The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-10-04
A Letter from Er.P. NJ. II. D, Shtr.



Editor RepositorG-The several letters
appearing in your last weeks issue COM
pei me to notice them.
1t may be proper here to state, l did
not intend to be an applicant for reap
pointment as Postmaster, as many OF my
friends remember, until after President
Haves's letter on civil service, which, l
with others understood to mean, the re-
tention of public officers, who had been
faithful and given satisfaction.
I have since had no complaint to make
because l was unsuccessful, except IN
the manner in which it was done. How
ever accepted the situation, believing
myself very fortunate to have held tne
Office eight years for which am entirely
indebted to my friends, and to them,
heartily express my thanks.
It Is asserted that these several letters
would not have appeared in print, If l
had made a public denial OF charge
made against Maj. Mckinley, in the
"ANDREw J." article, relative to fixing
price upon the Post Office. l state here
as I stated to Mai, Mckinley in his re-
quested interview, that | had not made
the charge and had nothing to retract,
that was not the writer OF the article
did not know who wrote it, and conse-
ouently not responsible for it. / had no
particular interest how much was writ
ten in denial of that article, unless GER
tain facts which had brought before
prominent business men Of Canton, for
advice, were disputed, of which Maj.
Mckinley had full knowledge and in
which event, he could not help but feel
that would defend myself, as any man
would defend truth. Among which facts
were certain propositions made to me by
T, w. Saxton and about which he volun-
teers his statement of our interview. A
duty now compels me to give state
ment and allow discriminating public
to Judge for themselves. Mr.. Saxton met
me at the Post Office upon his own APP
pointment and at his own request and
there introduced the subject OF the Can
ton Post 0ffice-by asking me to give a
position as Clerk to Mr.. Slanker his faith
er-in.law at $1,000 year. 1 declined,
and gave reasons, among other Things,
that Mr.. Slanker's services would not be
worth that amount in the Post Office
Then with long story he detailed the
dirty work he had done for the party and
the losses he had sustained from year to
year through many campaigns, that he
was entitled to something and If l con-
sented to give Mr.. Slanker $500 and him
(Tom) $400, l could get the re-appoint-
ment without any petition or turning my
hand.
A long and animated talk followed in
which 1 was told that Maj. Mckinley had
been at his house the two previous Sun.
days, and they had talked the matter
over and particularly impressed upon my
mind that he spoke from authority.
wish to notice few statements incon-
sistent with facts. First as to the McKin-
lev Saxton interview on the two Sundays.
Mai. Mckinley states in his letter, that l
did not charge shat Mr.. Saxton said that
1 Mckinley had any knowledge Of his
(Saxton's) propositions" l did emphat-
ically state to Maj. Mckinley all that Tom
said as stated above, and as the business
men of Canton know with whom he had
repeated interviews upon this subject. I
should take other smportant exceptions,
to his letter if space permitted-but will
proceed to notice few absurd conclusions
drawn in Mr.. Saxton's letter. You will
notice in Mr.. Saxton's letter in brackets
as lollowG Of / had had any idea Of
personal benefit it would have been much
easier and better to have arranged with
Mr.. Slanker to pay me, then it would to
divide the amount, as this anonymous
correspondent suggests That lOaS Toms
first move but declined to pay Mr.. Sian.
ker 81 900 year, as was first wanted and
then Tom came out on the other division
900 to 400. Closely following he char
ges me with q breach of faith, that l
pledged my honor to keep matters strict
iy private. But l ask for what should I
pledge roy honor and fix the seal of Sc.
cresy, if only, as he says, he asked me
for a clerkship.
charge Mr.. Saxton with first break.
ing the breach in coming out and openly
opposing me which he had agreed not 10
do. When l concluded 10 lay the whole