The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1872-08-01

MS mead line tells Inc STORY. Sena
tor Schurz In his recent St. Louis speech
charged that President Grant had dis
graced his Office not only by lobbying fol
the San Domingo villainy in which he
was believed to be personally interested,
but by offering to a Senator (Schurz him
self the disposal of patronage if he would
vote for the measure. Here is the charge
This is grave assertion, but have bet
ter reasons for it than mere suspicion. II
has frequently been charged that | would
not have made opposition 10 President
Grant could have had all the patronage ]
wanted. i never noticed the assertion ; but
when the President himself makes with re-
garc to me the same charge as he is report
ed TO have done in an interview recently
published, feel compelled to make a state
ment, which, but for this, / should probably
have withheld:
When the Santo Domingo scheme was
pending, two gentlemen in somewhat init
mate relations with the White House, came
to me, each one separately, soliciting my
support to the project, and telling me that
| could have ali the patronage ! wanted il
would aid the President. In January last,
having been slandered by the Administers
| ton press and tainted on the floor OF the
Senate concerning the motives of my oppo-
L
whether his remarks concerning the Santo
Domingo scheme and the patronage were
authorized by the President. | quote the
language of his reply referring to this sub
eet:
ARegarding the conversation you refer to
in your note, ] remember it was with the
knowledge aud consent and after | had had
conversation with him (the President)
that called upon you. and had the CONVEX
sation you spoke of My impression at this
Il
port for his San Domingo scheme and wish
ed to be on such terms with you that your
support could be obtained. j do not now
remember any particular language used at
my interview with the President, and would
not hazard doing him injustice by attempt
ing to quote from memory. but the impress
sion made upon my mind by the Interview
was fixed and distinct"
This statement seems to indicate that
had a good chance for more patronage than
ident at the expense of my convictions of
DUTY. If one of us was in the market it
was not /.
When this statement containing a
charge which if true entities the Presi-
dent to impeachment and removal, reach
ed Washington, Cabinet meeting was
called, and after deliberation, the Ad-
ministration published in its organs at
Washington and sent out to the country,
the following denial:
PRESIDENT GRANT AND SENATOR sCHURZ-
OFFICIAL PATRONAGE.
The charge made last evening by Sena-
tor SchurZ in his st. Louis speech, to the eff
feet that he had been offered official patron
age by President Grant or his friends TO
vote against his convictions of duty in re-
gard to the annexation of San Domingo,
was laid before the President by Secretary
Belknap, on Gen. Grants arrival here this
morning. The President pronounces the
whole statement as far as it attempts to re-
fleet on him, as absolutely unfounded in
fact. In no way was any one ever author
lied to tender to Mr.. Schurz or any other
Senator the control or use of any patron
age for his approval of the san Domingo
annexation policy, or any other measure of
this administration.
The President expresses his earnest desire
that MIR. Schurz will at once publish the
name of the writer of the letter he claims
to have in relation to this pretended prof
fer, in order that if any one has so imposed
upon the Senator it way lead to a full expo
sure of the dishonest motives and character
of such person.
Immediately on the appearance of this
Senator Schuz gave to the
public the following letter accompanied
by note of his OWN through the New
York Tribune, from Gen. A. Pleasonton,
of the U. S. Army and late
Commissioner of Internal Revenue:
1t was written, says Schurz, in reply to a |
note from me, the contents of which have |
a memorandum as follows: ASK PIP |
whether he remembers a conversation he |
had with me concerning San Domingo, in /
which he said that if | would support the |
President, | could have all the patronage |
etc.; and ask him whether he was
by the President to do so.' Gen.
Pleasanton's letter in reply is quoted in my
speech. / have since received from Gen.
Pleasanton the following note:
NEW YORK, July &c, 1879.
DEAR GENERAL: OF course have no OBJ
ectiOn to your giving my name to the pub
ic in explanation of tn e facts. | would say |
hat being friend of the President as well
IS of yourself, | desired you should be on
rood terms, and you should understand that
here was no personal feeling in the way of
citations mutually satisfactory; your state
nent is correct that the President wanted
our support for the San Domingo scheme,
nd stated that you could have the patron
ge of the Government for giving it: that
vas the distinct impression the Presidents
conversation made upon my mind, and [ !
communicated it to you at the time.
If the President positively denies having
ad any such conversation / regret it.
lay console myself with the reflection that {
MS is the first time that any statement of j
line has been questioned, while the Pres |
lent has had occasion before this to dis 1
-ust the accuracy of his recollection. II
Truly, yours,