who treated these subjects with the utmost seriousness; and that deponent is fully convinced that this correspondence and interviews, and their meaning and results, were described by him honestly and faithfully.

C. S. CARPENTER.

Dr. Ireland, who makes the other affidavit, is a citizen of high character; enjoys the esteem of everybody; and by the clearness and very essential importance of his affidavit, contributes much to the completeness of the case. He, with Mr. Carpenter, was averse to personal prominence in the matter; but a sense of duty admitted of no other course than that they have pursued.

AFFIDAVit of dr. IRELAND.

Louis E. Ireland, of Unadilla, Otsego county, New York, being sworn, says that Lewis Carmichael, also of Unadilla, whom he has known for six years, has frequently been in deponent's office in Unadilla, and has shown deponent letters from Horace Greeley, of New York, five or six in number; and one letter of Horatio Seymour; that deponent did not readily read Greeley's letters, except the heading and signature-Carmichael's being addressed as "Friend Carmichael" in one or more of them-which letters deponent held in his hand. Their contents related to matters understood between Carmichael and Greeley, some of the letters passing on as though connected with previous business; and one of the letters invited Carmichael to go to Cincinnati. These letters were shown to deponent in the last of March or first of April, 1872. Carmichael then said to deponent that Greeley would be nominated at Cincinnati, and the Democrats would adopt him; that the only point there was, that Greeley should get the Cincinnati uomination. Deponent perused Horatio Seymour's letter, which he read easily, and recognized the handwriting, according to his previous knowledge of it, as Seymour's. The subjects of that letter were as follows: It mentioned an interview of Carmichael and Seymour, and an interview of Carmichael and Greeley; saying he (Seymour) was more favorably impressed with the turn of matters, with which he seemed satisfied; mentioned the tariff question, and said the best way was to leave the issue a vague one, as Carmichael ▲ad proposed, so as to unite persons of different views in the coalition movement; suggested that if Greeley favored this, it would smooth the way to the end. Deponent's strong impression is that Greeley's candidacy was mentioned; but of that he does not say positively. The time when this letter was read by deponent was about the last of March or first of April, 1872.

The subject had previously been brought to deponent's attention by Carmichael; but when the letters were shown, particularly Greeley's letters, deponent thought the matter too absurd to notice; but after the Cincinnati nomination he understood their importance, and endeavored to procure copies. He would have exposed the matter, except that he had hopes of procuriug the letters or copies of them.

Deponent was informed in December, 1871, from the statement of Carmichael, that Greeley had promised Carmichael the tone of the Tribune would be changed about the first of the year 1872; and the deponent, on noticing, saw the change-which statement of Carmichael deponent can prove on competent testimony of a public officer.

Deponent further remembers that in one of Greeley's letters, Chase was mentioned as now feeble and broken down.

Deponent makes this statement on his honor as a citizen, and because he believes the facts he has mentioned should be exposed,

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 17th day of July, 1872.
FREDERICK A. Sands,

L. E. IRELAND,

Notary Public of Otsego county, N. Y.

THE TWO CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT GRANT.

[From Senator Conkling's Speech at New York, July 23, 1872.]

GIFT TAKING.

But let us go back a moment to Grant before he seriously thought of being President and when he was only the idol of the nation. Returning from the field covered with glory, but poor in money, the affluent, whose fortunes he had saved, met him with munificent offerings. In this they followed the customs of ancient and modern times. The austere republics of antiquity enriched and ennobled their heroes returning from victory. England, with an unwritten constitution and an omnipotent Parliament, which a lawyer once said could do anything but to make a man a woman," has enriched her Generals both by acts of Parliament and by voluntary subscriptions. In the United States the constitution does not permit Congress to act in such matters. Here they rest wholly in the voluntary action of individuals, and that public presentations to heroes involved turpitude in givers or recipients has been first found out by the spurious reformers and libellers now clamoring for notice. Wellington received from his government and his neighbors more than three million dollars. British citizens of Calcutta made him presents, the officers of the army

