This judgment may or may not have been correct.

The procurement irregularities were real — Parker did authorize purchases through channels that bypassed standard competitive bidding.

Whether those irregularities were justified by the circumstances, or whether they reflected administrative shortcuts that could have been avoided, is a question on which the historical record does not provide a definitive answer.

What is clear is that the investigation of those irregularities was heavily influenced by the political interests of Parker’s opponents.

The men who brought the charges before the House committee included individuals who had lost patronage appointments under Parker’s reform efforts — people with personal and financial motivations to see him removed from office.