The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1872-08-02

IN German Official circles We con-
clude by quoting the following par
ragraph from Count "Bismark's i'm
mediate organ" the ProUincial Cor
reipOndenz and commend it to the
perusal of every German citizen in
the country
eve notice with intense regret that certain
politicians and newspapers in the United
States are unscrupulous enough to AIRY the
German voters in that republic against Pres
ident Grant on account of the course he pur-
sued toward Germany during our war with
France. We have said it before, and we re-
peat it now: This government has found no
fault with the conduct of President Grant to-
wards our country during the war. On the
csntrary, he has given US many and valuable
proofs Of genuine sympathy for our oauseS
Schurz and Pleasanton versus Grant.
In his speech at st. Louis last
week, Senator Schurz came out with
the declaration that during the de-
bate on the San Domingo question,
General Grant had directly offered
offered him (Schurz) all the patron
age he wanted if he would abandon
his opposition and support that
scheme. On learning of this declar-
alton President Grant Immediately
authorized an explicit and full de-
NAL, and challenged Senator Schurz
to produce the name of the gentle
man or gentlemen whom he repre-
sented as having spoken to him for
the President in this matter. Mr..
Schurz therefore addressed the gen
tleman in question for permission to
use his name in confirmation of
what he (Schurz) had said, and on
receiving permission disclosed the
fact that the person in question was
General Pleasanton. former Commits
sioner Of Internal Revenue, whose
resignation the President had been
forced by public sentiment to de-
mand for, the good of the service.
The correspondence between Schurz
and his hacker, Pleasanton, is as fol-
lows: First, Schurz to PleasantOn,
through some third party not nam
ed:
"Ask PleasantOn whether he re-
members the conversation he had
with me concerning San Domingo,
in which he said that if 1 would sup
port the President l could have all
the patronage 1 wanted, ETC., and ask
him whether he was authorized by
the President to do So"
Second, Pleasanton to Schurz-
the original letter quoted by the lat
ter in his st. Louis speech:
"Regsrding the conversation you
refer to in your note, 1 remember it
was with the Presidents knowlege
and consent, and after I had had a
conversation with him, that 1 called
upon you and had the conversation
you spoke OF. My impression at
this time is that the President de-
sired your support for his San Do
mingo Scheme, and wished to be on
such terms with you that your sup
port could be obtained. l do not
now remember any particular Ian
guage used at my interview with
the President, and would not hazard
doing him an injustice by attempt
ing to quote from memory; but the
impression made up my mind by the
interview was fixed and distinct
The statement seems to indicate
that had a good chance for more
patronage than 1 wanted, had l con-
cluded to serve the President at the
fmy convictions of duty.
If one Of us was in the market it was
not l."
Third, PIeasanton to Schurz, in
confirmation of the above and as JUS
tifying and backing the declaration
of Schurz's st. Louis speech:
''NEw YORK, July 25, 1872.
"DEAR GENERAL-Of course
have no objection to your giving my
name to the public. In explanation
of the facts, would say that beings
friend of the Presidents, as well as
of yourself, desired you should be
on good terms, and you should un-
derstand that there was no personal
feeling in the way of relations natur-
ally satisfactory. Your statement is
entirely correct, that the President
wanted your support for his Santo
Domingo scheme, and that you could
have had the patronage of the gov
ernment, for giving it. That was
the distinct impression that the Pres
idents conversation made upon my
mind, and l communicated it to you
at the time. If the President posi-
lively denies having had any such
conversation, I regret it. 1t may
console myself with the reflection
that this is the fist time that any
statement OF mine has been ques-
toned, while the President has had
occasion before this to distrust the
accuracy of his recollection.
"Truly Yours, PLEAsANToN."
This is the whole case on the side |
Of Schurz and Pleasanton, started |
on their own words. On the other
hand, President Grant explicitly
and emphatically declares that he
aeUer authorized any one to offer
ScbUrz or any other Senator the dis
OOsaL Of any office or patronage lohat-
sUer, IN consideration of hts support
;aa the San Domingo scheme, Now
what is the truth between these diff
5erent and opposing allegations?
Mr.. Schurz's 8 witness needs cross
examining, for when closely scanned
his testimony is of the most vague,
general incredible and inconclusive
character. 1t consists altogether of
and deals scarcely at
Ill in facts. The only facts estab-
ished are that Pleasanton tried to
Schurz to support the San
Domingo scheme, and represented
o him that if he would do so he
Schurz) should have all the pat
onage he wanted; and further, the
act that the President did not send
0leasanton to Schurz, but that Pleas
.ntOa oficio1SsJy TOOK that task upon
unset. 1t is warrantable, there.
ore, to infer that in his talk with
'churz, Pleasanton assumed to speak
or the President wholly without
or authority from him.
'he most that Pleasanton can say is
hat his call on Schurz ''Ras with the
B.DO,yIeoI0e 0yld consent -