New-York tribune., 1879-02-04
TIE LETTER OF GENERAL ARTHUR.

y
THE STATEMENT BY Mr.. SHERMAN.
GENERAL PRES, rI~rATCHI
W,srINGrav. Fen. 3-rhe following letter from
General Arthur 10 Senator COnkling read ~
.a cxecutIy, session OF the senate tins afternoon
NEwNoRK. Feb. !. 1879.
erp: Mr. shsrnals communication OF January 81,
1--e replying 70 my answer - his charges against me-
contain. SD lte that "a that DO not care, by the
rrce,utlton 10 the Committee on Commerce or the
SENATE of formal repy, to afford lin The p.elcyt or
DELAY which he so obviously seeks. may, however
w thout imrror riety call your attention personally 10
one or two uoints.
The chef characteristic ot Nj Shermau's reply rhc
care with winch ne avoids the real points. Thus
i.. enlarge. on the ilegahtv Of tue system Of
o., Tree pcrnits." but he csreully AVOID, referring
20 the fact that the acting Collector Is
bcrir, 10 the same system which existed while
70 office tha. De has issued more free permits monthir
han Lid. AID that Mr.. sherman furnishes him the
flank. yyLc D., for that purpose. Again he rc-
.r 10 tire ch r-"s tha the clerks employed in max
ir,up the statements for efuni- in certain class u
cases receive gruucs, but he does not refer 70 the
fact that caej nj. attention the practice iu prl
asst and that the clerks he stgmatzes as guilty
have Deeu ever since retained by MIN IN the Gus
toil House. So he enarges on the enormty
of IL. act> %: weigher but he fats 10 state that
every one Of the weghers whom he retained ia ose On
1p reduction Of the force those against whom be
now usc. these charges; that the charges and the
doucc v.r aik. known 10 him when he directed their
retention ami that the letter directing il he declared
hat the IRREGULARITIES they appeared 10 have committed
were pard enable.
In lr, manner while admitting that hp restored one
90. three ,uborduat,s removed for taking graiui-
cs ne careful 10 refer 70 the fact that De did not
restore hi- associates who were equally innocent or
guilty.
When referring 10 the investigation or the charge
,,.Ie b, tie senate Committee Of which Mr. BucEin.
nam was chairman, Mr.. sherman must have been "b-
Iyious OF oates. That committec commenced ~ IN
ye.tigatou within weeas Of my entering upon ihe
lcc OF Collector NJ administration was IN NJ rae
.I.r subject of it, examination.
Mr. sherman refers 10 the abuses which sDrans
ouf OF the "moirty system" but fah~ 10 stat"
liza, the CON plants against that system arose
chiefly from the acts Of members Of the cors OF special
-cur, whom he volunteers 10 defend Ihe Two laclFi-
mol ,... conduct was most severely Impugned hap
,. ~ ha. been precisely that one on whose charges
s.,,p-t NJ. Lydeckcr Mr. sherman now 50 greatly
rIos ana that other one who the controlling rle-
,,,ut IN tue MercIltA Commission, on whose report
with utter disregard to Is date hc claims 10 have acted
THE ACCUSED sCBoRDISATFs.
Az to Mr. Lydrckrr IL should be borne in mind that.
IN far As am concerned, the question A not wheiher IN
INTO of the rrpc tied dismissal OF the charges against
him by NJ sherman aud hi- predecessor he i no" 70
, i,.jqA Il gl.iy butts whether was Justified IN re-
o.. ...'. INN. in the service. Charges were made long
ef,re I became Collector against one VINO had D-'n
rn,.r!ya quarter OF century an ohccr of the Gus
t,, II l.c and lad gradually To the po'"IoH oi
Drpuy Collector. THey then Investigated ana ue
,Iared Il founded They were arerward more 'h1' once
r.y,evct and dismissed. Other charges were made
met t,,, for i, acts after became Collector. Thry
,re not otl. d.snis by Mr.. shcrman's Iredecesso
ana hs promo approved. but were also dshi ssr ~
Mr. q. rrau himsel Sho, after rsOna lHNes
II ted IL his letter Of June 80, 1871 40 not see a
II rnt cause fof Removal and thereafter "pIIoNed a. si'
VI store keeper whom hld removed i0E taxing 2relul
tes ana wlJ-r removal had been approved, MI oItI-
mn SAYS ina the s'orpkeepcr WIS " man of ulin-
.achahle CnarsctT' that he has Deth 10 thHt tue
lee pd WAS paIt OF is compensation Tor WEltng over
Dous There nothing 10 show mat he was oorr9p'
in i receipt Of Zee. and there orc revoAed MS d.
ru,s.," Bur "uuimpeachable character i good eA
ruse for KING whv Is u nOtlu the case OF
er4s employed IN making IN si"tentn DIS ior ulu
N Sherman with his personal acquaintance win one,
Al least OF these Will hardly venture to say that
M. character ls not unmpeacnaDe. Agin u Hls al
IN this taging gratuites that theY were
fszeu ia "cOm pensat!on for writing over hours Why