gave him $10,000, the House of Commons voted him $1,000,000, and a mansion and estate were purchased for him by subscription, at a cost of $1,300,000. Besides this he was three times ennobled, twice by England and once uy Spain. Oliver Cromwell, for deeds done in civil war, received $32,500 a year in gifts. Marlborough was given a stately palace and a splendid fortune. Nelson and his family were ennobled and received $70,000. Jewels and money were given to Fairfax for services in civil war. The generals and admirals of England and France have generally been recipients of great pecuniary benefits. In England and elsewhere the custom of presents to public men has gone beyond the army and the navy. Richard Cobden, a_civilian, in token of political service only, was given by subscription $350,000. John Bright has just received costly gifts. America, younger and poorer, with few wars to breed heroes, has been less lavish than older nations; but Americans have not been stingy. General McClellan, perhaps, begins the list of largely rewarded generals. His active service ended before the war was over, and his democratic admirers, prior to nominating him for the Presidency, presented him a costly house and a large purse, amounting in all to $100,000. To Sherman, Sheridan, Farragut and Grant large sums were given. To Stanton's family and to Rawlins' were given more than a hundred thousand each. Were these things dishonorable? Was it wrong for General Grant to accept such gifts? The charge is an insult to the nation who witnessed and applauded the proceeding; it is an imputation upon those who gave, as much as upon him who received. It can not have been dishonorable or improper for him to accept a gift without being dishonorable and improper to offer it. How must the cant and snivel we hear seem to the people of Germany just now. Bismarck, though Chancellor and Prime Minister, has just received as a gift, in token of his services in the recent war, a magnificent landed estate, worth more than was given to all our generals; and Bismarck in like token, has been made a Prince. General Von Moltke, for his services in the German-Franco war, has been given $300,000; and Germany has set apart from the French indemnity fund $4.000,000 to be distributed in gifts to her heroes. Do you believe any German, or any man with a German heart in his bosom, will ever be men enough to throw these gifts in the face of those who earned and accepted them? If there is a man mean enough to do it he will be safer in the Greeley menagerie than he would be in any hiding place in Germany. Yet gift-taking, forsooth, is paraded by political Pharisees. One thing is noticeable:- The men who screech about gift-taking are those who never gave a cent, and who were never openly offered a cent certainly not for any honorable service rendered to their country. The charge that Grant accepted any gift after he became President, or after he was nominated, is wholly false. He has accepted nothing of value since his first nomination-not even a carriage and horses-although Lincoln, and Buchanan, and Pierce, and Taylor, and other Presidents, did accept carriages and horses after their election.

NEPOTISM.

to

Let me go on with the charges against the President. Few of them figure more largely than appointing relatives to office. Mr. Sumner has staggered the nation by the weight of the dictionaries, encyclopædias and other big books which he has dumped upon us, show what "nepotism" is. He finds it charged that Popes had children, and called them nephews, and lavished upon them the moneys of the Church; and he thinks that where a public office is to be filled and a good man is appointed at the same pay any other man would receive, a case has occurred like that of the Popes, provided the man who makes the appointment and the man who gets it are related to each other. This, if not a useful, is a wonderful discovery.

From the morning of time common sense has distinguished between creating a useless and lucrative sinecure and bestowing it on a relative, and selecting a relative to do a service required to be done. When Hannibal and Frederick the Great and Napoleon and Emperor William put a brother or a son at the head of an army, with rank and titles, or even placed him on a throne, the world never thought it was like a sinecure for a Papal nephew. On the contrary, in public and private business, nothing has seemed more natural than for those entrusted with affairs to employ and associate with themselves persons in whom they most confided, whether relatives or not. In all such cases, if the person be fit, little harm can be done; but if he is unfit, a great wrong is done, whether he be a relative or not. If the appointment of relatives be a crime, a great many men, including the busiest and most blatant "liberals," must be great criminals. Andrew Johnson, his Cabinet and chief officers must have been huge offenders, for reasons which no one thought of at the time though every one knew of them. President Johnson's son was his chief Private Secretary. Governor Seward's son was Assistant Secretary of State. Edwin M. Stanton's son was a clerk in the War Department. Giddeon Welles' son was Chief Clerk of the Navy Department; and when Giddeon Welles employed a relative at a great remuneration to buy ships the scandal was not that he paid just sums to a relative, but that he paid such sums at all. Reverdy Johnson, Minister to England, made his son Assistant Secretary of Legation. John A. Dix, Minister to France, did the same thing with his son. All this was under Andrew Johnson, but when a drag net of criticism and impeachment was cast over him these things were not caught up.

