Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 27, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 August 1883 — Gov. Foster Testifies. [ARTICLE]

Gov. Foster Testifies.

The present Governor ofitGhio and proprietor of Foraker is an experienced person whose judgment on any question of practical politics has- weight with the [Republican party. In view of the attempt to disparage the services rendered by Dorsey to Garfield in Indiana in October, 1880, we invite the attention to an interview with Gov. Foster, printed in the National Republican, of Washington, on Saturday: Mr. Foster testifies that Gen. Garfield felt under such deep obligations to Dorsey that he wanted him in the Cabinet. “I have every reason tp believe,” says Foster, “that he would have been invited into the Cabinet but for charges preferred against him by Republicans of the very highest standing and influence.” “I have heard the President say repeatedly,” continues Foster, “that he wished these men felt differently toward Dorsey, and so let him show to Dorsey that his services were appreciated.” This bears directly upon Swaim’s recent declaration that Garfield, months before his inauguration, distrusted Dorsey, denouncing him as a '‘scaly character,” and expressing hid ppinion that there was “a screw loose in his moral make-up.” Garfield wanted Dorsey in the Cabinet. How far he went in the manifestation of that desire perhaps Gov. Foster does not know. Perhaps he does know. Mr. Foster seems to be very sure, however, that Dorsey did not exaggerate the value of his services to Garfield in the preliminary campaign in Indiana. “I know there is such an impression abroad,” he says, “but I never heard Dorsey brag about his work in Indiana. It is true that Gen. Garfield was greatly pleased with Dorsey for the work he had done in Indiana, but I do not know that Dorsey exaggerated the nature of his services.” This, again, bears directly upon the absurd statement of certain of Garfield’s friends that Dorsey’s presence at Indianapolis was, if anything, detrimental to the success of the Republican party in the October canvass. Of the bargain which put Mr. Stanley Matthews on the bench of the Supreme Court, Gov. Foster says that he has no knowledge whatever. He professes td regard the story as “a cold-blooded calumny. ” Matthews had already been appointed once by Hayes. His appointment was an “inherent obligation” from the fraudulent administration. Some of our contemporaries find s sufficient explanation of the shameful appointment of Mr. Jay Gould’s attorney to the bench of the Supreme Court in his previous nomination by Hayes, and in Hayes' desire to recompense the man who had helped him to steal the Presidency. Those facts do not meet the charge. The politicians who managed Garfield were in no mood to pay debts of gratitude bequeathed by the dead fraud. Hayes unexpeqtedly had the opportunity to reward Matthews on 'bis*apcodnt and at the! same time pajf in advance the obligations of the incoming administration. His nomination failed, and Garfield immediately paid the debt New York Sun.