The Portland daily press., 1881-05-18
Grounds for Mr. Garheld's Action in the
Controversy.
Especial Dispatch to Boston Herald !

lopcclti DispdIcnt 10 BOSTON tcrdnf.
The following is an authentic presentation
of the administration side of the controversy /:
The fight in New York began by the President
sending in the names of five persons, all of
whom were personal friends of Conkling. The
next day the President sent in the name of
Robertson. That Garfield ever promised
Conkling that Merritt should not be disturbed
in the collectorship, or that Conkling and
Platt should be consulted on this question, is
authoritativoly denied. 1t is stated by friends
of Garfield that he never made such an asser-
tion or gave Conkling any ground or any rea-
son to invent snch an assertion. The Presi-
dent, on the contrary, was not willing that the
whole patronage of New York State should be
put into the hands of Conkling, as had been
the case under previous Republican admins
trations Robertson was the leader of the in
dependent movement in New York which
broke away from Conkling and refused to vote
for Grant at Chicago. In the New York State
convention in 1880 Robertson refused to give a
pledge to vote for Grant, and Conkling did not
dare to accept the issue, and would not consent
to the election of Robertson as a delegate from
his district to Chicago. Robertson never broke
faith with Conkling. He was honestly indie
pendent of him. and opposed to Grant, and, in
view of the fact that the only votes Garfield
got from New York came from Robertson and
his following, to demand of Garfield that all
the vast patronage of New York should be
placed in the hands of Conkling to be welded
in direct defiance OF the administration, is a
piece of etfrontery on Conkling's part, which
no President could be expected to endure The
attitude of Platt in this whole business, ac.
cording to this view, is one for which con-
temptible is a feeble adjective. 1t is suscepti-
BILE of proof and demonstration, which would
be conclusive in court, that Platt deliberately
promised before his election to the Senate that
he would vote for the confirmation of Robert
son for whatever position be might be nomi-
mated under this administration, including
and this was stated in so many words by Gar
feld-the collectorship of the New York port
1t was upon this understanding and with this
express agreement that Platt would act as the
representative of the independent Republican
sentiment of New York, that he was elected TO
the Senate. He would never have been elected
by Republican votes without the aid of the in
dependent element and he could not have had
their support save by this promise and on this
understanding. The designations of Conkling
and olatt narrow the issue TO this question.
Had the President the right to Insist on his
constitutional power to nominate, and to insist
that the Senate shall have the right to confirm
or reject? The question has never before come
up in this shape. The Senate has as yet taken
no vote and expressed no opinion in the mat
ter. Conkling and Platt insist that the Sena-
tors from New York are, so far as appoint
ments from that State are concerned the Sem
ate of the United States. They do this too
not with respect to an Office of merely local
importance, but to one in whose efficient ad-
ministraton Indiana and Missouri are as much
interested as New York or New Jersey. They
do this over officer whose location is III
New YORK, but whose powers extend over the
whole country. The President insists that.
acting as he does, under responsibility, he shall
be vested with power to nominate and get the
opinion and sanction of the Senate on a man
IN whom he can trust the administration of
the vast powers of the New York Custom
House. He does not wish to deprive the SEN
ate of one iot or little of its power under the
constitution, but must insist on his power to
nominate and the power of the Senate to re-
Ject or confirm an appointment when maue.