ 
 pointment, Hoyt, like Swartwout and Price, 
 was notoriously impecunious, irresponsible 
 financially, largely in debt, and a reckless 
 speculator in stocks. His maladministration 
 and systematic robberies of the Government 
 and the importers amounted to piracy. Even 
 in the incidental expenses of the customs 
 —in the matter of stationery, printing, 
 and the like—the pillage amounted to tens 
 of thousands annually. No advertisement 
 for the lowest bidder, no contract at stipu¬ 
 lated prices - for their supply, but ordered ex¬ 
 travagantly and in the loosest manner, with 
 no evidence required of the delivery of the 
 article, they were paid for, on demand, at 
 prices ranging from 100 to 200 per cent, 
 greater than the current New York rates. 
 (H. R. 669, second session Twenty-seventh 
 Congress.) 
 
 Geo. A. Wasson, “ a sort of factotum” for 
 Hoyt, had a monopoly of the cartage at the 
 public stores — two privileged carts, for 
 the use and labor of which, in three years, 
 Hoyt paid him $94,430.92. In addition to 
 his salary as storekeeper, Hoyt paid Wasson 
 unlawfully, as deputy collector, $1,500 per 
 annum. (H. R. 669, second session Twen¬ 
 ty-seventh Congress.) 
 
 In the seizure of goods under Hoyt’s ra¬ 
 pacious system of reappraisement, Wasson 
 was one of a “triumvirate”—Wasson, 
 Cairns, and Ives—of Hoyt’s standing wit* 
 nesses in the courts. This trained trio were 
 allowed to share the plunder. In a single 
 instance in 1840 Hoyt paid Wasson, without 
 vouchers, $1,767.33 over and above the legal 
 fees, for attendance on three trials, between 
 May and October. Wasson was allowed to 
 employ, for his private benefit, laborers 
 hired and paid by the Government. He was 
 a privileged purchaser, in his own name and 
 in the names of others, at the sales of goods 
 remaining nine months unclaimed in the 
 public stores ; allowed to plunder the public 
 stores of goods in large quantities ; to rob 
 the custom-house of coal for his private use; 
 in a word, to indulge in “ a multitude of ille¬ 
 gal practices and petty frauds” in addition 
 to the goods, the luxuries, the salaries, he 
 absorbed from outside parties interested in 
 the ruin of importers. (H. R. 669, second 
 session Twenty-seventh Congress.) 
 
 Cairns and Ives, in like manner, equally 
 shared in the plunder. 
 
 In January, 1840, a fire destroyed the 
 Front-street stores. The goods saved were 
 removed by the custom-house attaches — 
 placed in an open lot—all entrance to which 
 was refused to the importers for the pur¬ 
 pose of identifying and recovering their 
 property ; but the goods, practically seized, 
 were made up into piles or lots in which 
 the vilest frauds were practiced to deceive 
 purchasers—struck off at nominal sums 
 
5 
 
 to privileged parties in collusion with the 
 officials, and the proceeds, after deduct¬ 
 ing fees, &c., pocketed by the collector. 
 Thus the owners were robbed of goods ag¬ 
 gregating in value $1,000,000, the Govern¬ 
 ment of $400,000 as duties, and Hoyt pock¬ 
 eted about $30,000 which should have been 
 deposited in the Treasury for the benefit of 
 the owners. 
 
 cured assignments to the amount of $1,000,000 
 for this season, (1841,) and even more, if I 
 could have assured the consignees that they 
 would not be seized after they had passed the 
 custom-house, and the duties thereon had 
 been paid.” (H. R. 669, second session 
 Twenty-seventh Congress.) As it was, they 
 dared not risk their goods within Hoyt’s 
 piratical jurisdiction. 
 
 Hoyt also rented unlawfully five stores 
 for the safe-keeping of goods entered at 
 the custom-house. These stores yielded 
 him a profit, per annum, of $10,000, at a 
 cost to the Government of $30,000; or, in 
 three years, in violation of law, but with 
 the sanction of Secretary Woodbury, Hoyt, 
 through these stores, pocketed $30,000, at a 
 cost to the nation of $90,000! (H. R. 669, 
 
 second session Twenty-seventh Congress.) 
 