LIBERAL" RELATIVES.

reformers" themselves will not bear examination on this point.

The rueful "reformers'

Mr.

Schurz pressed his brother-in-law upon the President, and obtained for him a lucrative office, and when Mr. Trumbull caused his removal upon statements impeaching his fitness Mr. Schurz raged against the President for removing his brother-in-law. Mr. Trumbull seems to have procured appointments for his brother-in-law, his sons and his nephews, and he broke, it is said, with the President because he refused to appoint Mr. Trumbull's son to an office. That shrill and frisky "reformer," Mr. Tipton, although not colossal himself, would need a hay scales to be weighed along with all his relatives he has helped to get office. Three brothers-in-law, a nephew and a son in office, with other things for other relatives, did not satisfy his "liberal" inclinations, but he vigorously plied the President and the Secretary of State to give a valuable consulship to another son, and after they declined he frequently avowed-once pipingly to the President himself that the refusal was the cause of his opposition. Mr. Fenton saw no objection to giving to his adopted son his influence for an office, nor to obtaining it from Tammany Hall, and keeping it through all the exposures of Tweed and the rest, although no service was attached to it equivatent to the pay. Mr. Sumner, with a brother-in-law in office under Andrew Johnson, was inflamed by his removal, and did not hesitate to make known his displeasure. Even Mr. Greeley did not scruple to countenance his brother-in-law in obtaining the most lucrative collectorship of internal revenue in the United States. Nor has he hesitated to urge appointments, clearly unfit, on the ground of the intimate terms between himself and those he urged.

[Mr. Conkling then goes on to cite cases of nepotism on the part of Democratic officeholders among them that of Governor Hoffman, who, when Mayor of New York, caused the appointment of his father-in-law, Starkweather, to a place which yielded him $561,ooo in four years.]

Let us

But if General Grant has done wrong, the crime of others cannot help him. look into his case. You might suppose from the noise, that he had used a relative as a peg for every hole in the country, and that he had put round pegs in square holes, and square pegs in round holes, everywhere. It has been said that he has appointed 50 relatives, 40 relatives, 30 relatives, and Mr. Sumner estimates 13 relatives, to office. None of these statements are true. Since President Grant came in, but nine persons in all, connected in the remotest degree with him or with his wife, have held political office under the United States.

I have a list of them, and do not speak without information. Nine is the total number in political office. This does not include a son of the President, sent as a pupil to West Point, long before his father became President; nor does it include his brother-in-law, Dent, who has long held a commission in the army by the same tenure under which Sherman and Sheridan, and every other officer of the army holds his place, and which the President has no more power to give or take away than the man in the moon.

:

Of the nine relatives or connections in office, two were appointed by Andrew Johnson, viz. The President's father, postmaster at Covington, Ky., and his brother-in-law, the Rev. Mr. Cramer, Consul to Leipsic. Mr. Cramer was transferrred from Leipsic to Denmark by President Grant, on the recommendation of Bishop Simpson, Bishop Jaynes, and many other well known persons, friends of Mr. Cramer. Being the brother-in-law of the President, he, of course became a mark for "liberal" abuse, and was charged with drinking beer, and being refused the membership of a social club.

But now comes the Cincinnati Methodist Conference, about as respectable a body as has met in Cincinnati lately, and certifies after full investigation, the utter falsity of the charges. Their report is fortified by letters from Copenhagen, and by statements of the official journal and other newspapers there, indignantly repelling the aspersions cast at Mr. Cramer, and pronouncing him blameless officer and man.

Deducting Jesse R. Grac and M. J. Cramer, appointed by Johnson, seven instances of relatives appointed to ritical affice remain, and of these but two were in truth and in fact abpointed by the resident as I will show you.

