Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1881-05-28
Another Version of the Csnkling'GaF.
d1udcld Controversy .u3di B.

A WAsIiINoToN special OF the 18th tothe
Chicago Tribune says the following isgiyen as
an authentic presentation Of the -Admmistra-
tiou sideoflhe c9ntroY0.sglfv9m a very high
source:
"Th6 fight in New York began by the Ptest
dents nominating fiys persons, all of whom
were personal fri ends o. Uouklug. Next day
the President sentf in the name Of Robertson
That Garfield ever Promised Conkling that
Merritt should not be disurbed in the Collect
orshlp, or that Conkling aud Platt. should be
consulted on this question. is aqthortatYely,
denied II is stated by the friends of Garfield
that he neter made such an assertion, or gave
Conidtpg any ground or reason tplinvent 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 ConiSling, as had been the case
under d previous Republican, Admins
trations. Robertson was the leader of
the Independents movement in New York
\ sShicb ntJkv swss fr99, Con Sing and refused
Go vote Tor Grant n gh's pc IA the New
York State Conven ion, in 1850 Robertson ro-
fused to give pledge to vote for Grant aud
Conkling did not dare TO accept the issue and
move not TO consent to the electionof Robert
son as a delegate from his district to Chicago.
Robertson never broke faith with Conkling.
lie was honestly independent of him, and OPP
posed 20 Grant, and, in view of the fact that
the only yvote, Gdrfiel1 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 nj the hands OF
Conklng, 70 be united in direct defiance of
the Administration, is piece of elrontery on
aCDnkl hg's part watch mo Prcsid1nt could be
LeXpecltd to endure
| at is susceptible Of proof and demonstra-
tiop which would be conclusive IN court that
Piatt deliberately promised, before his eleG'
|, tiop othe Senate, that he would vote for the
confirmation of Robertson for whatever posi-
| ton he might be nominated under this Ad7
ministration, inciudng-tnd this was stated
in SO many words by GRrheld-the Collector
! ship OF the Port of New York. 1t was upon
this understanding, and with the express
| agreement that Platt wouldraet as the repre-.
| Sentative iof the lndependedt ~ Republicau
sentiment of New York, that he was elected 10
! the senate. He could never have been elected
| by Republican votes without the aid of the
| Independent element, and he could not have
| had thbif support save by this promise and on
| lnlS uuub1slunIlHb b.
"The designations of Eohkling and Platt
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
4 rejectf The question has never before come
up in this shape. Tho Senate has as yet taken
4 no vote and expressed no opinion In the mat.
ter. ConklHg and Platt insist that the SEN
ators from New FORK are, as far, a. appoint
mens from that State are concerned, tie Sen
ate OF the United States. They do this, too
not with respect 10 those offices of merely loca
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 who's location Il
in New York, but whose powers extend ovel
the whole country. The President insist
that actingas he does under responsibility
he shall be vested with the power 10 nominate
j and ret the opinion aud sanction of the Sen
utc on n nan m wf1UIf uU uyiff rTiTsr
minstration of the vast powers OF the New
York Custom-house. He does not wish to de-
privc the Senate of one iot o. title of its
power under the Constitution, but does insis
on his power TO nominate. and the power o
j The Senate to confirm Orrcjcet an appointment
when made" ', f'HH.ht. .f