American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1881-05-28
Another Version OF the C0nkIing. Gar
field Controversy.

A WAsHINGToN special of the 18th to the
Chicago Tribune says the following Is given rs
an authentic presentation of the Administrn-
1ion side Of the controversy from very high
source:
THE fight in New York began by the Presi-
dents nominating five persons, all of whom
were personal friends of Conklng. Next day
the President sent in the name of Robertson.
That Garfield ever promised Conkling that
Merritt should not be disturbed in the Collect
Orship, or that Conkling and Platt should be
consulted on this question, is authoritatively
denied. 1t is stated by the friends of Garfield
that he never made such an assertion. or gave
Conkling any ground or reason to invent such
an assertion. The President, on the contrary,
was not willing that the whole patronage of
New York State should be put into the
hands of Conkling, rs had been the case
under previous Republican Admins
trations. Robertson was the leader of
the Independent movement in New York
which broke away from Conkling and refused
to vote for Grant in Chicago. In the New
York State Convention, in 1850, Robertson re-
fused to give pledge to vote for Grant, and
Conkling did not dare to accept the issue and
move not to consent to the election of Robert
son as delegate from his district to Chicago.
Robertson never broke faith with Conkling.
He was honestly independent of him, and OPP
posed 20 Grant; and, in view of the fact that
the only votes Garfield got from New York
came from Robertson and his following, to de-
mand of Garfield that all the vast patronage
of New York should be placed in the hands of
Conkling, to be united in direct defiance Of
the Administration, is piece of etfrontery on
ConkEng's part which no President could be
expected to endure.
ut is susceptible of proof and demonstra-
ton which would be conclusive In court that
Piatt deliberately promised, before his cleo
ton to the Senate, that he would vote for the
confirmation Roberts
ton he might be nominated under this Adj
ministration, including-and this was stated
in so many words by Garfield-the Collector
ship of the Port of New York. 1t was upon
this understanding, and with the express
agreement that Plat would act as the repre-
sentative of the Independent Republican
sentiment of New York, that he was elected to
the Senate. He could never have been elected
by Republican votes without the aid of the
Independent element, and he could not have
had their support save by this promise and on
this understanding.
1.-the designations of Conkling and Plat
narrow the issue to this question: Has the
President the right to insist on his Constitu-
tional power to nominate, and to insist that
the Senate shall have the right to confirm or
rejectt The question has never before come
up in this shape. Tho Senate has as yet taken
no vote and expressed no opinion in the mat
ter. Conkling and Plat insist that the Sem
ators from New York are, as far as appoint
ments from that State are concerned, tic Sen
ate of the United States. They do this, too
not with respect to those Offices of merely local
Importance, but TO one in whose efficient
administration Indiana and Missouri are as
much interested us New York or New Jersey.
They do this over an officer whose location is
in New York, but whose powers extend over
the whole country. The President insists
that, acting as he docs under responsibility,
he shall be vested with the power TO nominate
and get the opinion and sanction of the Sem
ate on n man in whom he can trust the ad-
ministraton of the vast powers OF the New
York Custom-house. He does not wish to de-
prve the Senate of one jot o.. title of its
power under the Constitution, but does insist
on his power to nominate, and the power of
the Senate to confirm or reject an appointment
when made"