Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-12-16

letlVf never knew that any report had been
made OF Published.
The Press. from which YOU tell me Won cut
the extract, is y Philadelphia paper. and the
Sentinel il published in Dover. Both are Re-
publican in politics, and have never seen
copy OF either during or since the canvass.
Heading for the first time the extract you
send me. ltappears to me so grossly inaccurate
as to cause the belief that ii 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 s270, ,0OOJ
was wrongiully taken from their pockets. /
described and denounced in severe terms tho
''moiety system" and the share which ia this
case accrued to the Collector, Surveyor and
Naval Officer and the infurmcr (Jane or
Hervel, and stated that "the senior Senator
from New York, Mr.. Conking, was under
stood to have received compensation, an their
COUNSEL from Messrs. Arthur, Cornell and
Latin for his services and assistance in the
transaction also, that my authority for this
statement was derived from document pub
lishcd by one Of the houses of Congress-
accompanied by testimony and statements
made III open debate on the floor of the House
and never to my knowledge contradcted
] believe also referred to publication by
William p. Wood, mn ex-lreasury official.
made i'll the New York san, October 27th,
1880, giving his account in full of the case.
This. | believe to he the 'FOrm and sub
stance of that part of the speech in question
which had any reference to you on the
mOiety SYSTEM
shall he surprised to learn there is any
error OF fact in my statement and shall regret
If the slightest injustice has been done to
yotl, and, If there has been, will feel myself
bound to apply any proper remedy when my
error has been disclosed To me. Your
ubcdient servant I. 4. BAYARD.
The Hon. Roscoe COnklimg, United States
Senator, Utica, n. y.
Urea, n. y. Nov. II, 1880 DEAR SIR:
read with surprise your letter of the ljtn
inst. just received. incl0sed you II state
ment widely published in two newspapers Of
definite charges sail to have been publicly
made by you, aud made on your own knowl-
edge of their truth.
These charges were of unlawful and crimi.
nal conduct imputed together to several per
SONS OF whom | am one. | asked ypu whether
you made the statement. This would seem
to call for II frank disclaimer or admission.
IOu answer nothing NJ to any one concerned
except me as to mo your denial is inierental
by mpeaching the honesty Of the reporter,
and then you proceed with new, quite diff
fcrcnt and erroneous statement, whit Ii you
say yOu uttered aS to me IN the form of
alleging what ''was understood
lhus your response to plain and warraut-
able inquiry is one which does not meet the
inquiry, but consists chiefly of allegations far
different and, though less injurious, offensive
aud untrue, basing them, you ray, ON publi-
cations and statements of which have no
knowledge. DO you wish to leave the matter
herc2 If you think it deserves further atton-
ton. will you answer my question, namely
whether the published statement sent YOU IN
print was made by You?
Your obcdlent servant,
liosCoE CoNKtNG.
The Hon. r. 7. Bayard, Senator, Wilmington,
Del.
Wu.MINGToN. DEL. Nov. 2lst. lSSO-S1R
Your letter dated the 18th inst. and post
marked the 18th was received tins morning.
(ou sent me on the 18th an anonymous COM
municatun cut from Republican newspaper
III Philadelphia, purportrS to he an extract
from pubic speech made by me at Dover
near the end of the recent canvass. | should
not have considered statement 80 irrespun-
slbly made worthy of notice but as yOu did.
replied to y0unstantly III spirit of courtesy
that | had never before seen or heard of the
article that il was 80 grossly inaccurate as to
cause the belief it could not have been written
10y All honest person. lillt as had spoken OF
the cast of Phelps, Dodge ~ Co, and meil-
toned YOU in connection with 1t. / went on
candidly to give yOn, as fully rs memory
enables me, What did say, which necessarily
excluded What | did not say, and included,
'dH 0t my Spterh 'rhtch bpd any rci'rttce iO
yuW on N" mO'tfy q,rSitOH.'
lie extract yuu sent me is untrue, aud, az |
believe, malclUusly 10. and can but be sur
prlscd, rs your letter has assured me You did
not mean ITO IMPLY that you supposed did
or would make such an utterance," that any
further statement than that contained in my
letter could be desired. LII that letter alrU
expressed my regret if the slightest injustice
/ had been done yOu, and that | should tee
myself bound TO apply any proper remedy
when amy error had been pointed out to me
Your letter i'll reply to this characterize
my statement as "Hew, qt'e Rtttrtm Ant
erroneous and subsequently that m,
/ "rr-punsc consists of allegations far different
and, though less injurious. Offensive auG
untrue. basng them upon publications OI
which | (you) have no knowledge
'IEe publications to which made reference
of winch you say You have no knowledge
which relate to your alleged connection wltl
I the case OF Phelps, Dodge ~ Co., yuu vii
mud in the testimony of Mr.. William L.. DOlg,
Ut page 10 and OF the Hon NOuh Davis It
pages 2i7 and 2iS OF House Miscellaneous
/ documents No. 2Gi of First Session, Forty
4 third Congress. The statement of William J.
Wood have already stated was published il
4 the New York sun Of the 2sth ultlmo.
! 10 your inquiry whether "wish TO lcay,
| the matter hcre?' | can only reply that
/ have no wish ON the subject but to be sImpl,
I lust to myself and Others and wherever tina
leads mo | shall try to follow.
Your obcdlent servant Il. y. BAYAlIp.
The Hon. Roscoe Conking. Utica. n. y.