The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-08-04
GARFIELD AND SHERMAN.
Was the Former False to the Latter at Chi
cagO-An Answer in the Negative.
Judge Tourgee in The Continent.


Mr. Wharton Barker offers in refutation Of
Dorsey's venomous charge that General Gar
field was false to his chief, Mr. Sherman, at
the Chicago convention, a batch of letters,
which, he says give connected history OF
General Garheld's nomination, meaning
thereby undoubte dly his own connection
Herewith. Neither Guiteau's bullet nor
Dorsey's evident malignity were so well cal
culated to do an injury to Garfeld's fame as
the vanity of Mr. Barker, who desires to
pose as the creator of his fortunes and the
keeper of his political conscience. The ex-
tracts which be gives from his own letters
are many and voluminous, as we'll as didactic
and dictatorial. The letters from Garfield to
Barker are noticeably brief and non-commit-
tai. In short, the correspondence is made
up of good deal of Barker spiced with a
very little Garfield. The most important
of these letters are Barker's of April
10, 1880. and General Garfelds in
reply to the same, dated the Goth
OF the same month. In this letter Barker
| says: This move, | am sure, will end the
Grant movement. The move will,
at first, aid Mr.. Blaine, but believe under
| stand how to kill him, and at the Chicago
convention hope the nomination will go AS
WE WANT IT." The small caps are ours. Upon
the question of General Garield's sincerity as
| the manager of Mr.. Sherman's forces at Chi
cago, the words emphasized are very signifi-
cant. Did the 1--WE" mean Wharton Barker,
| Wayne McVeagh and their friends, or did it
include General Garfield also? Barker claims
to have had several interviews with Garfield
previous to THIS time on the subject of his
| candidacy, and he leaves it to be inferred
! Garfield
heartily sanctioned the movement in favor
of himself while he was actually the trusted
manager of Mr.. Sherman's interests. If this
be true, then no sophistry of explanation
can relieve General Garfield's memory of the
| odium of treachery to his friend. This iG is
impossible to believe, and it becomes neces-
sary to accept the other hypothesis, that in
order to magnify himself and his potency
Mr.. Barker has been willing to allow such
odium to rest upon the dead.
Mr.. Dorsey's charges fell far short of
smirching the uprightness of Garfield's char
acter. No sane person can pretend that Cen
! eral Garfield was SO blind as not to have
seen the indications that pointed to his own
nomination as probable even before the as
sem bling of the convention. For months
they had been evident to the unpreludiced
observer. In the latter part OF February a
writer, who was a pronounced adherent of
Grant, had published an article demonstrate
| ing the fact that Garfeld's nomination was
more probable than that of either of the
| three prime favorites This article came to
the attention of General Garfield, and his
| comment on ii showed that he did not then
realize the force of the current in his favor.
| When the writer met General Garfield at the
! rooms of the Ohio delegation, q night or two
before the opening of the convention in Chi
cago, and said to him, "Glamis thou art and
| Cawdor, and shalt be-President," he simply
| replied, "Oh, you don't think So" But he
| w ri n wit Ia a
look of real pain upon his face, Don't say
that Others nave been talking that way.
Don't you see what position l am in? !
have a good mind to go home"
Now, Garfield's reply to Mr.. Barker's let
| ter, or the extract given therefrom, leaves it
to be inferred that ne not only knew of this
movement in April, but also encouraged and
approved of it. This is the extract
Yours Of the 10Th inst. is received, and has been
| read with interest. 1t is becoming every day
more apparent that the friends of the leadin 2
presidential candidates are becoming embittered
| against each other to such an extent that which
| be much hostility of feeling in the conduct OF
campaign IL will be most unfortunate if we go
into the contest handicapped by the animosities
OF the leading politicians. shall be glad to see
you on your arrival in Washington.
Read in the light of to-day, this would
seem to be foxy invitation to Mr.. Barker
to go ahead and push the nomination of Gar
field as an available man against whom the
bitterness referred to did not exist Was that
| the true reading and was the interview to
which he invited Mr.. Barker occupied with
planning for his own nomination? If so.
then Garfield was certainly false to Sherman
1t was then month and half before the
convention, and he had ample time to with
draw from the support of Sherman, and either
| openly or implicitly admit himself a candi-
date. There are only two methods by which
we may escape the conclusion of insincerity
and treachery on his part. The first is to be-
lieve that General Garfield frankly informed
Mr.. Sherman Of the facts revealed by Mr.
BarKer's correspondence. OF this there is no
hint. The second is that Mr.. Garfield did
not really consider Mr. Barker or his project
of any great importance. He, no doubt, cor
rectIy read the man, whose motive was not
to nominate Garfield or anybody else as an
ultimate, but to kill Mr.. Cameron in the hope
of falling heir to the Pennsylvania boss-ship
which would thus be left vacant General
Garfield, no doubt, "sized his man. and on
ly sought to utilize him as an element of dis
cord in Pennsylvania to promote the inter
ests of Mr.. Sherman. When it was too
late to retreat, he found that Mr.. Barker. in
the pursuit of his purpose, had tapped an
unsupported popular lead. 1t is a mistake TO
suppose that MIR. Barker, or any one else,
discovered General Garfield, managed his
nomination, or created his candidacy. The
war which the other aspirants had made on
each other made new man necessary, AS
soon as this fact was apparent the conven-
ton and the country saw at once the con-
centraton of favorable elements in the life
and character of Garfield.
He seemed untrue to his friend because he
was so modest that he did not realize how he
himself filled the picture he had drawn OF
the man TIE country needed Neither Dor
sey's venomous attack nor Mr.. Barker's vain
glorious defense of one that needed no de-
Tense, can induce the country to believe that
there was in Garfeld's heart one fibre of dis
honesty or treachery to friend.
The Arissocracy of Civil Service.
| Hon. William s. Groesbeck.
1t has been objected that this reform is not