The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-09-13
s@listelhtleons.
THE ANTI HAYES COLUMN
A Republican Reply to Stanley
Matthews's Athens Speech.

ut is objected that the President, in
adopting the course pursued, failed in his
constitutional duty. This is indeed a
serious charge. If made good, it leaves
him without defense. "-SfaAGey Mat.
He7OS al AkhenS.
Mr.. Matthews made a most exhaustive
and laborious defense of the course pur>
sued toward the Republicans of Louisi-
ana, South Carolina and Florida, in his
late Athens speech. Repudiating every
thing like obligation or gratitude on the
part of the political aspirant to his follow
ers, he places the defense of the Presi>
dent, as to the above charge, on strictly
technical grounds, and, by an elaborate
and ingenious perversion both of facts
and law, endeavors to justify his course.
Let us see if in very truth the President
did not fail in his Constitutional du-
ty," and, | might add, every other
duty, toward the Republicans Of the
South. Twill follow Mr.. Matthews, and
take the State Of Louisiana as an ilustra>
ton.
Hayes could not have been elected
without the electoral vote Of louisiana.
Counting that vote for him he is now
President. Packard received larger
vote for Governor than was given for the
Hayes electors. The same Board of
Canvassers who were charged by the
law to canvass the vote for electors and
certify the result, were also required by
law to canvas the vote for members OF
the Legislature and certify the result.
The Legislature thus declared elected
were required by law to count the votes
for Governor and declare the result. That
Legislature convened, and a quorum in
both branches being present the votes
were opened and Packard was declared
and inaugurated Governor and entered
on the discharge ofthe duties oihis office.
Nichols claimed the office, but without
resortins to any of'the legal methods to
contest Packard S rights, he organized an
armed force and attempted to dispossess
him by force, succeeded in obtaining
possession of much of the Government,
and was only prevented from completely
oyerturning it at that time by the inter
position of the President of the United
States, acting in that regard upon
requisition, legally made on him under
the law of 1895, by the legal authorities
of the State, and whose authority had
been thus attacked.
Every fact above stated was known to
President Grant when the requisition
came, and Secretary Sherman says he
ought under the evidence before him, lat
once to have recognized Packard as Gov
ernor, the insunection as an existing fact
an6 applied the proper remedy. Wheth-
er President Grant discharged his duty
is foreign to my inquiry, his failure can
not excuse President Hayes, Congress
was then in session, and an investigation
was then proceeding in both houses for
the purpose Of ascertaining who had
been elected to cast the electoral vote of
the State, and incidentally who had been
elected Governor, and reasonable re-
gard to coordinate branch of the Gov.
ernment, seems to have required Presi,
dent Grant to defer his final action Il It'll
the result of such investigations had been
made known! That investigation and
the action of Congress resulted in the in
auguration Of Hayes as President by
counting for him the electoral vote Of
Louisiana, No upright or honorable man
could have received or entered into such |
high Office on any mere technicality,
believing that another person had been |
legally elected and was prevented by |
fraud from taking the place. | assume
then that Mr.. Hayes was fully advised of
all the facts and believed himself to be
duly elected.
Upon entering upon his duties he
found matters as above stated. A Leg
islature had convened, Governor had |
been inaugurated and an application
made to the Executive for protection
against domestic violence, and made in
due form Of law. IfPresident Hayes had
any doubt as to what body of men con-
stituted the Legislature, or who was Gov.
ernor, it was his duty to make inquiry
and ascertain the fact. The law and his
official oath gave him no discretion as to
this. He was absolutely required to act.
If satisfied as to beth propositions he
ought, of course, to have acted without
further inquiry. Ifnot satisfied he ought
to have instituted such an inquiry. Prac-
tically every fact was known to him.
Personal and political friends had been
sent few days after the election to the
State, and had there remained and as
certained and reported to him every exN
isting fact. He knew that he could not
be President equitably and fairly unless
Packard was legally Governor. The
action Of Congress on his title ought to
have been with him conclusive as to the
title of Packard. 1t is certain however
that he made no investigation after his
Inauguration as to the validity of the title
nor did he make any inquiry as to the
existence ofinsurrection or domestic vio-
lenee. Most facts were patent. Indeed
the last constitutes the gist of Mr.. Mat>
thews's defence; that the Nichols organ
ization was so strong, its force so great
that it entirely deprived the rightful gov
ernment of authority, and was therefore
the only government to be recognized,
and hence President Hayes ought to have
refused to comply with the requisition
of the Packard government and per-
mitted it to be entirely overthrown as he
did.
This in itself is concession that the
President actually refused to support the
legally elected government of the State
against domestic violence, and admits,
substantially, that the President failed in
his constitutional duty.
But Mr.. Matthews claimed that the
Nichols government, having by force
acquired the mastery ofthe State, became
and was the government and ought to {
have been so regarded by the President. {
And he says, GAS well might Henri of '
Bourbon, or the Count of Paris, or the
Prince Imperial claim that Marshal Mac '