 These are but characteristic instances in 
 illustration of Hoyt’s maladministration. 
 Their magnitude and extent were astound¬ 
 ing. His criminal rapacity attained its 
 shocking results in his system of fraudulent 
 reappraisement. Goods regularly invoiced, 
 and upon which all demands at the custom¬ 
 house had been paid after examination and 
 appraisement by the lawful appraisers of 
 the customs, were followed by Wasson, 
 Cairns, and Ives to Baltimore, Philadelphia, 
 and other cities, again examined, reapprais¬ 
 ed, condemned, seized, and held for trial. 
 At the trials the trained “triumvirate” 
 were the standing witnesses. Nevertheless, 
 “in nearly all these cases”—“thirty-two 
 out of thirty-three”—tried in the United 
 States district court for the southern district 
 of New York, “the verdicts of the juries 
 were in favor” of the importers. A like re¬ 
 sult attended the suits elsewhere. But in 
 every case, whether favorable to the im¬ 
 porter or not, the ^result to him was equally 
 disastrous—absolute ruin to many through 
 the unlawful seizure, supported bv the 
 systematic perjury of a trio trained in 
 the service of Hoyt, with the sanction 
 of the Secretary of the Treasury. (H. R. 
 S69, second session Twenty-seventh Con¬ 
 gress.) 
 
 1 single instance will illustrate a multi¬ 
 tude of similar cases. Mr. Bottomly swears 
 in 1841: “ Mr. Hoyt has taken from me the 
 principal part of all the property I possess¬ 
 ed.” “ In less than two years” Hoyt’s ra¬ 
 pacity had mulcted Mr. B. in costs aggre¬ 
 gating $200,000. “ One-third” of all the 
 
 English importers were ruined. Their prop¬ 
 erty, (upon the sales of which they depended 
 to meet their liabilities to the foreign manu¬ 
 facturer.) seized and locked up for an indefi¬ 
 nite period, their failure was the inevitable 
 result; and their bankruptcy carried with it 
 the ruin of “a large number of English 
 manufacturers.” Mr. Bottomly had recently 
 been in England, where goods were unusu¬ 
 ally cheap, and swears : “I could have pro¬ 
 
 ! 
 
 
 j 
 
 HOTT, BUTLER, AND THE “TRIUMVIRATE.” 
 
 In all this rapacious villainy, systemati¬ 
 cally pursued under the forms of law, under 
 the grandest protestations of “patriotism” 
 and “reform,” again and again repeated, 
 Ex-Attorney General Benjamin F. Butler, 
 President Van Buren’s old law-partner, the 
 pious and prayerful president of the defunct 
 bogus “Washington and Warren Bank” of 
 Sandy Hill, and subsequently Price’s succes¬ 
 sor as United States district attorney for the 
 southern district of New York, was Hoyt’s 
 adviser and active coadj ator. Through it all 
 the Government bore all the enormous ex¬ 
 penses. Hoyt, Butler, and the “trium¬ 
 virate”— Wasson, Cairns, and Ives — ab¬ 
 sorbed all the profits. Besides the immense 
 sums accruing as fees in all cases of seizure 
 under reappraisement, Hoyt’s practice of re¬ 
 taining in his own hands, with the sanction 
 of Secretary Woodbury, the amount of duties 
 in such cases enabled him for indefinite pe¬ 
 riods oi time—for years—to use the vast 
 sums thus held for his private profit in 
 loans to bank3 and brokers and in specula¬ 
 tions of all kinds—in bolstering, by heavy 
 deposits of the Government funds, such rot¬ 
 ten institutions as the “North American 
 Trust and Banking Company,” in the stock 
 of which he was a heavy gambler. By his 
 own statement Hoyt thus constantly held of 
 the Government funds, free of interest, an 
 average of $350,000, at a time in New York 
 when money was demanding 5 per cent, per 
 month. The sum thus held was shown to 
 be much larger, probably not less than half 
 a million, and “ it was understood ” and be¬ 
 lieved that his deposits in rotten “banks 
 were made under the sanction of the Se«re- 
 tary of the Treasury, ” at a time when Wood- 
 bury was “borrowing” for the Government 
 “ on Treasury notes bearing interest.” 
 
