The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-10-07
1T is A LIE
Grant Says Parson Fowler Vio-
lated His Confidence.
And, What is More, MisrepreSented What
He Grant Said About the Charac.
ter of General Hancock.
The Elk President Hastens to Make
a Full Explanation and
ExpIodes the Lie,

CHICAGO, October 6-The story started by the
Republican press on the authority of DR., Fowler,
a Methodist clergyman, that General Grant in an
interview with him had spoken Of General Han
cock as a weak, vain man and had charged him
with being implica ed in corrupt transaction in
Louisiana state bonds, has come to grief at the
hands of General Grant himself who, in an in.
terView to-day, denied ever having made any such
statements. When the story first came out It was
received with incredulity by the public general.
ly, 1t being so entirely inconsistent with General
Grants character to speak In that manner Of a
brother officer. General Grant was in the city
to-day and being asked in regard to the mat.
ter said that he did have a private con.
versation with Fowler, the preacher In question
but Fowler not only violated his confidence 10
making It public but misrepresented what he
had said 1--WE had some conversation about
Hancock" remarked Gen. Grant but never said
any such things as DR.. Fowler says did aud
never thought Of saying them, cannot conceive
why Dr. Fowler should have thus m isrepresent.
ed me-"
you did not say then, that Gene raj Hancock
is vain, ambitious and weak and that he was
crazy to be President
mo, sir" replied Gen. Grant emphatically, "I
never said any such thing. What l did say was
that Hancock never thought much about the
Presidency until he received some votes in the
Convention of 1864 not one vote, as DR. Fowler
put 1t, and that afterward Hancock had the Pres,
idential bee in his bonnet"
Glow about the statement that Hancock was
weak and vain and complained that you did not
praise him enough p
"I lid not say that only said that Hancock
liked to be praised. My relations with Han.
cock we're cordial and after he was promoted to
he Major General he wrote me manly letter
saying that he thought would do him justice" F"
How about the Louisiana bonds2"
"Dr Fowler has that all wrong said nothing
at all about General Hancock having anything
to do with those bonds. never knew that he
had and have never had any reason to think he
had. There were only &OOO,OO9 while DR., Fow.
Ter says 81, 100000"
"You are made to say that the Louisiana com
missioners agreed to pay Reverdy Johnson $3.50 q.
900 II the officers removed by General Sheridan
were relnstated, and that President Johnson had
Hancock called to Washington to be instructed
with reference to this bond subject"
II never said that. l did not say the Commis.
soners agreed to pay Reverdy Johnson that sum
did not say that President Johnson called Han
cock to Washington to instruct him in the mat
ter. l did not say that Hancock knew anything
about those bonds and don't know that he did, l
never said word to Hancock about the bonds.
He removed sheridan's officers when he went
South and telegraphed his reasons which l did
not think satisfactory or political grounds. He
asked to be released and released him. That is
all said about It,"
"Then the part Of Dr. FIwlers story that makes
you reflect upon General HAncook'G personal in.
tegrity misrepresents youH"
ut certainly does" said General Grant with
emphasis II never said anything In any way
rejecting or intended 10 reflect on the character
Of General Hancock. The published interview
with DR.. Fowler misrepresents me entirely"
That General Grant should make this explicit
dlsavowal Of the sentiments attributed to him by
DR.. Fowler 40 more than meets the expectation
of his friends, who were surprised when the
statement first appeared that Gneral Grant
should make such baseless charges affecting the
character OF General Hancock. Much surprise is
expressed that DR.. Fowler should lend himself to
so vile piece OF partisan work as sending forth
the interview containing such fagrant misrepre.
sentatlons. The on explanation is that DR.. Fow.
ler who is bigoted partisan with strong tlnge
OF ianatieism in his nature, has allowed his zeal
to SO far outrun his veracity that the two have
lost sight OF each other The complete Iefutation
Of this exceedingly dirty campaign lie makes the
Republicans sorry that 1t ever was started,