The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-05-30
Che 0,,telliQsuta1.
Az to Roscoe COnLnng.
WESTON, May 60, 1881,

WESTON, May u, 1881.
Edltos lntelliScIcar.
In response 10 your courteous invitation
to answer certain questions p%ropounded
to mo in your paper OF the 25th, I submi,
below my views as 10 them; but l also de.
sire TO correc. certain Impressions which
might arlse from your rather curiouB
and certainly cloudy way OF answering
mine. r. ..,..al rG
The real state Of facts in regard to the
opposition Of Conkling and others to the
confirmation OF Judge Robertson, as l TN.
derstand them, arc as iollown: Hl'"..
First-ue waB appointed a delegate 10
Chicago; and tho Convention instructed
for Grant. Instead Of resigning his trust,
II no did not want to obey instructions, he
held fast TO his appointment, and led a
bolt against Grant.
Sec0nd-Pfesident Garfield stated In bis
move r competent and worthy officer, but
allow him TO fill out his full term. The
present Tor late) Collector at New York
was u competent and worthy officer, and
had served but hall bis term; yet he was
removed to make way for Robertson.
Third-That aside from all other consid.
erations, the action Of the President In
thus rewarding a breach,o faith and com.
mon honesty, WIZ al insult 10 the friends
OF General Grant the country over, and
especially to the gallant majority Of Repub.
licanE In New York, without whose earn.
est efforts General Garfield could not have
been elected President; thus widening
the breach in the party, instead Of clos.
ing 1t.
III | am wrong, correc! me;-you have
the close.
Yon submit, in substance, the following
questions:
"What right had Mr.. Conklingto make
Judge Robertson's position at Chicago o
ground for dead.locking his nomination
in the Senate? The President appoints
to Office, and the Senate either confirms
or rejects for good cause. Mr.. Conkling
did not base his hostility to Judge Rob.
ertson on his unhtness for the office. We
know that Mr.. Conkling is not particular
Oh this point when one Of his partisans Is
before the Senate. The case OF the noto-
rious Smyth proves this fact.
"Second.-What right had Conkling In q
fit OF resentment to throw up his seat In
the Senate because he could not have bis
way in regard to the New York appoint.
msnts? He WAS sent there TO discharge q
great and important trust, and not to play
the part OF 8 spoiled, wiliul and selfish
child, resigDing merely because he could
not control the patronage Of the admins.
%tration, and leaving his party in the lurch.
"Third.-What do YOU think Of the pic.
ture presented by this doughty champion
OF third termism and Of the Dogma of the !
Senatorial control OF the spoils OF Office, |
resigning his seat in order to DO vindicat: |
ed, and then seeking by the aid Of the
machine to ecu a vindication that be |
has realized il impossible on the basis Of
opinion? Does it not present him
in his true light as an arrogant and self. |
politician. whose appropriate
motto is rule or ruin?"1
ANSWER. .
First-Mr. CoDkling did not make
Judge Robertson's position at Chicago" a
ground for any deadlock in the Senate.
II 1 read the INTELLIGEScER's Washington
correctly, the deadlock was caused
by the revolutionary action OF the Demo.
cratic minority in resisting tho right OF
tho Republican majority to elect officers oil
the Senate. The President does mol zap.
point to office" but The shall NOMINATE,
aud by and with the advice and consent
CT the Senate, shall appoint" &c. See
.irticle II. ofthe Constitution. The President
suggests a proper appointment,
with no right whatever to coerce the
Senate or obstruct public business by q
desire 10 run" a personal government.
Mr.. Conkling based his opposition to
Robertson on the grounds given
above; and il your intimation as to the
"Smyth case"-whatever that may be-is
correct, it offers no justification for Mir.
Garfield.
Second-C0pkling had the right to resign
his office at any time. Does the editor
seriously mean that a Senator s%urrenders
the rights appertsining to any other citl-
zen when he becomes a Senator? The
trust be had received from the people OF
New York he faithfully discharged, and
when the President, urged OH by the hate
OF James G. Blaine toward the great SOL
der OF the Wal and his friends, nominated
o man for q high office whose nomination
WIS an open insult to. Grant and his
friends; and when the Southern b~rigsdiers
rallied to the support OF the President
because they saw an opportunity
to disrupt the Republican party, 1t was
Mr.. Oonkling's duty, as vol as his right,
to resign his trust. He did 80 ona CUES.
ton Of principle; and when impartial his
tory is written his course will be amply
Third think that Senator Conkling,
rather than sit in a body. where bad faith
and public dishonesty were being reward.
ed ,Iahould have taken the very course he
did. What is the absurd cryof "ofice" and
patronage" ton man who receives a Sen.
salsry, when he could, by the prac.
tice OF his profession, net a hundred thou
sand dollars q year. Talk not Of "the
machine when speaking OF the equal OF
Clay and Webster. Speak not of the
"machine" in connection with the friends
of Grant and Conkling when you admit
that Blaine's machine" re.nominated
Robertson. Ii such things be true-and I
claim they are not-then it is time the Re.
publican party, as represented by Gar
field, Blaine. Grant and Conkling, be 70.
formed and cleansed.
And ! would further advise, If Mr.. Gar.
field is to be President OF the United
States, and not Q jobbing politician, that
he abstain, by himeelf and his agents,
from any disgrsceIul% connection with the
contest row going Oh at Albany :; a contest
which the people Of New York are abund.
antly able 10 settle, without Presidential
aid. A CoSKLlNa MAN,