The Irish republic. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1867-18??, 1868-01-25


union was agreed upon and signed by authority
Awaiting your reply, very respectfully,
JOHN SAVAGE, &. E. +. b.
GENERAL o'NEILLs REPLY.
WASHINGTON, D. c., January 10th, 1868.
John Savage Esq.
DEAR SIR have the honor to acknowledge the receipt
of your communication of the 9th instant forwarded to me
from New York This letter. although addressed to me- was
evidently intended but for the public press it was received
evening" and published in the New York papers Tuesday
morning Were not for asti lingering hope for Unlon
which is begoen of my ardent desire for that end
rather than of spirit that have manifested In con-
Quoting these negotiations your fragrant violation of the
couresies of le and manifest unairness in thus publishing
your parte letter. before giving time reply it.
unaccompaned by the correspondence which pported
to be reply would force to regard as unworthy of my
notice; and it not for this hope would most empha
cay with you in saying that further correspondence
the subject would be futile"
know whether grieved astonished at
the position you have chosen this question: and your OBJ
snate enacy to which clearly evidenced by this last
letter grieved for the general patriotic yearnlng which
calls for the union of all Irish at
the dshonorabe proposal with which you conclude
your letter. You have persstenty insisted inter-
probation of the bass Of union unwarranted by its ex
press terms by inference it is dishonorabe and insult
ng-at least in its persencytot the members of the Senate
and myself interpretation indeed SO clearly without
rant that you have not had the temerity to argue It,
could honorably discuss with you the question: whether
might consistently with my oath of office waive the
constitutional mode of adjusting the union and adopt that
prepared by you but do longer when 1t Is made
clear that abandon that position without the VIC
aton of oath, that yourself do not deny it. but
and rejoice in the predcamen into which the
of union has got by the irreconcilabity of yo
Interpretation with any concession possible on my part
proposal submit the matter for arbitration to three
gentlemen" etc., you know to be as clearly impossible I'M
constitutional and involving of perjury my part as the
mode previously rejected the grounds. You may
feel the necessity for committee to determine what you
but feel under such necessy and to ask me to
submit any hree gentlemen whether shall violate my
oath of office is simple supremely ridiculous.
Now cannot and will not conduct these negotiations
further this line for in the face of all that has already
ignore oath is offensive to me as tshoud bsrepgnant
to yourself
Meet this question honestly and equally. 1t stands simply
thus We both profess to desire united Organization
under the Philadelphia Constitution governed by Presi
dent and Senate as for d in that tit
of from your Organization and seven from that
over which have the honor to preside.together with
fifteenth of their united election the President to be elected
by said Council" With the process you proposed the
united Organizations would be governed by President
elected by Council composed of seven from each
Organization and fifteenth of their choice, and by said
Council. The Constitutional process proposed by and
required of by oath to support the Constitution would
give precisely the result viz President elected by
Council composed of from each Organization and
fifteenth of their choice, and by said Council The end
reached thn under either being precisely the what
be the purpose of your obsnacy if it be not to induce
and the members of the Senate break oaths if
the essential requisite qualify cusodans of the
Organization and the Constitution which was to govern IT.
first break oahs support it, In truth doesno
this something worse than paradoxica? You kne
ate could go outside of the Constitution in carrying it
out for assured you in the explicit terms You
knew that the committee which proposed that basis to you
advised you in uring lin letter of December 11th that
they 6e President and senate could go outside the
written law which they derive any authority and had
"he power of setting aside the Constitution por
ton of M You accepted the basis of union" in the face
of that assurance and you therefore bound in earest
honor and sincerity, by act Of acceptance f not by
my oa to interpret the basis by the light of that knowl-
edge.
Now, sir, have alternative, you know, from the
Constitutional mode but perjury You bound to other
process Then why adopt the only mode upon which
is possible you; and accordingly with the
only Interpretation of the basis agreed on If you will
the first, that it is made obligatory from my solemn
OATH and the union resulting would be the by
either course what conclusion, then is it possible for
arrive but that instead of occupying your mind with the
question ho could effect anio2 only innury has