“Now, one word more before I leave this question. I am glad the American people rose up in indignation against that salary increase. There were some unkind and unjust things said by the people in their uprising, but they rose against it and rebuked it with a power and might that has been of very great service to the country during the last winter. It could not have been repealed but for the rebuke of the people, and I could not have led as I did lead in more than $20,000,000 reduction of public expenses, if I had not felt behind me the weight, and help, and reinforcement of the indignation of the people in regard to that salary increase. I say it was an indecent thing to do, to increase the salary thus, and it was a great conservative thing for the people to do to demand its repeal; and it was repealed. But let us, in discussing it, deal with the subject according to the truth. I now pause to inquire if any gentleman in the audience has any questions to ask touching this salary, or any thing concerning it? If he has, I shall be very glad to hear it. [The speaker here paused, but no questions being asked, he proceeded as follows:] If not, I pass to the subject my friend over yonder seemed to be so anxious I should get to before I finished the last; and here I approach a question that in one sense is not a question at all, and in another sense it may be. I understand that several persons in the district are saying that Mr. Garfield has taken a fee for a so-called law opinion, but which, in fact, was something he ought not to have done—which was in reality a kind of fee for his official influence as a member of the Committee on Appropriations; or, to speak more plainly, that I accepted pay for a service as a kind of bribe, and that too, in THE SO-CALLED DE GOLLYER PAVEMENT.