Democratic Sentinel, Volume 2, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 February 1878 — THAT CONFERENCE. [ARTICLE]

THAT CONFERENCE.

Charles Foster’s Version ot IVhat Took Place at the Celebrated Gathering at Wormley’s. The Washington correspondent of the Chicago Tribune sends to that journal a long interview with Representative Charles Foster, of Ohio, giving his verson of the celebrated conference at Wormley’s Hotel, and all that took place in connection with the adjustment of the electoral difficulties. In answer to a question by the correspondent as to what part he (Foster) took in the matter, the latter said: “ I had Known Gov. Hayes all my life ; not intimately,' but had seen and knew enough of him to have clearly-defined notions of what his views were upon the one question that engaged their attention more than all others, viz : that of local self-government. I had no doubt as to his course, although I had never exchanged a word orally or by letter with him on the subject. ♦ * ♦ About the 20th of February I believed the time had come when I ought to make public declaration of what I believed his purpose to be. I consulted with a number of Ohio gentlemen, friends of the President, and perhaps one or two Southern gentlemen, although I recall but one at this moment, and he not a member of Congress. These gentlemen all agreed that I ought to make the little speech which has been commented upon so much. The speech was but little else than a repetition of a part of his letter of acceptance. In response to this speech I received a letter from the President, thanking me for it, and substantially indorsing the sentiments expressed in it. This letter was marked private, but the gravity of the situation at the time was such that I felt justified in showing it to a number of gentlemen.” “It is generally reported that you showed this letter to the anti-nlibusters.” “On the 26th of February the Hon. John Young Brown and Senator Gordon invited me to a conference with them, which Mr. Brown has detailed with much particularity. Some of the minor details of his statement are not in exact accord with my remembrance of them. The final result of the interview was the promise to give him the letters signed by myself and Senator Matthews, which was done the next day, and which have been widely published. My understanding nt this] time was that Mr. Brown desired the letters for some personal use in a possible contingency in the future ; certainly no thought of influencing his action by furnishing these letters ever occurred to me.”

“And what was that Wonnley conference?” “On the same evening the meeting at Wormley’s was held. There were present Mr. Matthews, Senator Sherman, Gov. Dennison, Gen. Garfield and myself, of Mr. Hayes’ friends ; Mr. Watterson, Mr. Ellis and Mr. Burke are ail that I can recall of the other side at this moment—doubtless others were present. It was distinctly stated by Mr. Matthews and other friends of Gov. Hayes that we did not pretend to be authorized to speak for him, that we conld not ask him for an expression of his views, but that, knowing him as we did, we believed that he would give to the States of South Carolina and Louisiana what they desired, viz.: local self-government Mr. Burke had with him a paper, which he read to Gen. Garfield in my hearing (he may have read it to all of us, but I think not), the general purport being a statement of what we might expect if the Nicholls Government was sustained, viz.: fair treatment of all classes of citizens—erabodying, I should say, substantially the resolutions of the Nicholls Legislature passed last May, and nothing more.” “ Was there any bargain of any sort?” “Not at all; nothing of the sort, absolutely nothing. Gen. Garfield said to Burke that we would not make any bargain if one should be proposed; that we stated in good faith what we believed Gen. Hayes would do, and that we did not require any pledges from them. So far as I know not even a suggestion of bargain was made by any one; nor was anything said, done, promised, or suggested which would in the least degree influence the vote of any member of Congress. No suggestion was then made, or at any other time (tq knowledge), of a bargain by which anything was (o be done in corp-

sideration of anything relating to the Electoral Count bill, to the Presidential succession, or to anything whatever, directly or indirectly connected with it, or with the future of any jvolitical party existing or to be created.” “ What was the nature of the paper which Burke had ?” “The paper was simply a memorandum, without signature, stating, in substance, what the Nicholls Government would do in case it should be sustained. It did not cover more than a half-page of letter-paper. The general idea of it was that the Nicholls Government would treat all citizens of Louisiana fairly; that no person should be punished for opinions’ sake; that- colored men should' tnrjoy all the rights guaranteed by the constitutional amendments. The memorandum embodied substantially an outline of the declarations which were subsequently made in the resolutions passed by the Nicholls Leg'slature.” Was there any mention made in that memorandum, or in any memorandum, or at that conference, of the Returning Board, or of any action to be taken, or not taken, concerning it?” “ The Returning Board was not mentioned at the conference within my hearing, nor was any reference made to it.” “ Was the meeting a dinner party?” “ The meeting was entirely informal. There was no organization. It was not called to order. Nobody stated its object. There was no Chairman. It consisted of a general talk about the room among the different gentlemen who were there. Little groups were gathered at different parts of the room, talking at the same time. For this reason, doubtless, it happened that Maj. Burke read his paper to Garfield in my heanng, and that the other persons in the room at the time may not have known anything about it. We sat on a sofa apart to ourselves.” “ Did anybody make any suggestions as to what the policy of the Nicholls Government would be except Burke ? r “Nobody that I remember said anything else about Nicholls or his Government except Burke.”

Were there any suggestions as to South Carolina ?” “ South Carolina was not mentioned in the conference, except in a general way of referring to the policy which Gov. Hayes would be likely to adopt—that of local self-government. The conference may have been two horns in length.” “ What became of that memorandum?” “I suppose Burke kept it; he certainly did not give it to anybody, or offey to give it to anybody, that I saw- or heard. It is all the paper of any kind that was shown at the meeting.” “ Where is the letter of Gov. Hayes to you?” “I thought I had it here among my papers. I have a number of letters from him, but I don’t find it, and suppose I must have left it at home.” “ Can you remember the substance of it?” “I can remember the substance, and, I think, the exact language. The letter was almost identically this : “ ‘Accept my thanks for ycur speech of Feb. results, hut, if the r suit is favorable,’your understanding of my policy will be found to bo correct.’ ” “That is the substance—l think the very language of the letter. There was not more than six lines in it. It was a substantial indorsement of what I said in my speech of—l believe the date was Feb. 20.” “What was your object iu making that speech?”

‘ 1 My only purpose iu any statement that 1 made was to impress upon the opposition my -convictions as to the probable policy of Gov. Hayes. If the opposition could be convinced that I correctly represented Gov. Hayes’ views, I thought that I could see a reasonable chance for a peaceful execution of the Electoral Count bill. I asked for no promises in return ;no suggestion was ever made by me to anybody that certain things were to bo done by the other side in consideration of certain things to be done by Gov. Hayes, should he be successful. No mention was ever made of the Speakership. In fact, as far as my name was nected with that office, nothing of the kind e ver occurred to me until I saw the matter mentioned in the public prints after the inauguration of President Hayes. I never heard a suggestion about the Texas PacifiMrailroad iu connection with the matter. My labors were directed exclusively to one purpose, and that was a peaceful solution of the Presidential succession.” “Did Gov. Hayes know of any of these steps which were taken, such as the Wormley conference ?” “ Gov. Hayes was not consulted by me, or, so far as I know, by anybody, with regard to anything that was done by myself or others in connection with this matter. I have every reason to believe that he absolutely knew nothing about the whole tfffair. That, so far as I know anything about it, is an outline of the Wormley conference and of my effort to secure a peaceful solution of the Presidential difficulty.”