Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1881-06-02
Another Version Of the COnkling.Gar
field Controversy.

A WASHINGTON special OF the 18th 60 the
Chicago Tribune says the following Il Rfvcn ~
IN authentic presentation OF the AdmInistra.
ton side Of the controversy from very high
source: ~ S+fN
The fight in New York began by the Presi-
dents nominating five persons, all OF whom
were personal friends of Conkling. Next day
the President sent in the name OF Robertson
That Garfield ever promised Conkliug that
Merritt should not be disturbed in The Collect
orship, or that Conkling and Piatt should be
consulted on this question, Is authoritatiyeiy
denied. It 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, as had been the case
under previous Republican Adminis-
tratiOn& 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 lSe0. 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 a. q delegate from his district 70 Chicago.
Robertson never broke faith with ConklinR.
He was honestly independent OF him. and op-
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 I'm the hands of
Conkling, to be united in direct defiance OF
the Administration, Is q piece of enrontery on
Conkling's part which no President could be
expected to endure. ~. of n-f 2
1T is susceptible of proof and demonstra-
ton which would be conclusive In court that
Platt deliberately promised, before his cleo
ton to the Senate, that he would vote for the
confirmation OF Robertson for whatever posi-
ton he might be nominated under this Adj
ministraifon. fncluding-tnd this was stated
in so many words by Garheld-the Collector
ship OF the Port Of New York: 1t was upon
agreement that Platt would act as the repre-
sentative of the independent Republican
tSe ssna,e VI az ",S h ne WIS bsen sc
by Republican votes without the aid of the
Independent element, and he could not have
had their support save by this promise and on
..The designations of Conkliug and Platt
narrow the issue to this question:: Has the
tional power to nominate, and to insist that
the Senate shall have the right to confirm or
reject? The question has never before cume
up in this shape. The Senate has as yet taken
no vote and expressed no opinion In the mat
ter. Conkling and Plat insist that the Sem
ators from rom New lew. York are, as far as appoint
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 as
much interested as New York or New Jersey.
They do this over an Officer who's location is
In New York, but whose powers extend over
the who'e country. The President insists
that, acting rs he does under responsibility,
he shall lie vested with the power TO nominate
and get the opinion and sanction of the Sem
ate on a man in whom he can trust the All
ministratiO of the vast powers OF the New
prive the Senate of one jot o. little of Its
power under the Constitution. but does insist
on his power TO nominate, and the power OF
when made" tH tt