The Portland daily press., 1880-12-13
BAYARD AND CoNKhING.
Interesting Correspondence Relative t.
the Phelps-Dodge.


WARRINGTON, Dec. 1.-THE correspondence
Is made public between Senators Bayard and
Conkling regarding the publication In the
Philadelphia Press of an alleged report OF
speech by Bayard delivered in Dover, Del IN
which be is made to say that Messrs. Boutwell,,
Arthur, Conkling and Judge Noah Davis di-
vided amang themselves S267 600 refunded to
the Government by Phelps, Dodge & Co., on
certain undervalued invoices Senator Bayard
prefaces the correspondence with the state
wrote to the editor of the Press, in which he
stated the fasity of the report. Senator Conk-
ling on Nov 18th, wrote to Mr.. Bayard, call
ing attention to the report; and making inquiry
as to the correctness thereof To this Mf.
Bayard, Nov. 10Th, replied, saying in his re-
you send to me- appears sogross' inaccurate
as to cause belief that it could not have been
written by an honest person. remember
well speaking of the case OF Phelps, Dodge
Co. and the proceedings under which great
sum of money-$270,0 ,0OO-was wrongfully taken
from their pockets. described 1t and de-
nounced it in severe terms, the "moiety sys-
TEN" and the share which In this case accrued
TO the collector, surveyor and naval onncer ana
t. the informer (Jayne or Ayres), and stated
that the senior Senator from New York, Mr..
G ,nkling, was understood to have received
compensation as their counsel from Messrs
Arthur, Cornell and Latin for his services and
assistance in the transaction; also that my au-
thoriy for this statement was derived from a
document published by one OF the Houses OF
Congress, accompanied by testimony and state
ments made in open debate on the floor OF the
House, and never to my knowledge contradict
ed. believe also referred publication by
William P. Wood, an ex-treasury official
made in the New York Sun Oct q, 1880, CIV
ing his account in full of the case. This, be-
heve, to be the form and substance OF that
part of the speech in question which had any
reference to you or the moiety system. shall
be surprised to learn there is any error OF fact
in nv statement, and shall regret ii the slight
est injustice has been done to you, and If lere
has been will feel myself bound to apply any
proper remedy when my error has been de-
clared TO me-"
To this Senator Conklipg, under date of Nov.
II. writes:
Il read with surprise your letter of the 10Th
inst, just received enclosed you state
ment widely published in two newspapers OF
definite charges said to have been publicly
made by you, and made on your own knowl-
edge of the truth These charges were
of unlawful and criminal conduct, imputed
together to several persons of whom am one
asked you whether you made the statement
This would seem to call for formal dlsclaim-
er or or admission. You answer nothing as to
| any one concerned except me. AS to me your
denial is inferential by impeaching the hon.
esty of the reporter, and then you proceed
| with new and quite different and erroneous
statement, which you say you uttered as TO me
in the form of alleging what was understood.
Thus your response to plain and warran able
inquiry is one which does not meet the inquiry
but consists chiefly of allegations far different
and, though less in juriOuS, offensive and un-
true, basiDg them, you say, on publications.
and statements of which have no knowledge
Do you wish to leave the matter here? If you
think it deserves further attentit n will you
answer my question, namely, whether the pub
lished statement sent you in print was made
by you,"
Mr.. Bayard thus replied:
WILMINGTON, Del, Nov. 81, 1880.
Sir,-Your letter, dated the 18th and post
marked the 18th, was received this morning.
You sent me on the 18th an anonymous COM
munication cut from Republican newspaper
| in Philadelphia, purporting to be an extract
from public speech made by me at Dover,
near the end of the present canvass. should
not have considered a statement SO irreSpon-
sibly made worthy of notice, but as you did
replied to you instantly in spirit of courtesy
that had never before seen or heard of the
article; that it was so grossly inaccurate as to
cause the belief that it could not
have been written by an honest person.
of Phelps Dodge & Co., and mentioned you in
connection with it. went on carefully to give
you as fully as memory enabled me what
did say, which necessarily excluded what did
not say and included all of my speech which
h d any reference toyou or the moiety ques-
maliciously 80, and can but be surprised, as
your letters had assured me you did not can
''to imply that you supposed did or would
make such an u terance." that any further
statement than that contained in my letter
could be desired. In that letter | also ex-
pressed my regret if the slightest injustice had
been done you, and that l should feel myself
bound tp apply any proper remedy where any
error had been pointed out to me. Your letter
in reply to this characterizes my statement as
"new, quite different and erroneous" and sub
sequently that my response consists of alle-
CATIONS far different and, though less injurious,
offensive and untrue, basing them upon publi-
cations of which (you) have no knowledge !"
The publications to which made reference, of
which yon say you have no knowledge, which
relate to your allege, connection with the
case of Phelps, Donge & Co. you will find in
the testimony of Mr. William e. Dodge on
page 226, and of Hon. Noah Davis on pages 247
and 24S of The House miscellaneous documents
No 264 OF the first session OF 43d Congress.
The statement of William P. Wood, have al
ready stated, was published in the New York
Sun of the 28th utimo. To your enquiry,
"whether wish to leave the matter here"
can only reply that have no wish on the OBJ
iect but to be simply just to myself and others,
and wherever that leads. me shall try to fol-
low. Your obedient servant,
T. E. BAYARp