The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-02
GoEBEL AND SANDFoRD.
A kcntucLian Explains the Trouble
Between Them.

To the Editor OF The Times:
Please serve the cause Of truth and do
justice to the dead as well as living by
correcting some misstatements relative
to the Sanford tragedy in your Frankfort
despatch headed "Goebers Remarkable
Career"
The first is that the affair was one
which "Goebel could not have avoided with
honor" The truth is that Goebel wrote
and caused to be printed for a cousidera-
lion in a newspaper in Covington, an at
tack on Sandford's personal purity and de-
ceney in language so plain and foul as
to be tabooed in polite society and in
reputable journalism The original was
produced in Goebel's handwriting. during
the late canvass in Kentucky. and pub
lished in Autograph in q Louisville news
paper. the Justification OF that reproduce
tion being that the authorship was denied
The only provocation for this act of Goe
bel was series of newspaper assaults
and other opposition to- Goebel. very per-
sistent and severe. but wholly political so
far as [ have ever heard. and | lived in
the same city with them and read the
public prints during the whole coutro-
versy. 1t thus appears that the tragedy
was an affair which Sandford. rather than
Goebel, could not have avoided with hon
or II there was any genuine honor in
VOWED.
Your frankfort article next says "ae-
cording to his policy of opposing corpora
lions Goebei passed a bill cutting down
the revenues of turnpikes. Sanford. a
banker and large holder OF turnpike
stock in Keuton county. on this account
bitterly opposed Goebels reelection to
the Senate. That was eleven years ago,
and it was the beginning of the Goebel-
Sanford quarrel" Sandford had just one
share (S25) OF turnpike stock, and was
known as a low-toll man; on general
principles If he travelled free or from
seif-interest if he paid toll, for he then
lived on the road in question. 1--WE miles
out, and used it regularly for years. both
before and after the passage of the low
toll law. This was not eleven years ago.
but will be ten next MAY, and SANFORD
did not then oppose Goebel's reelection,
for GOebel was not again candidate IN
I'll 1892. three years later. The law was
passed in 1890. and there was no quarrel
until the late spring. or the summer OF
1891 wear later US will appear from
what follows.
Sandford's statement OF the origin Of
the trouble made to the writer hereof ut
the time, was tndt ne Hdu given 10 tOtDel'
his proxy as a delegate TO the Kentucky
Democratic State Convention of 1891. with
the instruction and under the promise
to vote it for Hardin for Governor. and
that Goebel voted it for Clay II is GER
tain that the two men We're members of
the same delegation. that Sanford was not
present at the voting. and that the whole
vote Of the county was east by Goebel for
Clay. 1t is also certain that Sandford's
reputation was and is that OF a man in
capable of the least degree OF falsehood.
write this much as a contribution
to the truth OF history. and as tribute
of justice to the memory Of 4 man than
whom none stood higher at his lifelong
home. and to whose sterling character as
a citizen and loyalty as friend, Senator
elect Blackburn, how equally a friend of
Mr.. Goebel, will gladly testify.
HENRY C. HALLAM
Washington, Jan 81.