Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 35, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 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 —More Interesting Heading. [From the Chicago Dally News, Rep.l The revelations that ex-Senator Dorsey has made through the Sun have formed the principal topic of conversation among politicians through 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 or more 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 lowa, 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 and clinch them. Representative Belford, of Colorado, has not hesitated to express his opinion that Dorsey’s facts are not distorted, though Judge Belford regrets that he saw fit to make them public at this time. Judge Belford is in possession of some facts that came under his own observation that confirm some things that Dorsey has said. “It throws no disoredit on Dorsey’s statements,” said Judge Belford, “to attack him. That is the policy of the lawyer, who, 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 advice was sought by Garfield 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 exGov. Routt, 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 Gov. Routt. With •a friend, a prominent politician, I went io 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 Gov. Routt. While I was at Mentor Gen. Garfield requested me on my return to Washington, to see Mr. Conkling, and to learn why he seemed, even then, disaffected. Gen. 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 up what was said, showed the manuscript to Mr. Conkling, and have the note now. I cannot make that public now, but it is a full recital 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. A very prominent member of Congress, and one who was a very intimate friend of Gen. Garfield, told me that he said to Gen. G arfield 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 going to get out of this trouble into which I was really forced. I will keep Robertson in the

Custom House one year, and then will send him to Europe to some first-class mission. I regret his mutual misunderstanding between Conkling and myself, and I propose to adjust it as soon as possible. There 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 Garfield ■was, as he expressed it, forced to appoint Robertson to be true. When the interview between Conkling, Arthur and Garfield was arranged by Wayne MacVeagh for the Sunday night before Robertson’s appointment was made, Garfield had no intention of making any immediate changes m 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 Y’ork. 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 fpr 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 thap Blaine’s threat. Ex-Gov. Van Zandt, of Rhode Island, could substantiate this statement if he cared. ” Congressman Warner, of Ohio, says that there were so many things in Dorsey’s story that he knew to be true, that he had to accept it all. He says that J ewell himself told him that Dorsey’s finance . committee had raised an immense sqm, of which he (Jewell) knew nothing for three months, and that they had kept him in ignorance because

it was proposed to spend the money in ■0 manner which he would Dot tolerate. While he was busy raising money from manufacturers to make the fight on the tariff, this committee of New York bankers were raising immense amounts and spending them improperly. Jewell condemned to Warner in the severest terms the manner in which the money was used. Ex-Congressman Sapp, of lowa, said briefly that there were statements that Dorsey had made that he thought were true, and he regretted the fact and the publishing of it. Delegate Pettigrew, of Dakota, said that he knew that many of the statements Darsey had made were true. He sai'd that the publication was injuring the party in the.extreme West. Corporal Tanner, who was seen in Denver at the Grand Army Reunion, said that he believed that Dorsey, in the main, had told truth. John C. New said that he did not know where the Indiana two dollar bill came from, but he knew “they did a heap of .good.” There are other men, prominent men, who possess information as to the truthfulness of these charges, and possess that without the obligation of confidence. Some of them may ere long tell what they know.