The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1880-10-15

man ambitious TO do his duty as al
officer, but in 1864, when Mcclellan Wa
nominated, Hancock received one vot
and that greatly excited aud changes
him. He was SO delighted that he smil
ed all over. 1t crazed him. Before tina
we got on well; after that he woulG
hardly speak TO me. / was working 4
enforce the laws of congress. and he wa
working for the presidency. Perhaps h
thought / did not praise him enough
but anyway, he hardly spoke to me.
said, substantially, that up TO 1854 dit
not suppose. Hancock had thought o
the presidency, but at the Democrats
convention of that year he got vote
not one vote, as DR.. Fowler has it
which makes me imply that he got tn
support of but one delegate-and from
that time he has had the presidential
bee in his bonnet. When / met him nj
terward his smile was SO broad that yol
could almost see 1t when his back wa
turned do not know that / said IN
thought did not praise him enough
though possibly that may be the fact
Hancock is a man who likes to heal
himself praised, and sometimes com
planned that he was not compliments
hardly enough"
How about his promotion ="
az stated to DIR. Fowler that Hancocl
was promoted to a brigadier and a ma
jor general in the regular army on my
recommendation. / recommended him
and Sheridan at the same time. Han
cocks appointment was made at oncs
but Sheridan's was delayed for a time
One of Hancock's promotions was made
after the war, and / think it was after tho
Chicago convention that he was made q
brIgadier. When l recommended him
for major general he had been very cold
toward me, and had not spoken to me fol
long time. / never knew what was the
matter, unless he thought had not con
suited him in making his assignment
and duty when promoted. However, he
wrote me manly letter in which be
said substantially that he believed he
was entirely indebted to me for it
Though he had thought l was not vii.
ling to do him justice, this convinced
him that he had been mistaken. lie
was made major-general wher / was
made general"
Is there any other point in which the
doctor is mistaken ?'
ayes; he does not get hold of the
points about order No. 40 correctly. By
the various reconstruction acts, congress
for consistency's sake, suppose, strip
ped me of all authority over the district
commanders in their civil duties, except
in the matter of appointment and remov.
al of civil officers in the reconstructed
states. As l was senior, my authority
was superior to others. DIR. Fowler
quotes me as saying that the Louisiana
legislature passed a law authorizing the
issue of seven millions of levee bonds
This I may have said, but if did it was
a mistake, the amount being four mil.
lions. In regard to the statement, also,
that the Louisiana commissioners agreed
to pay Reverdy johnson and other law.
yers two hundred and fifty thousand dol.
lars, stated what understood and not
fact within my own personal knowl.
edge. The next paragraph of DR.. Fow.
ler's report is wide of the mark. /
am made to say 'he (Johnson) called
Hancock to Washington to instruct him
in defeating the laws of congress- / OF
course do not know why he called him.
I could only surmise. I know Hancock
came. A mistake also occurs in the fol-
lowing paragraph wherein l am made
to say he went south and removed the
governor and commissioners that Gen.
Sheridan had appointed ! instantly
telegraphed him not to appoint to office
any more who had been removed, and to
the men. When Hancock went south i
published an order prohibiting hum
from appointing any one to Office who
had been removed, by his predecessors.
This, I suppose, he did not like, but my
object was to prevent the possibility of
the men being put in place who had ar
ranged for the negotiation of those
bonds--even for one hour. had intend
ed to tell Hancock all about it, as l
had johnson, but seeing, during
ny interview with him, it was
not going TO please him, did not tell
him. After he had been down south
some time he made pretty clean sweep
of the officers who had been appointed
by Gen. Sheridan. I then telegraphed
to him to suspend his orders OF removals
and report to me by mail. There was
an order existing, if I remember Alright
prohibiting the use of the telegraph
when the mail could be employed. He
replied in very long dispatch covering
if remember correctly about $50 words
/ informed him I was not satisfied, but
if he had any further reasons to com
municate to do so by mail. He replied
by telegraph, but gave nothing new, say
ing simply that his usefulness would be
destroyed if he was not left free to act
that unless he was left free to act he
should ask to be relieved. ordered hin
to revoke his order making removals
and to make no more, wheI
he asked to be relieved, and
l relieved him. always
regarded his mere declaration, in ordel
No. 40, that the military should be sub
ordinate to the civil power, as something
that everybody accepted and nobody dis
puted. AS officers we were sworn tt
obey our superior. Congress was oul
superior and made the laws, and othel
laws made the military subordinate. W.
were acting under them. But his order
or his construction of his order, made
the laws subordinate to his Owl
opinions"
WASHINGTON, Oct 6.-The entcrvicv
of the Rev. G. II. Fowler with Genera
Grant, in explanation OF Gen. Hancock
order No. 40. has created great excite
ment among the Democrats here. On
of the prominent leaders about Demo
cratic headquarters said that it was ;
most atrocious insult to Gen. Hancock
However, none of them undertook Il
dispute the historical value of Genera
Grants statement. This interview illus
trates Gen. Grants wonderful memory
| for of course he had neither the record
| of this informal conversation. 4 gen
| tleman who has recently read all the Of
| fetal correspondence and kilograms o.
| file here between Gen. Grant and Ger
| Hancock relative to New Orleans ms
| ters, says that Gen Grants statement
| sustained by the record, so far as it is
| matter of record, in every particular
| The kilograms TO which Gen. Grant II
/ fers as having been SO expensive, whlc
/ Gen. Hancock sent in reply to a simpl
/ inquiry of Gen. Grant. are on file at Ia
| war department, and the telegraphic CO;
marks on them agree exactly with Gel
Grants memory of this little detail.
THERE IS ANOTHER CIRCUMSTANCE
| in connection with the seven millio
dollars ievee bond story which the pull
LEGATION of Gen. Grants interview hs
brought forth, that otherwise would hav
been forgotten. II is remembered that
gentleman formerly in the employ {
John w. Forney, at the time the latte
| was editor of the Chronicle in this cit
said that about that time John w. FO
1 ney was understood to have receive
1 500 600 in these levee bonds, on accouI
partly of his influence in the Chronicli
and possibly in part for, distribution, a
though it is not known that any distr
button was ever made, and that Forae
in some way came in possession of theI
through friends of Gen. Hancock. Ina
much as John w. Forney has never az
counted for the $4,000 testified To hay
been paid to him in connection with til
Pacific Mail lobby, the receipt of whic
has not been denied, il is possible tn;
he will not take any notice of this bon
story, bat if this statement is true, Il
reason why John w. Forney became s
enthusiastic biographer of Gen Ha
cock is possibly discovered. If Shei
dan had not removed those officers Flo
ney,sbonds might have brought par
i Badly Torn Up.
4 NEW YORK, Oct S.-Nothiug has o
CURED since the beginning of the car
paign to stir up the public mind here
much as the publication of Gen. Grant
estimates of Hancock and the history
the origin of his famous order No. 40,