 The exact aggregate of Hoyt’s plunder is 
 not known. The aggregate of his default 
 was not less than $500,000. His unlawful 
 income—the aggregate of his pillage of im¬ 
 porters and merchants—cannot be exactly 
 estimated: it was known to be prodigious ; 
 but his annihilation of the commerce of the 
 country, and the consequent heavy loss to 
 the Government in its revenues, while im¬ 
 mensely increasing the cost of collecting the 
 customs at New York, can be approximated, 
 fei one year, in 1840, as compared with 1839, 
 the faliing off of imports was $40,232,763, 
 involving, besides the heavy loss to the 
 traffic of the nation, a loss to the Govern- 
 
ment, in its revenues, of $7,651,765.53. As 
 compared with. 1825, the first year of Adams’s 
 Administration, the falling off in the aggre¬ 
 gate of imports and exports in 1840 was 
 $2,975,142, while the cost of collection had 
 increased in a corresponding ratio. 
 
 A SAMPLE OF DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 So in all departments of the Government- 
 maladministration and corruption rioted un¬ 
 restrained. Contractors, commissioners, In¬ 
 dian agents, paymasters, officers of the army 
 and navy, and Governors of Territories—all 
 defaulted for thousands upon thousands. 
 The Indians were special objects of rapacity. 
 Cherokees, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Choc¬ 
 taws, outraged and oppressed in a thousand 
 brutal ways, and forced into hostilities, were 
 mercilessly murdered and deprived of their 
 lands. In forty years, in Indian wars, the 
 nation expended $500,000,000 ; in the Semi¬ 
 nole war alone, in seven years, $50,000,000 
 in gold—an average in gold of $7,000,000. 
 Thus, Indian claims were the fattest of rot¬ 
 ten perquisites. Their name was legion! 
 The robberies attending the removal alone 
 of the Cherokees and Choctaws, under the 
 treaties of 1835 and 1846, are estimated, 
 upon official data, at $7,358,064.60. In these 
 even Colonel Richard M. Johnson, Van Bu~ 
 ren’s Viee President, indulged the dominant 
 propensities, and assessed $18,000 fees for 
 fraudulent collections. 
 
 Necessarily, in every branch of the ser¬ 
 vice, the expenditures increased enormous¬ 
 ly, while the revenues decreased. Under 
 Adams, the heaviest annual current expend¬ 
 itures amounted to $13,296,041.45; under 
 Jackson’s reform they suddenly swelled to 
 $29,621,807.82 ; under Van Buren’s, to $31,- 
 793,587.24. The aggregate of the current i 
 expenditures of Adams’ Administration was 
 $50,501,914.31. Under Jackson the aggre¬ 
 gate of his first term was $56,270,480.62 ; of 
 his second term, $88,275,930.46 ; total, $143,- 
 380,307. Under Van Buren’s single term, 
 $112,188,692.16. 
 
 POLK’S ADMINISTRATION AND FRAUDS ON THE 
 
 INDIANS. 
 
