New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-01-15

In THE TRIBUNE of January we published
letter from John Savage c. L. f. b. proposing arbitra
ton for settlement OF the Fenian disputes The follow
ing is Gen. o'Neill's reply:
wAsmSGToN, D. c., Jan. 10, 1863
DEAR SIR: have the honor to acknowledge The receipt
Of your communication OF the 9th inst forwarded to me
from New York This letter although addressed 70 me-
was evidently intended but tor the public press as II ives
received at my headquarters in NeWfork about O'Clock
Monday evening and published In the NewYOrk papers
Tuesday morning Were 1t not FOR stil lingering hope
for that end rather than OF any spirit that you have man
Tested in conducting these negotiations, your hagIant
violations OF the courtcsies Of fe and manifest unfair
ia thus publishing your epdre letter before giving
time 10 reply to il, or unaceompaned by me CORR
force ne to regard it as unworthy of my notice; and.
were it not for this hope would most emphamGay
on the subject seems futile" know not whether am
more grieyed or astonished at the position you nave
tenacity to which is so clearly evidenced by
this last letter. greyed for the general patriotic
aites-astonlshed at the most disbonorabe proposal
with which you conclude your Letter You nave persist 81,
union unwarranted by lis eSress eIihs OF ny IN
parssencyfo the members Of the Senate and myself
66 ba ndSsd SO clearly HlncIt rant
might consistently With my oath q Office waive
that proposed by YOU but can do SO no longer when
without the violation Of my OATH that even you yourself
do not deny IL but simply claim that my solemn oath
predicameIt into which the cause OF union" has got
by the irreconcilabnty OF your Interpretation with any
the matter for arbitration TO three gentlemen, &c.
you knop to be as clearly impossible, unconstitutional
previously rejected The grounds. You may feel
the necessity for committee to determine what
you mean; but feel under 10 such necessity, and to
submit to any three gentlemen, whether shall
violate my oath OF ONCE, is simply supremacy ridiculous
Now, Sir cannot aud VIII NOT conduct these negotia
tons anS further on this ne for in the face Of all that
has already passed between US on this subject your pro-
pOsa 10 Inc To ignore my OATH offensive 10 me as II
should be repugnant to yourself Meet this question
honestly and squarely II stands simply thus: we both
delpha Constitution governed by President and Senate
provided for IN that Consttuton-the Senate TO be
called Council" said Council TO be composed OF seven
from organization and seven from that over
which have the honor to preside together hfteenh
said Council" With the process you proposed the united
organization would be governed by President elected
by council composed OF seven men from each 0rRanLa
tiOn and fifteenth Of their choice and by said council
The Constitutional process proposed by me- and required
Of by my oath 10 support the Constitution would gve
precisely the same result, viz: PRESIDENT elected
by Council" composed OF seven men from each or.
ganizaton, and fifteenth Of their choice and by said
Council The end reached then under either being pre-
csey the what can be the purpose OF your obst
Macy If 1t be not 10 induce me and the members OF the
Senate to break our oaths, II tho essential requi
site qualify cust0dians OF the organization, and
the Constitution which was TO govern IT, were TO nrst
break oaths to support It, In truth does not this
seem something worse than Paradoxieai iQn knew,
accepted this basis OF Unon that or the senate
could not 20 outside OF the Constitution in carrying 1t
out for assured You In the most explicit terms
You knew That the committee winch Wdt Dhels
to YOU advised you tcri0 lin letter OF Dec III that
they 1.-THE President and Senatel could not go outside OF
the written law from which they derive any authority"
and had not the power Of setting aside the Constitution
any portion OF IT," You accepted the basis OF Union
in the face Of that assurance and you arc therefore
bound In honor and sincerity, by your on ael OF accept
III not by my OATH to interpret the basis by the ght
of that knowledge Now, Sir have no alternative
you know, from the constitutional mode, but
perjury You are bound TO other process. Then. why
not adopt the only mode upon which Is possible Tor me
TO meet you and according withthe ouy legitimate
probation Of the basis agreed you Will nothonesty
meet on this ground knowing, as you have from the
first, that made obligatory me by my solemn oath,
and the union resulting would be the same by either
course, what conclusion, them Is 10 possible Tor me 10
arrive at but that instead Of occupying yonr mind with
the question hOto you could effect union, your only In
quiry has BEEN phGt could yo propose uhch you knep
could not dcoeptS In word Will II not appear that
your efforts been rather prevent union than 10
accomplish IL pray you In conclusion, not TO lend
yourself the purposes OF those who hate that Const
top "a the monument Of their nhdelity and per-
jury who would feel an ignoble qualification at the de-
strucon Of that instrument which stood between them
and the life and virtue OF the organiration or who
would still rejoice at the perfdy Of It's defenders
But N you still refuse TO accede TO proposal send
In the names Of your seven for election to the
Council then reGcho your opinion that further cor
respondence on the subject futile and but regret
that so much valuable time has already been wasted
while l. and the organization Of which am President,
have but to contin with oil possible vigor 10 carry out
purpose ~ raising army and revolution that may
give liberty and Ind pendence 10 Ireland believing our