The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-10-22

of any Republican, no one elected
could afford to do less than invite Sec
rotary Sherman to remain where he Is
The vote of my friends would have
nominated Blaine at any period OF the
convention, but under the conditions
then existing it was impossible to Sc
cure this vote to either Blame OF
Grant
THE final result was the selection
OF a new candidate and the nominal
tion of Garfield
''The course of the Ohio delegation
was the subject of severe comment
and perhaps Of unfounded
Suspicious of Perfdy
on the part of some of the delegates
''As soon as heard of the movement
20 nominate GARFIELD, 1 sent the fol-
lowing telegram TO Mr.. Dennison:
. Washington, June s, 1880.
" Hon. William Dennison, Conven-
ton, Chicago. =,
Whenever the vote of Ohio will
be likely to assure the nomination OF
Garfield, I appeal to every delegate TO
vote for him. Let Ohio be soma.
Make the same appeal in my name TO
North Carolina and every delegate
who has voted for me.
(Signed) JOHN SHERMAN.
THE moment the nomination was
made [ sent the following diSpatch 10
Garfield:
f" Washington, D. c., June 8, 1880.
." Hon. James a. Garfield, Chicago.
9" I congra tulate you with all my
heart upon your nomination as preSl-
dent You have saved the Republican
party and the country from great
peril and assured the continued sue
cess Of Republican principles.
(Signed) JOHN SHERMAN.
I'm time I became thoroughly adj
x-fcaT f 1,.4 of fha ChiPa
convention and had become entirely
reconciIed TO the result, though fire.
quently afterwards l heard incidents
and details which
occasioned Ne Grent Pain
and which seemed to establish the
want of sincerity on the part of some
of the delegates, and tended to show
that for some time before the meeting
of the convention the nomination OF
General Garfield had been agreed
upon. After its close. had numerous
letters from delegates from other
states complaining bitterly of the
conduct of the Ohio delegation and
giving this as a reason why they had
not voted for me.
L was content with the result, but
was deeply wounded by what l could
not but regard as a breach Of faith
on the part Of some Of the Ohio dele
Sd0QAr anu especially VI NTONt libl
Foster who had been fully advised OF
my feelings in regard to his course.
] received a letter from him on the
23rd Of June, answering the allega-
tons that had been publicly made in
regard to, and explaining his action.
IN reply I wrote him the following
letter:
Washington. D. c. June so. 1880.
Dear Sir-Your letter of the 23rd
cane while I was still absent on the
Chesapeake bay. I regret that I did
not see you. for a free conversation
would be far more satisfactory than
letter writing 1 wish to be perfectly
frank with you, as since ! first became
acquainted with you l have felt for
your warm friendship and have al
ways had entire confidence in you.
4 confess. however. that in the in
formation I received in regard to your
operations in Chicago had greatly
Weakened This Feeling
and left a painful impression upon my
mind that you had not done by me
as would have done by You under like
circumstances. Your letter chased
away much of this impression and
perhaps the better way would be for
me to write no more. but to treat your
letter as entirely satisfactory and con-
elusive. Still. I think ii right for me
to give you the general basis of the
impression l had formed. My first inn
pulse was to send you mass of let
ters from delegates and others at
tending the convention: but this could
only create a controversy and perhaps
hetray confidence. which I could not
do The general purport of these let
ters is that. while you spoke freely and
kindly of me. yet there was always a.
kind Of reserve in favor Of Blaine and
q hesitation In pressing me that fndi-
!. :,
the divisions in the Ohio delegation
and partly by the halfway support of
yourself and perhaps others, the Ohio
delegation lost its moral strength and
practically defeated me before any
ballot was had.
This general impression I could
have passed by. but it was distinctly
stated II me by delegates and friends
Of delegates present in the convention
that they preferred the votes of large
portions Of their respective delegations
70 you. with the understanding that
they were to cast for me, whenever
you indicated the proper moment. This
was specifically said as to Indiana,
Massachusetts and the Blaine portion
Of Pennsylvania delegation. It was
said
YOu Prevented Massachusetts
from voting for me from about the
tenth TO the fifteenth ballot on Mon
day: that nine Of the Connecticut del
egates held themselves ready to vote
for me on your call but that you put
1t off. and Harrison is quoted as saying
that % votes from Indiana We're ready
TO be cast for me Monday. at any time
after few ballots, but they were
withheld on account Of representa-
tons from the Ohio delegation Mr.
Billings, of Vermont, is quoted as
saying that the Vermont delegation
with two or three exceptions were
ready to vote for me, but were dis
contented with the position you hac
taken, and doubt in whether you de-
sired their vote for me-
" These and many other allegations
of similar import, coming one after
the other, led RE to believe You haG
changed the position you took in the
early part of the canvass. and had
come TO the conclusion that it was not
wise to nominate me and that other
creed you in changing your opinion
This impression caused me more pain
than anything that has transpireI
since the beginning of the contest.
He Had No Regrets
Il assure you have no regrets owe
the results Of the convention. Indeed
the moment it was over I felt a sens
Of relief that l had not had for 81,
months. The nomination of Garfield i
entirely satisfactory TO me. The onl,
shade that rests on this feeling is tn
fact that Garfield went there by m,
selection to represent me. and come