The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-22
THE FIGHT OF 1880.
John Sherman's Story of How
He Was Defeated
BY GARFIELD AND FOSTER.
There Was Treachery OF the worst
Character, He says, but He FOR
gave His False Friends.


the text Of Senator Snerman's reference,
in his memoirs, 70 the Republican nataonal
convention OF 1ss0. which nominated James
A Garfield Tor the presoency-ths REFER
ence to which has been the subject o.
newspaper discussion within the past re"
months:
"During the month Of April delegates
were selected from the different congress
slonal districts OF the state OF Ohio TO st
tend the state convention Inc
sentiment in my favor was clearly eN-
pressed "a nearly every county or dlstrlct
OF the state On the Sth OF April wrote
the following letter to a friend;
" Mckinley IS still In Ohio, and l pre-
sumo he VIII be there for some days.
have today written 10 him at Canton. COW
ering the points you name. You had pct
ter write TO him yourself. giving the list
OF appointment desired. There 10
strong feeling that Garfield. in order 10
save his district, should go TO the Chicago
convention as a delegate. He IL placed IN
very awkward position now. II this dis
trict should be against my nomination. II
would be attributed TO either want or IN
fuence on his part, or, what is worse.
want OF sincerity in my support. IN view
OF the past this would be very untortu-
nate thing for him. This is delicate
matter for me 10 take any part in, and
leave IL entirely TO your good judgment
ard kind friendship"
Sherman then tells how Il was arranged
that in case his nomination was found
impractlcable. the Ohio delegation was 10
vote for Blaine, and of the request Of
Garfield that he be made delegate-at-
large. that he might aid Sherman efTec-
lively. During the early part of the con-
yention there was a slight split in the
Ohio delegation, and a combination or
those unfriendly TO Sherman was made.
10 disregard instructions and vote against
him
THE folly OF a few men made co-opera-
ton impracticable. Blaine received op-
position in Ohio from his pretended
friends. and ne therefore lost the Ohio
delegation. which, but for this detection,
would have made his nomination sure had
! failed to receive IL. The vote Of my
friends would have nominated Blaine at
any period of the convention, but under
the conditions then existing 1t was not
possible 10 secure this vote to either
Blaine or Grant. The final result was the
selection of a new candidate and the nom
ination OF Garfield. The course
OF the Ohio delegation was the subject OF
severe comment and perhaps OF unbound
ed suspicious of perfidy on the part OF
some OF the delegates.
'As soon as heard OF the movement to
nominate Garfield. sent the following to
Mr.. Dennison:
Washington City. June 8. 1sso.-Hon.
William Dennison. Convention. Chicago:
Whenever the vote of Ohio will be likely
20 assure the nomination of Garfield, APP
peal TO every delegate to vote for him.
Let Ohio be solid. Make the same appeal
In my name to North Carolina and every
delegate who has voted for me. John
Sherman
1.-The moment the nomination was made
/ sent the following dispatch TO Garfield:
Washington City. June s, lSS0.-Hon.
James A. Garfield. Chicago: 1 congratu-
late you with all my heart upon your
nomination as president. You have saved
the Republican party and the country from
"a great peril. and assured the continued
success of Republican principles. John
Sherman.
''In time became thoroughly advised of
what occurred at the Chicago convention.
and had become entirely reconciled TO the
result, though frequently afterward I
heard incidents and details which occa-
stoned me great pain and which seemed
10 establish the want OF sincerity on the
part OF some Of the delegates and tended
TO show that for some time before the
meeting or the convention the nomination
OF Gen. Garfield had been agreed upon.
After its close / had numerous letters
from delegates from other states, COM
planning bitterly of the conduct OF the
Ohio delegation. and giving this as q rea-
son why they had not voted for me-
II was content with the result. but was
deeply wounded by what ! could not but
regard as a breach OF faith on the part Of
some OF the Ohio delegation. and especial
~ OF Gov. Foster. who had been fully ad-
Nised OF my feelings IN regard TO his
course. / received a letter from him on
the 2sd Of June. answering the allegations
that had been publicly made in regard TO
and explaining his action"
. In reply. Sherman says. he wrote Foster
letter detailing the charges that had
been made against him, among them that
the Indiana. Massachusetts,, Vermont and
part OF the Pennsylvania delegations had
offered TO vote for him whenever Foster
said tho word. but that he (Foster) acted
as IL he did not want them to vote for
sherman. and put them off. He concluded
the letter by assuring Foster that he
would accept his frank statement with
confidence. and would give no further
credence TO stories he heard Then Mr.
Sherman adds: with this letter I sought
TO divest myself Of all feeling OF preju-
dice growing out OF the recent canvass"