 Under Polk the Indian frauds were enor¬ 
 mous. These are embraced in a settlement 
 by Commissioner Medill, and covered in a 
 report by William L. Marcy, Secretary of 
 War, dated May 20, 1848, to Congress. Un¬ 
 der the treaties of 1835 and 1846 the Chero¬ 
 kees were entitled to $5,000,000, less $1,000,- 
 000, for the purchase of lands to which they 
 were to emigrate, and the creation of a na¬ 
 tional fund for the tribe, leaving due the 
 Cherokees $4,000,000, which should have 
 been paid them. Against that sum, at the 
 settlement, as per William L. Marcy, fraudu¬ 
 lent charges, by the agents and others, were 
 audited, amounting to $3,815,000, leaving 
 for the Indians only $184,071.28 of their 
 $4,000,000 under the treaties. Of course the 
 Indians demurred. An appropriation was 
 
 subsequently made of $1,256,500.27; and the 
 agents were instructed to demand from the 
 Indians receipts in full before the payment 
 of even that sum. The Indians were com¬ 
 pelled to submit. Thus, in the removal of 
 the Cherokees, under the treaties of 1835 
 and 1846, as per William L. Marcy’s settle¬ 
 ment, the Indians were deliberately robbed of 
 $2,743,499.27. 
 
 Under the same treaties, at the same time, 
 the Government was mulcted in a like sum. 
 The amount paid by the Government in the 
 transportation of the Indians was $2,915,- 
 
 141.58. An offer was made to transport and 
 subsist the Indians at $40 per head. Even 
 the Indians proposed to transport and sub¬ 
 sist themselves at the same rate—$40 per 
 head—which for 13,149 Indians (the number 
 charged for) would amount to $525,960, show¬ 
 ing a swindle, as compared with the amount 
 actually paid by the Government, of $2,389.,- 
 
 181.58. The records of the Indian office 
 show that the cop tractors charged for 1,633 
 more than were actually removed, which, at 
 $40 per head, amounted to $65,320. The 
 original contractors were compelled by the 
 Government agents to transfer their contracts 
 to second parties, and to the original con¬ 
 tractors were awarded as damages the sum 
 of $227,362.52. The records also show that 
 the Cherokee fund was defrauded by a citi¬ 
 zen agent of $68,145.64, and by two army 
 officers of $76,976.54, making the total fraud 
 against the Government $2,827,000.28. In 
 like manner the Choctaws were swindled of 
 $1,787,565.05. 
 
 To recapitulate: 
 
 Aggregate fraud against Gov¬ 
 ernment under the treaties of 
 
 1835-’46.$2,827,000.28 
 
 Aggregate fraud against Chero¬ 
 
 kees under same treaties. 2,743,499.27 
 
 Aggregate fraud against Choc¬ 
 taws... 1,787,565.05 
 
 Total. . .*7,358,064.60 
 
 THE MEXICAN WAR AND DEMOCRATIC CORRUPTION. 
 
 The Mexican war exacted an expenditure 
 of hundreds of millions and the lives of 
 25,000 of our citizens. Corruption in the 
 Government stalked unrestrained. The Eli 
 Moores, the Purdys, the Morrises, the Pat¬ 
 rick Collinses, the Beards, the Scotts, the 
 Kennerlies, the Denbys, and theWetmores— 
 a host of pillagers—Indian agents, sub-Indian 
 agents, contractors, disbursing officers of the 
 army and navy, navy agents, pension agents, 
 marshals, receivers of public moneys, com¬ 
 mercial agents, surveyors, inspectors, and 
 collectors of the customs, plundered their 
 million. 
 
 Under Pierce Washington “rings” rejoiced 
 
 *Tliese facts and figures are from official 
 statements and tables prepared at the Bureau 
 of Indian Affairs. 
 
I 
 
 a? 
 
 * 
 
 t 
 
 in mammoth fraud in the building of the 
 Capitol wings and in the extension of the 
 Treasury building, and were encouraged in 
 their pillage by Pierce’s ‘‘outlaws of the 
 Treasury.” The actual and proposed plun¬ 
 der was immense. The aggregate amount of 
 spoils proposed in the first Congress under 
 Pierce was estimated at three hundred mil¬ 
 lions !—$120,000,000 in obedience to the de¬ 
 cree of the Ostend conference for the pur¬ 
 chase of Cuba; $20,000,000 for the Gadsden 
 purchase, and so on in like acts—all for the 
 aggrandizement of slavery. 
 
