The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-21

as soon have suspected him of an intent to |
poison his food or stab him in his sleep. Can
IL be possible that Stanton was the author Of |
the Dawes resolution?
That resolution is found in the OonGres-
si0nal Globe, Second Session, Thirty-sixth
Congress, 1S60-61, part second pp. 1423-24.
The proceeding was begun, no doubt in the
hope of finding something on which the
charge could be founded Of scattering the
navy to prevent it from being used against
the South. But that failed miserably; and
the committee reported nothing worse
than "a grave error" of the Secretary in
accepting without delay or inquiry the rssig-
nation of certain naval officers Even this
had no foundation in law or fact. Its truth
was denied and the evidence called for; none
was produced. The right to explain and
defend was demanded, but the gag
of the previous question was applied be-
fore q word could be said. The accusers
knew very well that it would not bear the
slightest investigation. Mr.. Sickles said
truly (amid cries of ''Order'O that 'censure
without evidence disgraces only those who
pronounce it" Mr. Toucey's reputation was
never injuriously affected by it in the estima-
ton of any fair-minded man. But you fish it
up from the oblivion to which it has been
consigned, and try to give it decency and
dignity by saying that Stanton inspired it.
You do not appear to perceive the hideous
depth to which your assertion, if true, would
drag him down. It is not true; the whole
business bears the impress of a different
mind.
NJ. Stanton also suggested that his col
league and friend Toucey ought TO be ar
rested. This could not have been a PROPOSE
tion to take him into legal custody on
criminal charge regularly made. That would
have been utterly impossible and absurd.
The Dawes committee itself could find
nothing against him but an error of judg-
ment. The suggestion must have been to
kidnap him, without an accusation or proof
of probable cause, and consign him to some
dungeon without trial or hope of other relief.
If Stanton attempted to get this done, he
was guilty of such perfdy as would have
shocked the basest pander in the court of
Louis XIV. But to confute your libel upon
Toucey and Stanton both, it is only necessary
| to recollect the fact that kidnapping of
American citizens was at that time wholly
unknown and absolutely impossible. We
were living under q Democratic administra-
ton, the country was free, and law was
supreme. Tyranny had not yet sunk its
bloody fangs into the vitals of the national
liberty. The systematic perjury which after
wards made the Constitution dead letter
was not then established as a rule of political
morality.
Your whole account of the eCabinet
scene" at which Floyd, "raging and storming,
arraigned the President and Cabinet" and
''the President trembled and grew pale, " and
'Stanton met the bafaei traitor and his fell
low-conspiratOrs with a storm of fierce and
fiery denunciation, is pure and perfectly
baseless fabrication. 1t is absurd to boot
What was Floyd's arraignment of the Presi-
| dent and Cabinet for? You say for violating
their pledges to the secessionists; and the
charge against the President and Cabinet of
violating their pledges was predcated solely
on the fact that Colonel Anderson had re-
moved from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter;
and Floyd aonS disappointed in Colonel Ander-
son, whom he ''had expected" as a Southern
man, to carry out his purposes in the
| interest of treason" This is mere dwelling
at best, and it is completely exploded by the
record, which shows that Colonel Andersons
transfer of his force from Fort Moultrie to
Fort Sumter was in literal obedience to orders
| from the President, which Floyd himself had
drawn up, signed, and transmitted. More
over, Floyd at that time was not in eondi-
tion to arraign anybody. He himself had
Just before that been not only arraigned but
condemned, and the President had notified
him that he would be removed if he did not
resign. Was it this broken-down
and powerless man who made
the President tremble and grow pale
by complaining that subordinate had unex-
pectedly obeyed his own orders? You are
not silly enough to say SO. Was it Stantons
''storm of fierce and fiery denunciation?"
Stanton was no stormer in the presence of
such men as he then had to deal with. His
language was habitually deferential, his whole
bearing decent, and his behavior at the coun-
Gil board was entirely free from the insolence
you impute to it. Your tales do not hang to-
gether. No one can give credence to your
report of bold and stormy denunciation by
Stanton in the presence of his chief and his
colleagues, and at the same time believe what
you say of him at another place, where you
describe him as bastard, skulking about in
the dead of night to find place of conceal
ment remote enough to make him safe, and
confessing that he did not dare to breathe his
accusation in the face of day. The crawling
sycophant-the stealthy spy-who bargained
| 80 carefully for darkness and secrecy when he
made his reports, must have been wholly un-
fitted to play the part of Jupiter Tonans in a
square and open conflict. 1t is not possible
that the fearless Stanton of your ''Cabinet
scene" could be the same Stanton who, at
one o'clock in the night, was ''squat like a
toad" at the ear of Sumner,
Essaying by his devilish arts to reach
The organs OF his fancy
I take it upon me to deny most en-
phatically that Mr.. Stanton ever wrote a
full and detailed account of that Cabinet
scene" by which you can have the least hope
of being corroborated. / cannot prove a
negative; but can show that your assertion
is Incredible. That he should have eoolly
indited a letter, even though he never sent 1t,
filled with foolish brags of his own prowess,
which half dozen men then living could
prove to be false, was not consistent either
with his prudence veracity, or taste. Besides,
he often spoke with me about the events OF