National Republican., 1877-11-02


tion of Mr.. SUMMERS service as it's chairman,
and that eight of them were acted upon and
approved within three weeks after the ap-
pointmcnt of his successor.
In referring further to this matter, Mr..
FISH says:
If 1t be true that Mr.. WENDELL PHILLIPS
hears of II now for the first time he has been
less acquisitive of information in that direc-
tion than he Is generally supposed to be as to
most matters. 1t is possible that Mr.. Phil.
LIPs may not have uttered all the inaccuracies
which appear In the report of his speech, but IL
he said, as he Is reported to have said, that
Mr.. SUMNER never was absent from the Sem
ate an hour he either spoke loosely of that
which he did not but ought to know, or he
spoke inaccumtely of what he did know. And
when he says that "Mr SUMNER told me (Mr.
PHILLIPs) In the last year of his life, 4 never
was absent an hour till the last twelve
months," he either misunderstood what Mr..
SUMNER told him, or convicts Mr.. SUMNER of
a statement which Is not true. Mr.. SUMNER,
IL Is well known, was absent from the Senate
for many weeks after the assault on him. He
made two voyages to Europe in 1857 and 1858
or 1859, and was absent from the session of the
Senate in the spring Of 1857, and from nearly
all, If not the whole, of the session Of 1858 and
1850. In a letter written on the eve Of one Of
his voyages he spoke of his vacant chair rs a
perpetual speech"
The attempt of Mr.. PHILLIPS TO blacken
the name of Gen. GRANT with the imputa-
tion that when he called on Mr.. SUMNER in
reference to the st. Domingo treaty, he was
in condition that his brain refused to per-
form its office, is met by Mr.. FISH promptly
and effectively. He says:
The only alleged grounds of the charge are
that Gen. GRANT addressed Mr.. SUMNER as
chairman of the Judiciary" Committee, in
stead of Foreign Relations" If every lawyer
or every judge who has at times misplaced the
words plaintiff and defendant is to he held
equally open to similar charge the reputation
of both bench and bar will sink very low. But
the charge, doubtless, was an alterthought,
when the freshness of the interview had been
displaced by the excitement of quarrel. Mr..
SUMNER narrated to me the incidents of the
interview and the conversation within day
or two after its occurrence, and, while he men
toned the misuse of the names of the COM
mittCes he made no suggestion such rs since
has been made. 1t was several weeks after
the interview that | heard of the present i'm
putation.
On the question of veracity Mr.. FISH
says:
Mr.. PHILLIPS was not present at the inter
view, and in all probability received whatever
of information he has on the subject from one
of the parties in diherence-and that one not
Gen. GRANT-and not until after the relations
between the two gentlemen had become
broken and bitter. Nevertheless, he PROCESSES
to remember the OCCASION and undertakes
to "rcctc it," and he recitcs thus:
"Mr. SUMNER received the treaty of san
Domingo from the hands Of Gen. GRANT, who
drove up to his door while he was sitting with
some friends at the dinner-tablc.'
Mr.. PHILLIPS is wrong. Mr.. SUMNER never
received the treaty or any copy of it or any
written documents relating to it from the
hands of Gen. GRANT. Gen. GRANT, at the
time referred to- had it not. 1t was in the
Department of State Proceeding with his re-
cital, Mr.. PHILLIPS says:
Hc SUMNER, said to the President, Il will
look at the bill"
1t was not bill y it was treaty" If
Mr.. SUMNER said what Mr.. PHILLIPS, who
volunteers rs his witness and advocate and
who professes to remember the occasion, de
clares that he said, ! insist that the confound-
ing of treaty with n bill is quite as strong
evidence that he who made the mistake was
iu no state TO understand anything" and that
his brain refused to perform its Office as
can be the substitution of judiciary" for
foreign relations"
In regard to the San Domingo treaty no
doubt can remain that Mr.. SUMNER prom
ised his support to it. Mr.. FISH asserts
that Gen. GRANT related to him on the day
following the interview the purport of Mr..
SUMMERS assurances of support to the meas
ure. Col. JOHN W. FoRNEY was present
during this interview, and after the cs-
arrangement of Mr.. SUMNER from Gen.
GRANT, and after his denial that he had
given to GRANT assurance of support of the
treaty, Col. FoRNEY addressed the following
letter to gentleman in Washington:
WASHINGTON, June 9, 1870.
MY DEAR GENERAL: l was present at Mr.
SUMMERS residence when Gen. GRANT called
and explained the dominican Treaty to the
Senator, and, although | cannot recall the
exact words of the latter. | understood him to
say that he would cheerfully support the
treaty. At the Presidents request re-
maincd to hear his explanation, and am free
to add that such is my deep regard for Mr..
SUMNER that his Endorsement of the treaty
went very far to stimulate me in giving 1t my
own support. | have already said this much
to Mr.. SUMNER, who, however, claims that
other information since obtained has shaped
his present action. Yours truly,
J. W. FORNEY.
This of itself is sufficient to establish the
fact that Mr.. PHILLIPS is wrong, and that
Gen. GRANT is fully vindicated on that point.