 THE POSTMASTER GENERAL SWINDLES THE GOV¬ 
 ERNMENT. 
 
 The maladministration of the Post Office 
 Department under Campbell, Pierce’s Post¬ 
 master General, rivaled that under Barry 
 and Kendall. Even “the sale of letters and 
 papers was made an item of revenue.” 
 “Bank-bills, checks, and insurance policies 
 were sold in piles,” and a Connecticut mill, 
 buying two thousand of these, exposed the 
 crime. 
 
 PRECEDENTS FOR ROBESON. 
 
 Secretaries of the Navy anticipated Mr 
 Robeson in transactions now denounced as 
 crimes by the Democracy. Hundreds of 
 thousands of the national funds were in¬ 
 trusted to rotten banking institutions like 
 Fitch & Co.’s. But Judge Mason, styled by the 
 Union —the Washington organ of Democratic 
 reform—as “the accomplished and excellent 
 Secretary of the Navy,” reformed even upon 
 that. Nathaniel Denby was the agent of the 
 Navy Department at Marseilles, France. Os¬ 
 borne was a Richmond merchant. They de¬ 
 faulted for the sum of $159,433.67. At a 
 time when Denby had an unexpended balance 
 on hand of nearly $60,000, with no demands 
 for its use, Judge Mason deposited with the 
 Richmond merchant (Osborne) $100,000 for 
 the use of Denby. Denby had no use for the 
 money. He even, from his prison under 
 Fillmore, urged in extenuation of his default 
 that he had had no “advices” of this deposit 
 with Osborne. But Osborne says : 
 
 “These moneys ($100,000) I received as 
 [Mr. Denby’s] agent, paying interest for 
 them, and consequently, as would be in¬ 
 ferred from this circumstance, and also by 
 express understanding, had the use of the 
 funds until called for. All these funds were 
 in the hands of various European and Ameri¬ 
 can houses; and in consequence of their fail¬ 
 ures my losses were so great as to involve 
 my whole estate in ruin and leave me desti¬ 
 tute.” 
 
 THE CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING FRAUDS AND 
 OTHER PARTY SPOILS. 
 
 Under Buchanan, as under Jackson and 
 Van Buren, the revenue and the offices were 
 again the “spoils” of “The Party.” Loyalty 
 to the Administration, allegiance to slavery, 
 were the conditions of a division. The profits 
 of the Congressional printing were great. 
 
