The national Republican., 1866-11-13

York Commercial Advertiser takes up the
cudgel in his behalf with the galantry and
earnestness Of patriot who has either had
or expects to have profitable contract with
the War Department. Without the slightest
provocaton given on our part, and, as will
appear, without knowledge Of the facts in
the case on his part, the editor Of the Com
n,ercidl Advertiser jumps at conclusions and
misrepresents the REPUBLICAN. Let us look
at the facts.
On Friday last the foil owing article ap-
peared in the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN:
Yet Unexplained.
From the Republican, Nov. 9th, 1866.
Two days before the terrible Convention
riot occurred in New Orleans, Gen. BAIRD
sent the following important dispatch to
Secretary STANTON:
NEW ORLEANS, LA, July IS, 1866.
"Hon. Edtcin NJ Stanton, Secretary Of War!
"A Convention has been called with the
sanction of Gov. Wells to meet here on Mon
day. The Lieutenant Governor and city
authorities think it unlawful, and propose to
break it up by arresting the delegates.
have given no orders on the subject, but
have warned the parties that l could not
countenance or permit such action without
W tuul tHcCl lEOlu lut L
Please instruct Inc at once by telegraph.
(Signed,) A. BAIRD,
"Brevet Major General
The official memorandum on the dispatch
is as follows
"oFFIcE U. S. MILITARY TELEGRAPH,
'HEADoUARTERs WAR DEPARTMENT.
The following telegram received at 1920
p. m. July 2S, 1866"
General Baird not only complains Off
cally that he awaited, but never received
reply to this important dispatch, but there
is no evidence in the budget of official dis
patches, published in the REPCBLICAN by au-
thority Of the Government some time since
that Secretary Stanton ever answered the
above highly important dispatch himself
and it is a positive fact that he never sent
it to the President until weeks after the
riot.
Had the President seen the above dis
patch of General Baird, the riot in New Or
leans would never have occurred. Why Sec
retary Stanton neither answered the dispatch
himself nor informed the President Of its
existence, remains unexplained to any one.
Notwithstanding this apparent great cul-
pability on the part Of Mr.. Stanton, no reason
able person can withhold censure from Gen.
Baird for allowing riot and bloodshed and
murder to be committed in the streets Of
new OTledIlS Oh tHG OUlu udS VI JulNt lCbu
He could have prevented all disturbance if
he had simply sent one of his staff officers
wearing the Federal sash and sword, not
only to have warned the parties but
all parties - conventionists and those
who followed the Lieutenant Governor and
city authorities-that he would not allow
any unlawful proceedings whatever upon
either side to take place. If the so-callet
Convention had completed its mockery il
peace, no harm whatever could have CONF
Of it. 1t was not an occasion for riot AM
bloodshcd, and nothing of the kind woult
have occurred if either Secretary Stanton
had faithfully performed his duty here two
days before the riot, or Gen Baird had per
formed his in New Orleans on the day tina
it occurred The public await anxiously al
explanation from Secretary Stanton why h
neither answered Gen. Baird's dispatch no
allowed the President the opportunity to d
So"
The advertiser is fair enough to copy tn
above article and on the same day (Saturda
last) it contains an editorial referring to il
entitled "Evading the Responsibility" whic
begins thus:
"Having come, at last to learn what tn
people think of the New Orleans massacre
the Washington REPUBLrCAS endeavors t.
shit lie responsibility of the affair from th
President to Secretary Stanton"
Again, after stating portion Of the fact
the Advertiser says:
in view of the popular verdict just give'
against his policy, we are not at all SURPRISED
that the REPUBLICAN should no,o attempt t.
screen the President of the United State
from the odium growing out of the Crescen
City butchery When it seeks, however, t
make Secretary Stanton the scapegoat 10
the Administrations sins, by Representing
that he (the Presidenty was ignorant of tn
anticipated riot, the REPUBLICAN is guilty G
dishonesty. Andrew johnson knew an az
vance all about the impending troubles i
New Orleans, and could haze prevented then
if so disposed"
Observing the Advertisers ignorance c
the facts, so far as the REPUBLICAN is cor
cerned, we will not charge it with intentions
Misrepresentation. The two paragraph
which We have quoted from the Advertise
above, clearly show that the writer in tha
journal believes that we have held this re,
ord, about BAIRD's dispatch Of the 2sth.o
July, over STANToN's head and now precC
tate 1t for the first time as IN Offset TO Il
popular verdict just given by the peop
in the elections.
No person knows better than Mr., SrANr'
himself how false this accusation is.
On the 2jth of July last we published t
entire "ofiicial history Of the New Orlea
riot" by authority Of the Government, al
furnished printed slips to the agent of the A
socated Press, so that the other papers in t
country could publish it on the same dc
Two days previous to the 25th was the fl
time that THE president ever saw or kn
anything about BMRD's dispatch of the 2S
In answer to the AdverttSer's unwarran
and unjust insinuation that having come
last to learn what the people think of
New Orleans massacre" we are now, At
the elections, cndeavoring to shift the
sponsibi!ity of the affair from The PRESIDE
to Secretary STANTON" we call the Adve'
serS attention to the fact that on the
that the official correspondence appeared