Year: 1878

with which overzealous friends Of the


President seize upon everything which


Mr.. Conkling does and mako it o
subject OF cavil. So swift are they to


criticise and condemn that they sometimes
| invent the facts which they cannot find and
| impute to him designs which have no other


foundation than their own wish to destroy
his influence Soon after Chandler had


published his Incorporate and foolish man.
ifesto o rupor was sent forth from Washing
ton that Mr.. Conkling was Chandlers secret
accomplice in o design to upset Mr. Hayes
! t!sie We at once discredited this report,
and within the last day or two MI.
Corkling has said that ''he never had any
such notion" and that ''tle proposition is
entirely absurd" There is no legitimate
excuse either for the rancor which invents
such aspersions or for the credulity which
believes them. Whatever else Mr. Conk-
ling may be he is not political idiot /; but
it would be necessary to suppose him one
before crediting the story that he intended
to run amuck against the decision Of the
Electoral Commission.


What is said by the friends Of the Presi-
dent respecting the investigation OF the
cases of Runkle and Draper rests upon a
better show of fact. 1t is true that
Senator Conkling has made successful
motion to have these cases Investigated
but considering how much suspicious
comment they have elected in all parts
Of the country the President should feel
rather obliged than offended by the investi-
CATION if his action in restoring those officers
Is defensible If he has reinstated them for
good reasons and they are really entitled to
full pay for the long period since their dis
lnissal, the President will be vindicated by
the inquiry, and his friends make great
mistake in objecting to the investigation.
Il there is anything in the conduct Of the
President in this matter which seeks the
friendly refuge of darkness, that would be
an Ineligible reason for finding fault with
Mr.. Conkling. 1t is said that if he had gone
to the proper sources and requested pri-
vate explanation he would have received
one that would be satisfactory. This is a
naive suggestion! 1t would be an entertaining
spectacle to see Senator Conkling running
to the White House and asking its occupant
for a private explanation OF his conduct,
especially after the singular frankness and
urbnnity Of the answer to the inquiry Of his
committee respecting the reasons for re-
moving the officers of the New York Custom
House. visit to the President by the
New York Senator under present circum-
Stances seeking u confidential interview,
would make very pretty comedy But if
he should not be quite satisfied with the
Presidents explanation, the breach would
be widened by manifesting his distrust, and
the investigation might aiterward really
seem untriendly. At best he could get from
the President only an ex parte statement,
and the matter is important enough for
hearing the other side. These cases ought
to be fully investigated, because there is
an apparent violation of the law. Runkle
was court martialled and dismissed from the
army in 1872 for misconduct in connection
with tho Freedmen's Bureau. Draper,
surgeon in the navy was dismissed or re-
signed to avoid dismissal during the war
for misconduct in relation to rebel pris-
oner. The following quotations from the
Revised Statutes supply reason why the
reinstating of these officers and allowing
them all their back pay should be investi-
gated


SECTION ], 22S No officer Of the army who has been
may be dismissed ron the service by the sentence
Of general cour: marIal, formally approved by the
proper revsonary authority, shall ever be restored
10 the military service except by roappon'ment
and fba


SEC. AL No officer of tho navy who has boen dis.
missed by the sentence Of a court martial or suffered
again become al officer OF the navy.


II is too evident that the cases of Runkle
and Draper ought to be investigated and,


indeed, there WAS no opposition in the
Senate to Mr.. Conkling's proposal. The
only difference among the Senators re-
lated to the committee to which Runklc's
case should be referred. The resolu-
ton as it passed referred this case
TO the Committee on the Judiciary, of
which Mr.. Edmunds is chairman and Mr.
Conkling one of the members. Mr.. Burn
side moved to have it taken away from the
judiciary Committee and referred to the
Committee on Military Affairs. Whichever
may be the more appropriate, we see no
good reason why the administration should
object to its going to the Committee on the
Judiciary. If the restoration of Runkle was
legal and proper that can be made apparent
to any committee, and vindication from
one that is supposed to be hostile would
be more valuable than from one known to be
friendly, which might have motive to
soften or extenuate the facts. The Presi-
dent can have nothing to fear from the
judiciary Committee if there is nothing
culpablc in his conduct. The more search
ing the inquiry the more triumphant will
be the vindication If there is nothing wrong
to be discovered.


The Presidents friends profess to think
it ungracious for Mr.. Conkling to have
-.