 The bills of the Printer immense. But the 
 profits of the Executive printing and binding 
 and the printing of the postal blanks were 
 enormous. Out of these profits—the news¬ 
 paper corruption fund, disbursed by the no¬ 
 torious Cornelius Wendell—presses like the 
 Pennsylvanian , the Philadelphia Argus , the 
 Washington Union , &c., received a sub¬ 
 sidy as a condition of slavishly support¬ 
 ing the Administration. Papers like the 
 Cleveland National Democrat were established 
 under the patronage of the Government by 
 office-holders for like purposes—the defense 
 of border ruffianism, Lecompton, and sec¬ 
 tional strife. The navy-yards, custom-houses, 
 and post offices were degraded into corrupt 
 party machines. Editors of servile sheets, 
 rendering to Government no service, were 
 borne upon their rolls, drawing pay—like 
 Baker, of the Pennsylvanian , and the noted 
 Theophilus Fisk, of the Argus , at Philadel¬ 
 phia; William M. Browne, of the Journal of 
 Commerce , at New York; Harry Scovel, of the 
 Free Press, at Detroit, and the Henry J. Al- 
 vords in other sections—men like Cummings, 
 at Philadelphia, pocketing pay in the name 
 of subordinates for which no services were 
 rendered; like Clements, at the Philadelphia 
 navy-yard, unable to write, but useful as a 
 politician, appointed and drawing pay as 
 clerks while working as bricklayers; like the 
 infamous Michael C. Murphy, a foreman in 
 the New York yard, and the principal in a 
 $35,000 jewelry robbery, retained as party 
 strikers. Fealty to party covered all crimes. 
 Swindling contracts, like the notorious live- 
 oak contracts to Swift, were awarded to party 
 favorites in payment of party services. Thou¬ 
 sands of dollars were regularly assessed for 
 party purposes, even three times in the same 
 year, upon the Departments at Washington, 
 upon the navy-yards, custom-houses, and 
 post offices throughout the country; even as¬ 
 sessments, in the form of contributions, for 
 the support of the organ, the Constitution. 
 Woe to the unfortunate wight who rebelled; 
 his independence was instantly rewarded by 
 decapitation. Office-holders were organized 
 into mercenary corps for the control of Na¬ 
 tional and State politics; and by wholesale 
 frauds at elections—by frauds upon the reg¬ 
 istry—by the issue and distribution of fraud¬ 
 ulent naturalization papers—by ballot-box 
 stuffing and frauds in counting votes, ena¬ 
 bled corrupt minorities to dominate for years 
 the intelligent majorities of the great States 
 of Pennsylvania and New York. Defaults 
 like Isaac V. Fowler’s, the postmaster at New 
 York, for $75,000, were but bagatelles com¬ 
 pared with Thompson’s and Floyd’s grander 
 system of pillage. The abstraction by Floyd’s 
 nephew, Godard Bailey, in 1860, from the 
 Interior Department, under Jacob Thompson, 
 of $870,000 of Indian trust bonds, and their 
 transfer to Russell, Majors & Waddell, upon 
 Secretary Floyd’s fraudulent acceptances, un- 
 
der a contract of that firm with the War De¬ 
 partment, and similar fraudulent acceptances 
 by Floyd, as shown by the records of the War 
 Department, to the amount of $5,-339,335, 
 aggregated a fraud of $6,137,395, to be borne 
 either by the Government or the holder. 
 
 THE INDIAN BONDS THEFT. 
 
 Under the numerous Indian treaties, up to 
 1861, with the Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choc¬ 
 taws, Creeks, and others, funds in large 
 amounts (held under the solemn pledges of 
 the nation in trust for those tribes) had 
 accumulated in the hands of the Secretaries 
 of War, Treasury, and Interior. These were 
 invested by Secretaries Woodbury and 
 Thompson in nearly valueless Southern 
 stocks and State bonds. Even the Smith¬ 
 sonian trust fund ($538,000) was sunk 
 with the rest. By Woodbury $1,744,166.66 
 were thus invested, upon which the Gov¬ 
 ernment has paid as interest $1,571,708. 
 Of this fund, under Buchanan, Secretary 
 Thompson invested in like stocks and State 
 bonds $1,970,800, upon which the Govern¬ 
 ment has paid as interest $1,575,435, all in 
 violation of law, and causing a total loss to 
 the nation of $6,862,109.66. 
 
 Hence,under Buchanan, under Democratic 
 reform, the loss to the Government by defaults 
 and fraud was $3.81 in every $1,000 collected 
 and disbursed; under Lincoln, but $0.76; 
 under Grant, only $0.34. Under Buchanan, 
 five times greater than under Lincoln. Under 
 Buchanan, over eleven times greater than 
 under Grant. 
 
 York, State of New “That for such ser- 
 York,whether derived vices the defendant, 
 from any kind of prop- Tilden, made a charge 
 erty, rents, interests, of $10,000 against said 
 dividends, salary, or second mortgage bond- 
 from any profession, holders, and the said 
 trade, employment, or charge was paid by or 
 vocation, or from any on behalf of said second 
 other source whatev- mortgage bondholders 
 er, from 1st day of Jan- on the 17th of October, 
 uary to 31st day of 1S62; * * * that the de- 
 December, 1862, both fendant, Tilden, for a 
 days inclusive, and part of his services 
 subject to an income aforesaid, also made a 
 tax under the excise charge of the like sum 
 law of the United of $10,000 on account of 
 States. Income from professional services 
 ail sources, $7,118.” rendered to the first 
 
 mortgage bondholders 
 and the receivers, 
 which was paid to him 
 by the said Azariah C. 
 Flagg; * * * and which 
 payment appears un¬ 
 der date of November 
 7, 1862, in a statement 
 annexed to the first re¬ 
 port aforesaid, as hav- 
 " ing been receipted for 
 
 by the said Tilden, ‘on 
 account of professional 
 services.’ ” 
 