Orlando H. Ros, a cousin of the President, holds a clerkship, under the third Auditor of the Treasury. He was a soldier in the war, and Gen. Logan, as he stated in Senate, procured his pointment at the Treasury Department without the knowledge of the President who. fact, never heard of it until he read it in a newspaper. This leaves six, and of these four hold local offices, viz.: George W. Dent, Appraiser at San Francisco; James F. Casey, collector at New Orleans; one a brother and the other a brother-in-law of Mrs. Grant; Peter Casey, Postmaster at Vicksburg, Miss., a brother of a brother-in-law of Mrs. Grant; and George B. Johnson, Assessor of the third District of Ohio, who married a third cousin of the President. These men hold local offices, and were selected and put forward, as has been universal in both political parties for 50 years, by the local Representatives.

When the member of Congress from a District certifies the character of an applicant for a post-office or any other office local in his district, and recommends his selection, the practice of the Government has always been to rely and act upon such representations, holding the member of Congress responsible to the Government and to his constituents, if he obtains unfit appointments.

It was in this way that the four persons just named were selected, the President having no part in the matter, if he believed the applicant fit and worthy, except to consult the wishes of the people made known through their representatives, or else to overrule their wishes, upon the grouud that it might be better for himself not to run the risk of having the matter some time or other flung in his face.

Two appointments remain, and upon these the President did undoubtedly exercise his own choice and his own judgment.

The first is Alexander Sharp, a connection of Mrs. Grant, who was appointed Marshal of the District of Columbia. This officer is virtually a member of the President's household-he receives company with the family, introduces visitors, and generally helps along. For these reasons some relative or friend of the President's family has always been found for this position.

The remaining relative is Silas Hudson, Minister to Guatemala. He is cousin to the President. Iowa, the Siate in which he lives, had the mission to Guatemala before President Grant came in; Fitz Henry Warren held it; and on his retirement Iowa claimed it still, and presented Mr. Hudson, who is described as an able and accomplished man. The President might have refused to appoint him, without giving just offence to the Republicans of Iowa, because he might have taken a man from some other State, but he did ap. point him, and thus he furnished the needy "Liberals" with one awful example.

GREELEY INELIGIBLE.

Mr. Greeley is assailed on all sides, but the latest bit of gossip is furnished by a dispatch published in the Boston Traveler to the effect that "one of the reasons for which Carl Schurz is silent on the Greeley question is supposed to be the belief on his part that the Axeman of Chappaqua is ineligible to office, because in all the amnesty bills passed by Congress for the removal of political disabilities, the name of Horace Greeley does not appear. His voluntary advice and encouragement which he gave to the seceding States, now counts against him, for as matters stand no person can hold any office whatsoever, who can not make oath that he has never given any aid or countenance, counsel or encouragement to parties engaged in avowed hostilities against the government of the United States, and that he has never yet aided or voluntarily supported any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. It is well known that Horace Greeley can not, without perjury, subscribe to such an oath, and his ineligibility to the presidential office is therefore an established fact.'

A DARKEY'S VIEW OF THE SITUATION.

A correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial, a Greeley organ, traveling in Kentucky, interviewed his barber on the political situation, with the following result :

Barber. What is the name of your paper?

Correspondent. The Commercial.

B. Oh, yes; I've seen that. It's a Grant paper, ain't it?

C. No, it's a Greeley paper.

B. Oh, I thought it was Republican.

C. So it is.

B. That sounds curious to me. How could a paper be against Seymour and for Greeley?

C. Because Seymour was a Democrat.

B. Well, so is Greeley.

C. You are much mistaken; Greeley is a Republican,

B. (Looking amazed, and opening his eyes as big as shaving mugs:) I don't understand it; I can't see how a Republican can be running on a Democratic ticket.. There is something loose somewhere.

C. He is not running on a Demoeratic ticket.

B. Then the Democrats are mightily fooled, for they think he is.

C. No, indeed, they don't.

B. But they are all going for him about here. Just look how it is; every Republican is for Grant, and every Democrat for Greeley. It looks to me like he is running the same way Seymour did. The people are divided, just like they were then, only in place of Seymour, Greeley has come out, I don't know anything about the platform, as they call it I look at the thing just as it is before the people.

THE END.