Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1877-04-06
Who Are Chargeable With Bad Faith2

Apart altogether from the immediate
results of the Presidents action with
reference to South Carolina and Louisi
ana, the question of good faith as be
tween the President and confidential
friends, on one hand, and prominent
Southern men on the other, possesses more
than passing Importance. 1t goes to the
root of the character of the Administra
tion, and it determines the degree OF
confidence which should be reposed, re
spectively, in the President and his as
sailants.
AT the outset of the controversy the
enemies of the Administration had q de
cided advantage. They declared that
at critical stage of the count of tn,
electoral vote, Messrs. Foster and Mat
thews, with the concurrence of Mr.
Hayes, asserted his purpose, if elected
at once to withdraw the troops from
Columbia and New Orleans, and to rec
ognize Messrs. Hampton and Nichols as
Governors. A distinct bargain was said
to have been made, whereby Messrs
Foster and Matthews, in behalf of Mr.
Hayes, had cOvenanted with certain
Southerners to give this immediate rec
ognition in consideration of aid required
to Illustrate the plans of the tilibusters il
the Houses When doubts were ex
pressed as to the accuracy of these repre-
sentatiQns we were told that conclusive
documentary evidence, held by thC
Democrats concerned, would be in due
time produced. In answer to a demand
for particulars it was said that letters
written by Foster and Matthews left nc
room for dispute. The impudent peril.
nacity with which the allegation was re.
peated produced an unpleasant impres
sion in many quarters. People began tc
believe that a bargain had been struck, al
variance with the precautionary measures
adopted by the Presiden: toward the
contested States. There was an unwill
ingness to believe that the President was
in any manner compromised by the re.
ported arrangement, and his tardy but
emphatic denial justified the confidence
Still the fear remained that two of his
trusted friends had, in moment of inju
dicious zeal, committed themselves to an
agreement whereby specific promises
were held out to the South, in return fol
specific support. Such an agreement
supposing it to have been made, would
have been discreditable to all concerned
but it would have been particularly dis
graceful to those who undertook to en-,
force policy they could not control
while retaining in their hands the sub
stantial results of the agreement in re-
gard to the Presidency.
This unfavorablc version of the trans
action is that which for some time past
the Democrats have kept before the pub
liO Thpu hu ta1 oncuCatiopS nj
corrupt bargaining and treachery with
an emphasis which seemed to have some
foundation. Allusions to letters, which
were described as kept back for the sake
of the reputation of their authors, in
creased the effect of the indictments
formally preferred. The letters, VIC
were told, convicted even the President
of evasion, if not of falsehood.
The dishonesty of these tactics became
evident when the call for the publication
of the documents in question met with d
refusal. The aff'ectation of scruple re-
specting the publication of private let
ters would have rendered the whole
matter ridiculous had only personal con
Germs been at stake. Men whose sense
of prOpriety had not prevented then
from promulgating statements about the
contents of letters could not reasonably
plead privacy as an excuse for non-pub'
lication. They withheld the letters in
spite of the request for publication made
by their authors, professedly on the
ground of delicacy, but really, as is now
apparent, to admit of the continued dis
semination of misstatements as to thcil
contents and the circumstances in which
they were written.
The paltry intrigue has come to sud
den end, and the whole infamy connected
with it belongs, not to the writers or re-
cipients of the talked-of letters, but to
the partisans who have sought by false
hood to convert them into means of max.
ing mischief. With frankness which
is honorable to him, Mr. John Young
Brown tells the story. At his instance
the letters were written, and he is the
best possible authority as to theiI
scope and intent. The conversation
out of which they arose was had with
Mr.. Foster in the presence of Senator
Gordon, and Mr. Brown is explicit in his
denial of trsffickiug. or of attempts to
traffic, on the part of either. There was
no bargain, he declares, no agreement
a
assurance, resting upon Mr.. Fosters
implied knowledge of Mr.. Hayes views,
that the policy of the Administration
would harmonizc with the ideas conveyed
in Mr.. Fosters speech in the house, and
which Mr. Hayes was known to have ap
proved Mr. Foster complied in letter
from which Mr.. Brown erased para
graph, with the remark that the docu'
ment "could be made fuller and strong
er." This letter is the one (Feb. 26
signed by Mr.. Foster alone, and 1t Is in
the main identical with that signed
the next day by Messrs, Matthews
and Foster jointly, What do they amount
to? Simply the expression of the writer's
"great desire" to have Mr.. Hayes adop
such policy as will give to the people
of South Carolina and Louisiana the righ
to control their affairs in their own way"
adding the remark, 1--WE have the mos
complete confidence that such will be tn,
policy of his administration. This il
the essence of both letters, The seconC
contains phrase, interpolated appar-
emily by Mr.. Matthews, and of which
Mr., Brown observes, "it contained som'
generalities did not like" These "gen
eralities" most readers will con
slider of prime importance are all EN-
braced in the words which qualify the
expectation of the restoration of home
rule TO the two States, "subject only t(
the Constitution of the United States
and the laws made in pursuance thereof.
Here, then, is the only foundation fo
the scandalOus statements that have beer
put into circulation rejecting upon thu
judgment and good faith of Messrs
Matthews and Foster, and upon the in
tegrity of the President. The attacks
upon the President are thus shown to b'
wanton, as well as unjust. The gentle
men with whom his friends communi
Gated do not pretend that he was in an!
manner responsible for their action
Beyond the remark that he had conveyed
his concurrence in Mr.. Fosters speech
the President was barely mentioned
AS for the letters, they contain nothing