Year: 1872

Special to the Cincinnati Enquirer.


NEW YORK, July 26.-The Sun of this
morning publishes the following: "The
statement l made In speech at st. LOuis
concerning the patrona. e in connection with
the San Domingo business, has been repre-
sented as incorrect in dispatch of the As
socisted Press, apparently inspired by the
President himself. It is now proper that l
should give my authority for what said,
the letter quoted in my speech as coming
from the statesman who had with me the
conversation referred to, and was addressed
10 Alfred PIeasonton, late Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. 1t was written in reply
to note to me of the contents of which l
have memorandum, which read as fol-
lows:


ssAsk P. If he remembers the con-
versation had with me concerning San
Domingo, in which be said that if would
support the President could have all the
patronage wanted, ETC., and asked him
whether he was authorized by the Presi-
dent to say SO. Gen. Pleasonton's letter in
reply to this is quoted in my speech, and is
as follows:


NEW YORK, Jan. 70, IS72.-Dear Gen.
eral: Regarding this conversation you refer
to in your note, remember it was the
knowledge and consent, and after had
conversation with him (the President) that
I called upon you and had the conversation
you spoke of. My impression at this time
is that the President desired your support
for his San Domingo scheme and wished to
be on such terms with you that your sup
port could be obtained. l do not now re-
member any particular language used at my
interview with the President, aud would
not hazard doing him an injustice by at
tempting to quote from memory; but the
impression made upon my mind by the in !.
teryieW was fixed and distinct. Truly yours,
in haste. "a. PLEASoNToN."


81 have since received from Gen. Pleas
onion the following note:


"NEw YoEK, Jnly 25, 1S72.-Dear Gen
eral: OF course have no objection to your
giving my name to the public In explana-
tion of the facts. would say, that being
frien of the President as well as OfYour-
self desired you should be on good terms,
and you should understand that there was
no personal feelings in the way OF relations
mutually satisfactory. Your statement is
correct that the President wanted your sup
port for his Santo Domingo scheme, and
that you could have had the patronage OF
the Government for giving it. That was
the distinct impression the Presidents con-
yersation made upon my mind, and COM
muuicated it to you at the time. If the
President positively denies having had any
such conversation regret il. l may con-
sole myself with the reflection that this Is
the first time that any statement of mine
has been questioned, while the President
has lad occasion before this to distrust the
accuracy of his recollections. Truly yours,


"a. PLEAsoNToN."


SIN Justice to Mr.. Pleasonton, must
add that the drift of what he said TO me is
correctly stated in his note. When he found
that had conscientious objections to the
San Domingo scheme he urged me TO
further to support it. He desired me to go
and see the President, to which l replied
that if she President wanted TO speak with
me on public business should consider it
my official duty as Senator to respond to
note from him requesting me to call, and
that was the end of it.


GMy recollection is that Gen. Pleasonton
to me at the time that he spoke
with the knowledge and consent OF the
President. l inquired about it afterward
in writing for the purpose of either strength
ening or correcting my impression concern
ing the fact, although the President recently
stated in an interview with a Herald re-
porter that my opposition was owing to an
unsatisfed desire for patronage, or words to
that effect. l had, as will not now be de-
MED, some excellent reasons to think that
if wanted patronage had a very good
chance to obtain it at the expense OF my
convictions of duty. Truly yours,


"CARL SCHURZ.