The daily gazette., 1880-12-14
TUEsDAY. DECEMBER IA. Isss.
Tnn BArARD-CoNK1rse USrLEAs-


men; certainly to those of Senator
Bayard, In Delaware, that the difference
over what seemed small matter, should
have settled down to q question OF
veracity, likely 70 lead to further dis
cussion, If We are TO credit what we find
in the News from correspondent at
Dover. On Saturday no mention had
been made of previous correspondence
between Messrs. Bayard and Conkling,
and 1t was, therefore, somewhat OF
surprise to Mondays readers to find that
letters had been passed between these
gentlemen. The first from Mr.. Conk-
ling to Mr.. Bayard dated, Utica, Nov.
18th, 1880, and replied to courteousiy
on the 18th. This letter it seems to us
should have satisfied Mr.. Conkllng.
But it did not, and he wrote again to
Mr.. Rayard, under date Of the 18th oil
November. To this letter Mr.. Bayard
replied on the 21st of November.
These letters were published yesterday.
But Of their existence on Saturday,
when the letter signed by Messrs. Ar
thur, Oonkling and Boutwell,, vas issued,
nothing was known through the papers.
Mr.. Bayard's letter Of the 2lst is even
more explicit than his former one OF the
18th, and should have satisfied Mr.
Conkling. Hence IL seemed that Mr..
Conkling did not desire friendly set
tlement. But sought'to collect his col
leagues in the "Moiety business" and
made the publication Of Saturday over
all their signatures, which we published
on that day, and denied that Senator Bay
ard had used the words attributed to him.
On the evening of the same day Sena-
tor Bayard himself denied it to re-
porter IN Washington, and the denial
was autographed over the wires to New
York and elsewhere. In his letter OF
the 21st, to Mr.. Conkling, Senator
Bayard says:
The extract you sent me is untrue
and bslieve mahciOusly so, and can
sured me that you did not mean "to im'
ply that you supposed that | did oI
would make such an utterance, tha
any further statement than that contain
ed In my letter could be desired.
In that letter, l also expressed my re
gret If the slightest injustice had beer
done you, and that 1 should feel my
self bound to apply any proper remeu!
when any error had been pointed out Il
me.
Your letter in reply to this character
lies my statementas "neu quite dUer@
and erroneous" and subsequently tina
my "response consists of allegations IA
different, and though less injurious, offer
sive and untrue, basing them upon publ
cations OF which tyOu) have no know
edge"
The publications to which 1 made re
erence, of which you say you have I
know ledge, which relate TO your alleRt
connection with the case Of Phelp
Dodge & Co., you Will find in the test
mony of William e. Dodge, at page @
and of the Hon Noah Davis, at page 2
and 24S of House Miscellaneous Doc
msnts No. 246 of nrst session of Fort
third Congress. The statement of WI
lam z. Wood, l have already stated, "
published In the New York Sun of I
28th ultimo.
To your inquiry " heher l "wish
leave the matter here" | can only reI
that have no wish on the subject b
TO be juss to myself aud others; a
wherever that leads me | shall try 10 f
low.
Certainly any reasonable man oug
to be satisfied with thai. But Mr.. Cor
ling was not, and SO published the i
ter In the Press of Saturday, which
to the publication on Monday Of I
Whole correspondence.
1t will surprise many readers that \
Conkling should plead ignorance to
published testimony in Colgressiol
documents which Mr.. Bayard points
In his letter quoted above. The Phi
delphia Telegraph, Republican pap
says Mr.. "Conklng's Connection" W
the "Moiety business" twas notorio
and even less creditable than was
connection OF the Others" 1t is ?
sumed the matter will not be furt
discussed, at least for the prese
although correspondent Of the Ne
from Dover, attempts to prompt
Conkling and his friends to further
quiry by saying that the speech
taken down by competent ste
grapher.
The Press and public opinion is
cidedly with Mr.. Bayard, and the II
the matter is discussed the strorge
shows itself opposed to Conkling
Company.