Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-12-05
senator Carpenter and the New York
Tribune.

Yesterday we printed the correspondence in
the New York Times disproving the charges
made in the New York Tribune against Senator
Carpenter OF having been turned away from a
Long Branch hotel last summer for certain i'm
prophecies. Ore of these letters was the state
ment OF the room clerk at the Long Brauclr
hotel, George H. Fsrrar, who saws that Mr..
Carpenter was guilty OF TO improperly what
ever, and that he was sent with note of intro
ductIOn to another hotel, the Ocean House,
simply because there was vacant room at the
West End hotel The Tribune of Yesterday has
reply to the Times article, or rather to one
portion of it, the statement OF Mr. Farrar, who
Is denounced in characteristic Tribune style as
a"lar." To rebut Fsrrar's evidence the TIT
bEHe prints from the register OF the hotel the
smes of fifty four persons who were assigned
10 rooms after Senator Carpenter applied, and
'before the departure OF any train which cOuli
carry away any of the guests" The ffty-four
were az follows:
''Wm j. Biker and wife, two children and
servant, \. y, 40 and Al; Mrs. Samuel Riker,
three children, and two servants, III; Ia. j. C.
Philips, Philadelphia, 2I6, ). Arthur Joseph,
New York, 269; NJ. Jssmer, New York, 259;
Harmon W. Hendricks, New York, 276; A. j.
XaDderpoel, New York, PCS; F.: s. Garfield,
mold and wife, Brooklyn. 25s; Miss E. j. Arnold,
Brooklyn, 259; David Hays, st. Louis, Mo-, "a;
Miehelberg. New York, &c; Won Dornen, New
George ii. Sharpe, Kingston, 213; j. A. Bost
wick and wife, New York, "A and As; Mrs.
Provid, nee, X. l., II; Miss Davis, Providence,
X. l., IS; Miss Smith, Providence, h. 1, 10; Miss
Brandt. S31-lI6; A. Phillips, 2S5; j. Escobar
and family. New YORK, ~; 20; j. w. Glen
York, and Miss Bogart, New York; 22i; e. W.
Ingalls,, New York, 267; DIR. j. ID. Barnes.
Washington, ID. G., Surgeon General U. S. A,
2lI; Col. Frederick Wilmer, y. u, 275; James J.
Mnllin, Philadelphia, 2i7; James o. Flanagan,
&4; Lang Carpenter, East Orange, \. j., go;
W. II. Spinning, East Orange, \. j., go; James
Waterford, n. Y, $50; Mr.. and Mrs. John
lott, New York, IFS; George L. and William
Elliott, New York, 40; +. II. Schenck, New
York, 245.
The Tribune adds triumphantly and trucu-
lenty:
LESS than thirty names $780,
--.pvnter's, on that DAYS register. Here are
some ffty-four registered, and assigned to
rooms afterwards. We challenge Mr.. Carpen-
ter to find jury anywhere in the country who
can read this letter and this register, and not
pronounce this clerk liar, without leaving the
| box"
On the face this would really seem to be
strong evidence to weaken Mr.. Farrar's test-
| mony. but little closer examination shows
that it really corroborates his statement. Mr..
FarTar says, and his statement in this respect
is confirmed by the extracts from the hotel re-
gister, that it will be observed that nearly ali
the rooms assigned after the refusal of Mr..
Carpenter, ranged high in numbers, and were
apartments on the upper floor, or what is termed
the ''sky psTloI;" that these rooms contained
from two to four beds, and were occupied in
part by Others when assigned to those who ar
rived after Mr.. Carpenter. The rooms ranging
lower than the hundreds were apartments which
had been secured in advance by telegraph or
Mt arxuiga haIn To vha H.
remain Tor the season and were returning from
a brief visit elsewhere. In the latter respsct
the familiarity with which the names OF the
occupants of the lower rooms are reg stored add
great weight to Mr.. Farrar's explanation, for
we have, for instance. evan DOrnen," and
"Michelberg." with no prefix attached as
signed room 70. In rooms numbered 40 and Al i.
supposed to be eligible, are Mrs. Samuel Riker
wife and two children and servant. In number
ia, not so eligible, We have Mrs. Samuel
kiker, three children, and two servants.
Tier can be no sh ado OF doubt but hat these
ToomS were engaged in advance, as no thought.
ful he AL of family would send his wife, child
rem and servants to run uncertain room risks
At a fashionable summer resort in the height of
the season. In rOOH No. ii the occupants were
Edmund Davis and wife. In No. Is were Miss
Davis and Miss Smith, both under the protection
OF ;he occupants OF M nber eleven. This coming
together and the securing of desirable rooms .
also indicate the correctness of Mr.. Farrar's ex
planation that they were engaged in advance,
else. IA analysis of the rooms assigned after
Mr.. Carpenters refusal proves that out of the
whole number (i2) twenty six were numbered
between two and three hundred, and ineligible,
by reason of having several beds in them. OF
the lower numbers, il will be seen that they were
assigned TO families or those who eng aged them
| pre- yiously. Take the case of Miss Brant, who
| rs first given room 331 and is then removed to
| lac, on account, no doubt, of the former room
| not being such one as could, with propriety,
| be held by an unprotected lady.
The verdict of unprejudiced people will be,
I We think, thatthe Tribune has utterly failed TO
7 sus; ain the serious charges it made against
I Senator Carpenter, If il has nothing more to
offer IN evidence than its quotation from the
| West End Hotel register.