The democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1868-1874, 1872-08-12
Grnnt,s YeracItr.


LETTER PROM CARL scHURz.
The statement / made in my speech
at st. Louis concerning the patronage
in connection with the SantO Domingo
business has been represented as incor'
rect in n despatch Of the Associated Press
apparently inspired by the President
himself. It is now proper that ] should
give my authority for what / said. The
letter quoted iu my speech as coming
from the gentleman who had with me
the conversation referred to was al.
dressed TO ne by General Alfred Pleasan'
ton, late Commissioner Of Internal Rev
enue. 1t was written in reply to note
from me, Of the contents of which l have
IN emoandum which reads as follows
Ask Pl. whether he remembers con-
yersation he had with me concerning
Santo Domingo, in which he said that i
| would support Pres 1 could have all
the patronage 1 wanted, etc, And ask
him whether he was authorized by Pres.
to say so.
General Pleasanton's letter in reply to
this is quoted in my speech, and is as
follows
New YoRK, January %, 1872.
DEAR GENERAL Regarding the con-
versatiOn you refer to in your note, | re.
member it was with the knowledge and
consent and after l had conversation
with him (the President) that l called
upon you aud had the conversation you
spoke Of. My impression at this time Is
that the President desired your support
in his Santo Domingo scheme, and
wished to be OH such terms with you
that your support could be obtained.
do not now remember any particular
language used at my interview with the
President, and would not hazard doing
him an injustice by Attempting to quote
from memory, but the impression made
upon my mind by the interview wai
fixed and distinct. Truly yours, il
haste, A. PLEAsANToS.
have since received from Genera
Pleasanion the following note:
NEW YonK, July %, 1872.
DEAR GgSElAL: or course l have nc
objection to your giving my name to the
public. In explanation Of the facts
would say that, being friend Of the
President rs well rs OF yourself, / desired
you should be on good terms, and you
should understand there was no persona
feeling in the way Of relations mutually
satisfactory. Your statement is correct
that the President wanted your support
for his Snnto Domingo scheme, aud tim
You could have had the patronage Of the
Government for giving il. That was tlt
distinct impression the Presidents con
yersation made upon my mind, and
communicated 1t to you ut tho time. l
tho President positively denies having
had any such conversation, regret it
| may console myself with the reelection
that this is the first time TINT any state
ment of mine Inns been questioned, whit
the President has liad occasion befor,
this to distrust the accuracy Of his rccol
loctions. Truly yours
A. PLEAsASToS.
In Justice to General Pleasanton
must add that the drift Of what he SAT-
to mo is correctly stated in his note
When he found that l had conscientiou
objections to the Santo Domingo scheme
he urged nc no further to support 1t
He desired me to 20 and see the Presi
dent, to which l replied that If tht
President wanted TO speak with me oil
public business should consider 1t ny
official duty us n Senator to respond Z
note from him requesting me to call
And that was the end Of it, My recol
lection is that General PleasantUn init
mated to me at the time that he spok'
with tho knowledge and consent OF tht
President, l inquired about it after
ward in writing, for the purpose of citheI
strengthening or correcting my impres
sion concerning that fact.
Although the President recently con
descended in an interview with Herdi,
reporter to say that my opposition wa
owing to IN unsatisfed desire for patron
age, or words to tliat effect, had, NJ
will not now be denied, some excellen
reasons to think that II wanted patron
age / had very good chance to obtair
it, at the expense Of my conviction o
duty. Trnly yours, G. ScHuRz.