Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-02-06
MORE STATES EVIDENCE
WH4T FOSTER IND CHANDLER SIR.
Some Interesting Talk About the Burke
Matthews Charles Fosters
Recollections of the Little Game--Chan-
dler's Pregnant Comments Thereon.
Washington Post. |

Nli. SUal1cy IOSCcI, VI Ou1O, W OSt lutcI-
viewer. sthat was not invited to that con-
ference at Wormley's. got there by acct
dent. It was intended to invite me, but |
didn't get that invitation somehow, and only
dropped into the conference when its object |
was explained to me.''
''What was that object?"
"Oh! to talk over matters. It was not
with view to any contract or bargain, and
neither was contract or bargain made.''
'.Who were the conferees?'
swell, Henry Watterson was there, and
E. John Ellis, of Louisiana, and John Sher-
man, Stanley Matthews, Governor Dennison,
General Garfield, Major Burke: and one or
two others, I don't remember just now who
they were."
"Whom did you personally representa-
81 didn't represent any one. l got there
by accident, as tell you, and took but little
part in the business
GLOW long prior to that conference had
you received letter from Mr.. Hayes?'
''Not long. l don't remember the dates,
but it was long between the receipt of the
letter and the conference"
'What were the contents of that letter?''
'Oh! 1t was only letter congratAlating
me on my speech and stating that my views
on the withdrawal of troops from the South
ern States were in accordance with his
own.'
did he make any contingent promises in
that letter."
''None at all.'' He said, If in the end the
result is favorable, your understanding of
my position will be found to be correct
That is all can remember of it now.''
Sid you show that letter to any Southern
people?'
II think did,
''To whom?"
II showed it to Gambler of Georgia; Ben
Hill, Levy, of Louisiana; j. Young Brown,
Faulkner, of West Virginia. Abram S. Hew-
lit, Henry Watterson, Major Burke, and
think to Alexander H. Stephens also.''
'Did you show these gentlemen the letter
before the conference!"
Eyes, it was prior to that meeting"
s'Did not Major Burke read paper at that
conference?'
81 think he did,
"What was its nature?"
"My impression is that he read q docu-
ment, pledging the Nichols government, if
it were sustained, to protect the Republicans
of Louisiana, and to insure them peace and
happiness in that State.''
"Do you remember any further terms set
| forth in that agreement"
SIT was not an agreement, there was no
bargain. The paper simply set forth what
Nichols was willing to do
'.Were you satisfied with the PROPOSE
tion?''
swell, thought it was more than he
ought to do
= Il g.
with the paper?"
Il don't remember that any one did?''
Didn't General Garfield say that he was
not exactly pleased with it, or some portions
of it?''
::Not to my recollection
"What was said by the Republicans pres.
ent?,'
81 don't think they said much of any
thing. Burke read his paper and did all the
talking"
"And the Republicans sat around and lis
tened, taking no part in it?''
s'Pretty much SO, yes
':And tbs conference followed closely upon
your exhibiting Hayes letter to the South
ern Democrats"
81 don't remember the dates, but I think
it was soon after"
Sand you merely met to hear what propo
sition Major Burke had to make?"
sit was not a proposition; it was merely ;
suggestion"
"And you merely met to hear what sugges
ton Major Burke had to make?''
:'We went to hear what he had to say.''
ssMr. Foster, wasn't that conference baset
entirely upon the letter written by you tx
Mr.. Hayes:"
..No, can scarcely say it was. That lette
merely expressed Mr.. Hayes views, and au
thorized no bargain, nor was any bargain
made I'll tell you what to do See Mr.. A.
Buell.. explained the whole matter in full
to him, and he knows more about it thai
any man can think of. Ask him about it,
s'Did the paper read by Burke come up t.
the point in Hayes letter?''
.'The paper simply suggested what Nicholl
would do if he were sustained
"And the letter simply suggested that
, the result were favorable to Hayes your ur
tderstanding of his position would be foun
r be correct, and that understanding wa
} that the troops would be withdrawn fror
the South?"
"Something like that; yes"
''And yet there was no bargain?"
''No; there was no bargain at all. Burke
paper was not signed by anybody, and n
D agreement was entered into"
8 at was laying down of platforms O.
both sides?'
'sAs much that as anything"
.To the complete satisfaction of all con
9 cerned?"
S 81 don't think any satisfaction was ez
: pressed. I don't think anything was sal
j, one way or the other.
g Mr.. Foster was extrrmely anxious to i'm
}. press his interlocutor with the idea thu
| there was no contract or bargain but wit
o all respect to Mr.. Foster, there are peopl
Il who fail in all efforts to separate the lette
!. from the conference, and Burke's represents
ton of what his side proposed to do.
f WHAT WIN. E. CHANDLER SAYS.
q During the evening the interviewer slashe
(, around through the mud and slush in scare
$ of Mr.. VIM. E. Chandler. He holed tn;
/ gentleman in the Unitarian church, corner
e and Fourteenth streets, and surrounded /
e peaceful influences of the sociable and san,
eel wiches. and soothed by the notes of the O
d gan, he went for William, and had speec
with him.
.Wel, this is remarkable statement
said Chandler, as he read Fosters intervie
through. "He admits having letter fro
. Hayes; that he showed it around, and tn
:, the conference followed close after-no,
y there was more than one conference, and
one of them Burke read memoranda
g which clearly set forth the understanding
81 both Sides
g "Was that memorandum signed?r
8 "Not by the parties to it. John Sherm;
and Stanley Matthews refused to sign it, b
]. it was understood to be the outline of t
- agreement entered into, and Burke held it
- SUCH,
III