The weekly Oskaloosa herald. [volume] (Oskaloosa, Iowa) 1855-1885, 1877-06-07
MORTON'S MISTAKE.
The Leading Republican journal Of the
Nation on His Letter.
New York Times.

New York Times.
The candor and generosity of Mr.. Nor
toms defense of the Presidents Southern
policy are more apparent than its sound
ness or success. 1t is clear that the In-
diana Senator, resenting the imputations
upon the Presidents party integrity, has
hurried to his assistance with an imper-
feet conception Of the points to be de-
Tended and the basis upon which sue
cessful vindication must ultimately rest.
AS they at present stand, the Senator's
arguments arefar from conclusive in the
Presidents behalf. The whole statement
Of the case, in fact, instead of allaying
the discomfort which the Presidents ac-
ton has excited in the ranks of his own
party, seems calculated to produce the OPP
posite effect For once, the Senator APP
peals from the right to the expedient.
His views of the equity of the case are
as lucid as ever. His opinion as to the
relative justice of the two sets of claims
in South Carolina and Louisiana has un-
dergone no change. He sees that in each
State the minority haze triumphed over
the majority By means that are as abhor-
rent to the humanity of the nation as they
are hostile to the constitutional amend
aaents and the legislation groaoing out of
them He condemns in no measured
terms the attitude of the Southern Dem
ocracy and the tactics by which it's Veto
ries have everywhere been achieved. He
arraigns it as cruel, insolent, unyielding,
and unreasonable; and he sustains the in
dictment by a citation of details which
from the Republican point of view, will
almost certainly be accepted as unanswer-
able. There is in them nothing absolute
ly new. Mr.. Morton utters not a word
upon this aspect of the subject which
adds to the force Of the accusations he
has IN his place in the Senate again pre-
ferred against the party which is now
dominant throughout the South.
The premises laid down by Mr.. Nor
ton being of this character, what shall be
said respecting his conclusionsP Cham
berlin and Republican legislature were
elected in South Carolina; thanks to the
President, Hampton and a Democratic
Legislature have assumed their places.
Packard and q Republican Legislature
were chosen in Louisiana, according to
the judgment rendered by the proper tri-
bunals; in consequence of the Presidents
action, or inaction, Nichols and the Dem
ocrats have acquired control of the State.
These being admitted facts, the plain in
ference would be that the bare statement
of them formed the strongest possible
condemnation of the course pursued by
the National Administration. If the
rights of the lawful but unarmed and I'M
disciplined majority in South Carolina
and Louisiana were endangered by un
lawful but more effective, organization on
the part Of the minority, what was the
proper attitude of the Federal Govern
ment towards them? Should it have
sustained or abandoned the lawfully -elect-
ed custodians of the State authority?
Mr.. Morton's reply is that the Presi-
dent surrendered the Republican position
because he was unable to maintain it.
"The question was, as the Senator states
it. should the President yield to the in
vitable, or proceed emily to inevitable de-
feat? n Washington dispatch tells us
that in that city this version of the diff
Guilty which the President was required
to meet is quoted approvingly as at once
sagacious and complete. To us it seems
to be neither. If 1t were better to be right
than to be President, most assuredly it
were better to be frustrated in the sup
port of righteous cause than by a tame
surrender to lose forever its inherent and
distinctive strength. Had the President
resolved to uphold the will of the Repub-
lican majority in the two States in ques-
ton, and had his efforts proved ineffectu-
al, the situation would undoubtedly have
been embarrassing, perhaps dangerous
He would have failed, Mr.. Morton de-
clares because the Democratic House of
Representatives, having control of the
purse-strings, would have refused to APP
propriate money for the support of the
army, if any part of it were to be used in
defense of Chamberlain and Packard
Governments. Concede that this dilem-
ma was probable, what then? Should
President withhold from rightfully con-
stituted State Governments the aid they
looked for at his hands simply because a
partisan majority in one branch of the
Congress threatened to stop the suppliesP
If this were the issue before which the
President succumbed, what becomes of
the glory claimed for the "policy of con-
cihation?" A concession to the inevita-
BILE implies no merit. What it does sug-
gest is the inquiry, whether the country
would not have preferred to see the con-
test fought out between President, ad-
herring manfully to the right, and Demo-
cratic House, intent upon restoring the
Confederate element to power in States
whose Electoral votes were on the Repub-
lican side. Assuming that the opposing
forces were as Morton depicts them, the
struggle aoiH arise some day, scith the Re
publican party eoeake1aed by surrender
SohSeh should not haze been made until the
true character of the contest was fairly
before the country ..-- 3. .
All things considered, then, we cannot
join in the plaudits which Mr.. Morton's
defense of the President is said to have
called forth at Washington. 1t reopens,
controversy which We would gladly have
regarded as closed. Its admissions are
most damaging to those in whose behalf
they are made, and its apology viii hurt
none so seriously as the President nim-
self. Since the inevitable must be cited
as factor in the quarrel, we would rath-
er accept it as an argument for submits
sion to policy which in essential particu-
lars is Inevitable than as an excuse for
proceedings which, judged by Mr.. Nor