New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-12
THE CASE OF MIR. cox.
Fssm Our Own Correspondent

WASHINGTON, June 10, 1860.
The Hon. s. S. Cox of Ohio, and his friends,
complain that injustice has been done him in the
statements as to certain testimony before the
Coyode Committee communicated in my dispatches
to The TRIBUNE. As there was no such purpose
on my part, he is entitled to the following explana-
ton, which is published with the simple reservation
that il will be contrasted with the evidence which
is soon to be published officially, and which will
necessarily supersede oil opinions or specuatons on
the matter in dispute.
The public will understand that this statement Is
furnished by the parties interested, and therefore
must be accepted with that understanding:
The Ohio witnesses referred TO in The TRIBuNE dls-
patches from Washington, in the matter Of The ONO
Statesman were Mr.. Miller Of the present proprie-
tors, Mr. Smith ex,Edtor and Mr.; Gelger. Inc TWO
former state that the paper sgned by Gov hedn i
Miller and Cox which = ~es alleged transferred me
s5easesm0n from Douglas to buchanan, was not an
agreement or contract at all nor had II any such 90
iect. II was drawn mp in Washington to show Mr..
Smith at Columbus Its object was TO show Mr.. Smith
that Medary gave his good will to the purchase OF one
bali of the paper by Miller of Smith. Miller held
mortgage on Il and closed it up BY purchase. Medary
owned no part of IT, but Miller did not wish to take it
without Medarys friendship. The paper had reference
only to home difficulties 1t had no reference
to change in the political conduct OF The Statesman
The PAPER was atested by Cox who had no other in
erest in il than to witness the reconciliation. II had
no reference to pOst-oce blanks other patronage
The Statesman never got dollar OF that or any other
patronage, except lew department advertise
meDts. No one connected with the Administration
had any knowledge of the paper the transfer. The
paper was dated about June !, 1858. The Statesman
hid supported the English bin from its passage, but
was then and is yeta Douglas paper Itnever favored
Lfcompton There is nothing in this transaction to
mplicate either Medary Cox, Miller, or Smith. Mel
Their is there in the other testimony as 10 the POstOfce
at Columbus II il clearly shown that the reinstate
melt of Miller Postmaster was Dec. l, 1858; the
English bill passed in April 1853 The reappontment
of Miller was unexpected to him. and at first declined
lie accepted on Mr.. Coxs urging him, as be Cox
would Lame no one else. There was no vacancy in
the Post Office contemplated until Denvers resignation
and Medary's appointment TO Kansas aud no promise
OF undt rs,andiDg connected with Mr.. Coxs vote for
The English bill Tor Office patronage. Justice TO him
REQUIRES this statement. He held communication
with any one connected with the Administration during
it's pendency At one time he was inclined to vote
against IT, but it was changed to suit his views and
those of Gov. Walker whose advice determined his
eourse. II was fully testified that no money or other
corrupt Influences were used to aid bis election. Some
of the Lecompton voted against him.
The Committee concluded-Mr. Cox wished other
wise-to strike out all the testimony about him.