The daily gazette., 1880-12-13

Conkling, Davis and Boutwell,, in a
letter to the Phiiadelphia Press, which
we published on Saturday. A Wash
ington correspondent says:
took copy of the newspaper TO
Mr.. Bayard this morning, and called
his attention to it. The Senator, in re-
ply, after reading the article IN the
National Republican, said:
"The statement referred to as having
been published In the Philadelphia
Press of October Goth, and i'll the state
Sentinel at Dover, were never heard Of
by me until the 10Th Of November, and
then settled the fact that had made
no such statement by saying they
were false, and | resented the imputa-
tion that had at any lime made such
charges. 1t is not necessary for me at
present to comment on the publication
in the National RepubIican, which you
have just shown me.
1t is a little odd to witness the mode
adopted by these gentlemen to seek a
retraction. OF course the mass of men
admire discretion. But we cannot un-
derstand why four distinguished gem
tlemen who know Senator Bayard 50
well, should unite in.publishing card
over their signatures, when the mere
mentioning OF the matter by either of
them ould have resulted in the Sen
ator's making an immediate discliam-
or.
We referred to this matter on Sat
urday and then said it was an easy
thing for reporter to err in taking a
speech in the open air, and We find a
Washington correspondent to the n
Y. Sunday World, elaborates this sug-
gestion quite fully. He says
In view OF the denial long since made
the editorial In the Press, calling upon
Mr.. Bayard for explanation or retI action
is regarded here as little short of clap
trap and Impudence. The case Is sim
pie one. Mr. Bay ards speech Was de-
livered in October last at an outdoor
meeting in Dover. II was clustering
day, aud there were no accommodations
Cor reporters at the meeting. So II any
attended they either charged their mem
o. les with IL or took notes under cream
stances that would make the accounts
Of what was said but little more trust
worthy than had they written them from
memory. Mr.. Bayard saw no report VI
the speech and no comment upoI ii un-
Ill the 10Th OF November, when he was
shown an extract from the editorial In
the Press, which is embodied in to-day's
card. Then, TO the person who showed
the extract to him he made prompt and
repeated denials OF having used the Ian
gua2e imputed TO him aud denounced
that language as both false aad male
ious. There Is the strongest reason TO
believe, as said above, that the fact and
the terms of the denial were at ouce
communicated TO the editor Of the Press
aud TO one of the signers of the card.
1t is true that Mr.. Bayard did not write
The denial for the columns Of the Press
but Probably none Of the signers would
impale him for not sharing their mani
fest opinion that the Press is the best
medium of public communication.
What Mr.. Bayard did say was based
upoI. a matter Of public record. In the
days of moieties he was one of the
strongest opponents of the system and
his efforts toward destroying it in pur-
suance of which he spent great deal
of time in New York in 1871 and 1872
we're shown subsequently to have been
effective.
1t now seems that there had been q
correspondence between Messrs. Bay
ard and Conkling as early as the 15tl
of November, which was brought ou
in this mornings paperSi and will b,
found elsewhere.
1t will be seen that Senator Bayart
has made every denial that an honora
: BILE opponent should demand. In 10
ferring te the matter to-day the Pmla
delphia Times, speaks very clearly it
opinion of Mr.. Conkling's course il
f this affair. After saying to Mr.. Bay
ards " very courteous letter Mr
Conkling replies in the tone of til,
bully" it adds:
; If Mr.. Bayard's disclaimer had no
a appeared" whose faul' was itS
= had been in Mr.. Conkling's possessio
for at least two weeks, and Mr.. Bay
D ard further states that "Mr. +. A
n Burr, one of the editors of the Pres
!, had received in Philadelphia lette
from me prior to November 20, i
. which | stated the falsity and malic
II of tho report of my speech at Dove
!, which had been published in the Pre-,
= of October 49," And yet, in the fac
of all this, Mr.. Conkling writes, Il
o friends sign and the Press approving
! ly prints this extraordinary attaC
@ upon Nj. Bayard, denouncing as "
N wilful and wicked falsehood" a stat
ment which Mr.. Bayard himself a
g ready had repeatedly disavowed. II
n Press, oil course, will gladly CORE,
+ it's error, but fer Mr.. Conkling the
is no escape from ihe deplorable pos
lion in which he has placed himself. :
~ Worsted IN his correspondence wi
D. Mr.. Bayard, and daring not to purs,
N discussion which could only pro,
=, injurious to himself, he has sought
rufaan's revenge, and, relying up,
J. Mr.. Bayard's indisposition to person
If controversy, has sought to "get ever
III by calling names. He has not hu
h Mr.. Bayard, but he has convicted hil
y. self of tho most deliberate and shan
o. less piece of classification that Sen
" tor of the United States ever stoop
lg to-"