New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-07-27
SCHURZ VS.. GRANT.

HE PRESIDENTS CORRUPTION SYSTEM.
AsIGNIFICANr LETTER FROM SENATOR sCHUHz'
n me Editor OF The Tribune.
SIR: The statement made in my speech at 81.
Iouis concerning the patronage in connection with
te santo Domingo business has been represented
q incorrect in dispatch of the Associated Press,
APPARENTLY inspired by the President himself 1t is
low proper that should give my authority for what
said. The letter quoted in my speech as coming
from the gentleman who had with me the converse
ION referred to, was addressed to by Gen. Alfred
'leasonton, late Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Il was written in reply to q note from me, Of the
contents of which i have memorandum which
reads as follows:
" Ask III. whether he remembers conversation he
had with me concerning Santo Domingo, in which
no said that If | would support Pres. could have
all the patronage ! wanted, etc. And ask him
whether he was authorized by Pres. TO say 3d."
Gen. Peasonton's letter in reply to this is quoted
in my speech, and is as follows:
NEW YORK, Jan. %, 1917.
DEAR GENERAL: Regarding the conversation you
refer TO in your note, / remember it was with the
knowledge and consent and after had q converse
ton with him tthe President) that called upon you
and had the conversation you spoke Of My impress
sion at this time is, that the President desired your
support for his SantO Domingo scheme, and wished
20 be on such terms with you that your support could
Dc obtained. | do not now remember any particular
language used at my interview with the President
anu WOulu uOb uOlUP MN all IIJuhllCc ny az
tempting to quote from memory, but the impression
made upon my mind by the interview was fixed and
distinct. Truly yours, in haste,
.. A. PLEAsoNToN
have since received from Gen. Peasonton the
following note:
NEw-YoRK, July %, 1871
DEAR GENERAL: OF course have no objection to
your giving my name to the public. In explanation
OF the facts would say that, being friend Of the
President as well as of yourself i desired you
should be good terms, and you should understand
that there was no personal feeling in the way of
latlons mutually satisfactory. Your statement is
correct that the President wanted your support for
hs Santo Domingo scheme, and that you could have
had the patronage of the Government for giving it.
That was the distinct impression the Presidents
conversation made upon my mind, and commune
Gated 1T TO you at the time. If the President posi-
lively denies having had any such conversation,
regret it. j may console myself with the reflection
that this is the first time that any statement of mine
has been questioned while the President has had
caslon before this to distrust the accuracy of his
recOllections. Truly yours, A. PIEAsoNTON.
In justice to Gen. Peasonton must add that the
drift of what he said to is correctly stated in his
note. When he found that had conscientious OBJ
jectons to the Santo Domingo scheme, he urged me
no further to support it. He desired me to go and
see the President, to which replied, that if the
President wanted to speak with me on public bust
ness, should consider it my official duty as Sena
tor to respond to note from him requesting me to
call. And that was the end of it. My recollection
is that Gen. Pleasonton intmated to me at the time
that he spoke with the knowledge and consent of
the President. i inquired about it afterward in
writing, for the purpose of either strengthening or
correcting my impression concerning that fact.
Although the President recently condescended in
an interview with Herald reporter to say that my
opposition was owing to unsatisfied desire for
patronage or words to that effect, had, as will not
now be denied, some excellent reasons to think that
if wanted patronage l had very good chance to
obtain it, at the expense of my convictions of duty
Truly yours, C. SCHUM.
Neic- York, July 20, 1872.