Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 September 1883 — DORSEY’S DISCLOSURES. [ARTICLE]

DORSEY’S DISCLOSURES.

Representative Belford, of Colorado, Says Dorsey’s Facts Are Not Distorted. Confirmatory Evidence of Their Truthfulness From Several Republican Congressmen —Some More Interesting Reading. Chicago, Aug. The revelation that ex-Senator Dorsey has recently made through the Sun have formed the principal topic among politicians thro’ the West. A curious feature of the conversation that*groups of politicians indulge in is the corroborative evidence that some one of them is sure to bring out respecting one ormore of the facts. Knowing that so far as their own knowledge goes the statements are accurate, they can not help expressing a belief that the whole is true. The charges are being widely circulated in Ohio and IoW, and the Republican voter waits in vain for any trustworthy denial of them. On the,contrary, the assertions of men who ought to know, that they are true, send them home ana clinch them. . x Representative Belford, of Colorado, has not hesitated to express his opinion that Dorsey’a facts are not distorted, though Judge Belford regrets that he saw fit to make them public at. this time. Judge Belford isin possession of some facts that came under his own observation that confirm some things that Dorsey has said. “It throws no discrediton Dorsey’s statements,” said Judge Belford, “to attack him. * That is the policy of the lawyerjwho, being beaten, goes out and swears at the judge. There are, I fear, too many men who know, in part, at least, that he | has told some truths. I know what I am speaking about when I say that Dorsey was one of Garfield’s most trusted counsellors, and his advee was sought by Grarfield during the canvass and between the election and inauguration of Garfield. As to the causes that led to the rupture between Garfield and Conkling, I am quite familiar with them. I went to Mentor in the winter of 1881 to urge Garfield to appoint ex-GoveVnor Rouett, of Colorado, a member of his Cabinet. It was so well known that Garfield sought Dorsey’s advice in making up his Cabinet that it was thought necessary to win Dorsey’s support for Governor Rouett. With a friend, a prominent politician, I went to New York and saw Dorsey. There letters from Garfield to Dorsey were shown my friend which satisfied him that Dorsey was very near to Garfield. We were, therefore, delighted when Dorsey agreed to go to Mentor and support Governor Rouett. While I was at Mentor General Garfield requested me on my return to Washington, to see Mr. ! Conkling, and to learn why he seemed, even then, disaffected. General Garfield wanted me to write fully to him the result of that interview. On my return Senator Teller arranged an interview with Senator Conkling. We had a conversation that lasted more than an hour. When it was finished I wrote np what was showed the manuscript to Mr. Conkling, and have the note now. I can not make that public now, but it is a full recitation of the causes of difference. This talk satisfied me, and could not fail to satisfy any fair man, that Mr. Conkling had been sinned against, and further, it is entirely consistent with what Dorsey’s statement in the Sun has to say on these matters. „ “I have,” continued Judge Belford, “indirect evidence that other portions are true. 1

A very prominent member of Congress, and one who was a very intimate friend of General Garfield, told me that he said to General Garfield that all his real friends. thought that he had made a very great blunder in appointing Robertson. To this Garfield replied with his usual effusiveness when addressing an intimate. ‘Old fellow, that’s true* but I am to get out of this trouble into which I was really forced. I will keep Robertson in the Custom House oile year, and will then send him to Europe to some first class mission. I regret this mutual misunderstanding between Conkling and myself, and I propose to adjust it as soon as possible. Tnere have been mistakes on both sides, and I am anxious to have them corrected?

“There are politicians who assert this story of the manner in which Garneld was, as he expressed it, forced to appoint Robertson to be true. When the interview between Conkling, Arthur and Garfield was arranged by Wayne Mac Veagh for the Sunday night before Robertson’s appointment was made, Garfield had no intention of making any immediate changes in the Custom House at New York. He told Mr. Conkling, at their interview, that he certainly would make no change without first consulting the Senators from New York. On the next day some minor appointment went in, and Blaine, who had been confined to his house by an attack of rheumatism, sent a letter to Garfield, saying that either Robertson must be appointed at once or he would resign from the Cabinet. He added that he waited an answer. — This was a little too much even for Garfield. He took no notice of Blaine’s note. Blaine, seeing that he could not bully Garfield by threatening to resign, ’'went to the White House that evening and had a long talk with Garfield. While they were at it the telegram came from New York threatening exposure of the Stanley Matthews bargain unless Robertson’s name was sent in the next day. That had more effect than Blaine’s threat. ExGovernor VanZandt, of Rhode Island could substantiate this statement if he cared.”

Ex-Congressman Sapp, of lowa, said briefly that there were statements that Dorsey had made that he tho’t were true, and he regretted the fact ana the publishing of it. Delegate Pettigrew, of Dakota, said that # he knew that many of the statements Dorsey had made were tiue. He had known some of them at the time, and had learned others since. He said that the publication was injuring the party in the extreme West.