New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-08-07
Uuo DJD Kill COCK ROBIYf

WHO DID KILL COCK RODIhE
The question who did defeat Hancock In
1880 has agitated Democratic circles at inter-
walls ever since the votes were counted that
indicated that result. Credit for 1T has some
times been gwen Mr.. Henry WattersoD, who
it was asserted, brought him low with his lit
tie f-for.revenue-o bow and arrow In the
platform, though the friends of Mr.. David A.
Wells have claimed share in the glory OF the
transaction. that gentleman having been on
the Committee on Resolutions and strenuous
advocate for the adoption of the fatal phrase.
In some quarters the defeat has been charged
TO Mr.. William II. Barnum's management as
Chairman of the Democra ic National Commit
tee; In others to the parsimoDy of Mr.. William
III, English, the candidate for Vice-President,
and in still others to General Hancock himself,
who, on one memorable occasion, let his chin
90 loose on the tariff as "local issue" in
presence of reporter OF q New-Jer-
sey newspaper. The belief that pre-
walls almost universally among Democrats,
however, is that the General received
his death blow in this city and State, and
that he owed his defeat to the treachery OF
one or the other of the two rival factions led
by Mr."Tilden and Mr.. John Kelly. MIR. Kelly
and his Tammany followers have never hesl-
tated to lay the defeat of 1880 at the doors
of Mr.. Tiden and his friends, on the one
hand, while on the other the belief that Kelly
and Tammany Hall played false to the Ma
tiOnal ticket Was so positive that the party in
this city divided upon it and the County De-
lnocracy was organized with the sole view of
Furnishing the traitors.
while this controversy has been raging In
the Democratic ranks the general public has
been simply an amused spectator, it being
the universal opinion outside the Democratic
parry that whoever or whatever may have
incidentally contributor thereto, the result
itself was due to the American people who
defeated Hancock and the Democratic party
because they wanted neither him nor
them But the charge that Mr.. Tiden
did actually desire the defeat of Ham
cock and took measures to bring it
about has assumed new phase within the
past fortnight. Some days ago The Hartford
Comm Couyant published what purported to
be an interview with q prominent and we'll
known Democratic politician who did not wish
to have his name published, and was accord
Ingly described as Judge -" though his
identity was easily guessed by persons at
all familiar with Connecticut politics
and politicians In this interview "Judge
-" was reported as saying that he had
positive knowledge that Mr. Tilden
acted treacherously toward Hancock, and even
contributed money toward his defeat He
sad that he had this direct from one of Mr..
rilden's friends who had received directions
from Mr.. TIlden himself as to where and how
tue work was to be done. These things were
stated with circumstantIality and in detail,
giving day and date and the Judge" asserted
not only his ability to substantiate HIS charges
but his willingness to give, if it should be-
come necessary, his own name and that of
his informant.
To this publication our contemporary, The
San-which is generally understood to be in
Mr.. Tiiden's most intimate conf lence-made
swift and passionate denial, denouncing all the
statements made as "lies" and "unmitigated
lies" and jeerlng the anonymous "Judge" and
his anonymous informant as myt ical person.
ages. 10 this the anonymous "Judge"-the
Hon. ID. C. Birdsa of Wes5port. Commentaries
answer in The Courant of Monday in a
letter of considerable length, in which he
repeats over his own signature the allegations
made in the interview, and signifies his will
nRucSs W pIoNc suo cnstfS tS DtyOnu quest on.
He says his only motive in making these disc.os-
ures is "that OF lifelong Democrat who desires
" above ali things the success OF the party, and
would see Itpurged of such characters as have
brought defeat upon it, Us che facts have shown
" Mr. Tilden and Ills followers to have done.n
And lest Mr.. Tilden or the Editor of The Sun
may fail into the error of thinking that
he is an irresponsible person and mo-
body in particular, Judge Birdsall re-
minds them that in October, 1874, when |
Mr. Tnden. was running for Governor, at |
tie request of then members of the DEM |
ocratio state Committee, he wrote defence |
OF illden against an attack by John McKeon |
which was published in The Herald, was pro-
fusely praised IN The Sun and approved by |
Mr.. Tiiden himself. who pronounced it "an
exhaustive reply" Judge BlrdsalI evidently |
has the courage of his convictions. His pub |
lished letter avowlng his responsibility for the
statements made In the interview would seem
to make it necessary TO meet them with some
other argument than mere unsupported denial.
II tho controversy is to be continued.
And as Judge Birdsals charges are explicit
and direct, 1t seems proper that Mr.. Tilden