The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-30

the opinions Of Mr.. Buckley. General Han
cocks military career seemed from the first to
constitute guarantee against subserviency to
the views promulgated by the President. IL
was not probable that his tried and sterling
loyalty would admit of tampering with the
law in the interest Of disloysl factions. But
it is nevertheless satisfactory TO have these
repeated and explicit assurances from his own
lips Of his resolve to carry out the law in its
spirit as opposed to the far-fetehed rendering
OF its letter which forms the distinguishing
feature of Mr.. Johnson's programme.
But General Hancock goes still further. He
does more than declare his adherence to the
spirit of the law. He vindicates the law itself
as neither vindictive nor tyrannical. "Fhe
stlict performance of a soldiers duty" he
well remarks, ''may be construed by those
whom it affects as Oppressive but quiet sub
mission to the execution of the acts of Con-
gress in spirit and letter will obviate all ap-
pearance of either oppression or tyranny"
The case could not be more neatly stated. The
law wears the aspect of oppression only to
those who are opposed to its objects, and
would Illustrate its operation. There is not
statute in existence which is not deemed
tyrannical by its habitual vioators and the
Reconstruction law is not likely to be an ex-
ception. The penalties it prescribes are GER
tainly not very despotic in their nature. Dis
abilities that are limited to exclusion from
Office and sirom voting are the mildest form
which punishment for rebellion could assume.
These are oppressive solely in the sense that
attaches to all penalties for offenses defined
by law.
The parts of the reconstruction scheme
which most excite opposition are those which
confer political equality upon the blacks; but
surely the enfrauchisement of the race whom
the war has made free is not oppression to any
\ other class. Hence the appositeness of Gene
/ raj Hancock g saying:-''As to the legitimate
execution of the law ever becoming oppressive
or tyrannical, that depends much upon whether
it meets with resistance, either passive or
open." The communities which accept the
plan of Congress in good faith, comply with
its requirements, and leave other considera.
tions to be determined after the South shall
/ have been fully restored to the ULion, will
! have no need to complain of cruelty or oppres-
! sion. The law may be in some respects un-
paatable to them to others, but it cannot
be properly branded as oppression, nor
can the military government, which is
! one of its preliminary incidents, be
justly stigmatized as tyrannical. Not so,
however, with the antagonists of the law.
I Whether they work covertly or openly,
they may be expected to demur to the
nature of a system which compels them to
obey the law and to abide by its results. In
their eyes the suppression of the Rebellion by
! Federal power was gross usurpaton ond
despotism 1t is natural for them to object
to the just and logical sequences of Union vic
tory as in the highest degree despotic. But
the circumstance is not calculated to shake
the confidence of the country in the equity
and wisdom of the conditions laid down by
Congress. The law was enacted in thee nte
rest of the Union-not to crafty the wishes o
Rebels; and an opposition which aims at tn,
abatement of Union demands for the conve
nience and qualification of those who regarC
the Union itself as the embodiment of oppres
sion, is not entitled to very scrupulous atten
ton. In General Hancock's estimation, eth
lost cause' is not the cause to which th
commanders of the military districts shoulC
pay particular Difference. His explicit utter
ances on the subject dispel the last of the de
lusions to which the Presidents recent pro
ceedings have given birth.