The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-10-11

OF the Neutrality act of 1918, he voted to
kill the proposition by an unmanly stab
in the back. He manifested then the same
spirit and the same sympathies which have
recently been exposed in his secret deal
ings with the so-called american ALI
ance"
Charges have been made impcachng the
integrity of Gov. HAYES while command
ing brigade in the army, and some of
them under circumstances and with an
array OF testimony that the opponents of
Mr.. TILDEN would consider imposing, if
applied to him. We do not propose to en-
gage in this sort of controversy, and there
fore leave it to those whose tastes are bet
ter fitted for Its enjoyment.
In the latest of these charges which has
been brought to light, Mr.. HAYES does not
appear creditably. II IL alleged by JAMES
LIE Roy of Tomah, Wisconsin, that one of
his sons, who was killed at the battle OF
Winchester in September, 1864, previously
deposited with Gen. HAYES, then his
brigade commander, a sum of money de-
rived from his pay and bounty, of which
no account has ever been rendered. The
father applied to Mr. HAYES for this
money in 1862 and n sharp correspondence
ensued between them. About the merits
OF this claim we have nothing to say. But
the letters of Mr.. HAYES are fair subject
OF criticism, aud we give them in the order
o. dates and answers, as they have been
published without any denial Of their
commences
The first is as follows:
"CoLunBus. Ohio. OCT. q. 1899
any I peO ~ as Ii. and consequently ne cou
not have hsi ne money; You must Dc m,staken, or
This was evidently intended as a COM
plete answer to the claim, though the logic
Of the letter is not sound, for il does not
follow because Mr.. HAYES had mo recol-
lection " of a soldier in his brigade that the
soldier may not have placed money or
other valuables in his safe keeping, us was
quite common in the army.
Twelve days after this letter, Mr.. HAYES
wrote u second one to LIE Roy, in these
words:
"CoLuNRrs, Ohio, Nov, 2, 1860,
Mr. JAMES LIZ RoY-Sr In reply to yours Of Oct 20.
put nerer had any money beioRg.Hg 10 nm. You ara
OenS deceived St are .rslns to Olaekmh Mi yysn
He does not say that his memory was
refreshed by inquiry, but admits that he
" remembers the person" in question,
while denying emphatically that he ever
had any money belonging to him." The
contradiction between the two declara-
tions is very decided, but il is quite sur
passed by the following which is the third
OF the series, aud II fortnight later III date:
~ "CoLrNRrs, OHIO, Nov. 10, 1859.
n, iay Sa & a S 10 s .Se y sS On
wgney Dud a. wac dH ,ttied 6p ne before ne 6dlls.
'"'A 'u '"'en4 '0''' ''@"'' on NE j. fG STss S.
In the course Of three weeks Mr.. HAYES
thus gives three different versions of the
same subject, and each disputes the other:
/. He had "no recollection OF any such
person, and consequently could not have
had his money. Oct. 81, 1869
.. II remember the person you spoke of,
hut never had any money belonging TO
him. Nov. 2, 1869.
3. Must say that | had left with me
some of the boys money. but it was all re-
turned by me before the battle."-Nov. 10,
1869.
Now, which OF these three conflicting
statements, all written and signed by the
same hand, and referring to the same mat
ter, Is the true one! Put aside everything
relating to the claim ITSELF and admit
all that Mr.. HAYES says of the claimants
father to be true, still he stands convicted
by hs own declarations of something quite
~ bad as that which he charges upon LE
Roy. Certainly, this snot the stun of which
II President should be made, al great crisis
like that which now presses upon the
country and all its material interests.