 Is Mr. Tilden a willful perjurer ? And if 
 so, is he a fit person to be President of the 
 United States ? 
 
 DARE THE NATION TRUST SUCH A PARTY ? 
 
 Dare the nation again trust such a party f 
 In what have Republicans forfeited the con¬ 
 fidence of the Republic ? Shall Belknap’s 
 single crime—his sale of a post-tradership to 
 the Democrat Marsh — the only offense of 
 which it has been convicted—an accident, 
 i not the rule of its administration — blot out 
 
 Such is a brief history of Democratic re¬ 
 form—such the character of its public men 
 —not of one period only, but of its every 
 period, from its origin under Jefferson to its 
 close, in 1861, under Buchanan. Malad¬ 
 ministration, malfeasance, spoliation, corrup¬ 
 tion, and fraud—every vile administrative 
 crime—dominated amid executive usurpa¬ 
 tion and military tyranny, supported by¬ 
 laws outraging every human right. 
 
 THE DEMOCRACY OF TO-DAY. 
 
 Turning from the past terrible record of 
 the party, the question naturally arises: 
 “Has the Democracy, as a party, improved ?” 
 “ Is it the author of a single good act in the 
 last quarter of a century?” This question 
 has been asked before, but never answered. 
 Take, for example, the nomination of Samuel 
 J. Tilden for the Presidency: It is fair to 
 conclude that as is the man of their choice 
 so is the party he represents. One illustra-' 
 tion of his character for veracity is sufficient. 
 
 On December 26,1863, In bis answer to the 
 Mr. Tilden swore to a complaint in the Cir- 
 return, under oath, in cuit Court of the TJni- 
 whichnesaid: ted States in the suit 
 
 “I hereby certify of the St. Louis, Alton 
 that the following is and Terre Haute Itail- 
 a true and faithful road Company against 
 statement of the gains, himself and others, 
 profits, or income of which answer was filed 
 Samuel J. Tilden, of recently, Mr. Tilden 
 the city of New York, swore under oath as 
 and county of New follows: 
 
 ! its record of magnificent achievements—its 
 ! triumphant restoration of the Union against 
 the murderous efforts of the Democracy to 
 destroy it; its steady development and care- 
 | ful husbandry of the grand resources of the 
 Nation, increasing immensely the wealth 
 and happiness and comforts of the people ? 
 Even admitting Belknap’s Republicanism—a 
 mooted question—into what lilliputian pro¬ 
 portions, in character and degree, does his 
 | single crime dwarf before the greater and 
 more heinous villainy of the Democracy— 
 before those of its highest officials—its truest 
 representatives in office ; its Richard M. 
 Johnsons, Vice President of the United*States; 
 its Martin Van Bnrens and John Forsyths, 
 Secretaries of State; its Levi Woodburys, 
 Secretary of the Treasury ; its Lewis Casses 
 and John B. Floyds, Secretaries of War ; its 
 John Y. Masons, Secretary of the Navy ; its 
 Jacob Thompson-', Secretary of the Interior; 
 its William T. Barrys and Amos Kendalls, 
 Postmasters General; its Hoyts, Harrises, 
 
 [ and Boyds, whose maladministration and cor¬ 
 ruption stand without a parallel in history ? 
 A single crime—a comparatively petty of¬ 
 fense, by which the nation loses nothing, 
 not a penny—against a multitude by which 
 1 the nation has been pillaged of hundreds of 
 millions—aye,through the rebellion,of thou- 
 ! sands of millions !