The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-05-31
THE REPUBLICAN SPLIT.
Mr., Morton and the Tlmes-Attacking
and Defending the Present Adminls'
tTatiOn.


The candor and generosity Of Mr.. Nor
toms defence Of the Presidents Southern
policy are more apparent than IFS sound
ness or success. 1t is clear that the In
diana Senator, resenting the imputatons
upon the Presidents party integrity, has
hurried to his assistance with an imper'
feet conception Of the points to be defend
ed and of the basis upon which success
fuI vindication must ultimately rest. AS
they at present stand the Senator's argu-
ments are far from conclusive in the
Presidents behalf. The whole statement
of the case, in fact, instead ofallaying the
discomfort which the Presidents action
has excited in the ranks Of his own party
seems calculated to produce the opposite
effect. For once the heSenatorappeals from
the right to the expedieut. His views OF
the equity of the case are as lucid as ever
His opinion as to the relative justice of
the two sals of claims in South Carolina
and Louisiana has undergone no change
He sees that in each State the minority
by means that are abhorent to the hui
manity of the nation as they are hostile
to the constitutional amendments and the
legislation growing out of them. He
condemns in no measured terms the at
titude of the Southern Democracy and
the tactics by which its victories have
everywhere been achieved He arraigns
it as cruel, ,insolent t,unyielding, and unrea-
sonable; and he suslains the indictment
by a citation of details which, from the
Republican point of view, will almost
certainly be accepted as unanswerable'
There is in them nothing absolutely new.
Mr.. Morton utters not word upon this
aspect of the subject which adds to the
force of the accusations he has in his
place in the Senate, again and again pre-
ferred against the party which is now
dominant throughout The South.
The premises laid down by Mr.. Morton
being Of this character what shall be said
respecting his conclusions2 Chamber.
lain and Republican Legislature were
elected in South Carolina; thanks to the
President, Hampton and a Democratic
Legislature have assumed their places.
Packard and a Republican Legislature
were chosen in Louisiana, according to
the judgment rendered by the proper
tribunals; in consequence OF the Presi,
dents action or inactor, Nichols and
the Democrats have acquired control OF
the State. These being admitted flcts,
the plain inference would be that the
bare statement of them formed the strong
est possible condemnation Of the course
pursued by the national Administration,
If the rights Of the lawful but unarmed
and undisciplined majority in South Car
olina and Louisiana were endangered by
unlawful but more effective organization
on the part of the minority, what was the
proper attitude Of the Federal Govern.
ment toward them? Should it have
sustained or abandoned the lawfully
elected custodians of 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
inevitable, or proceed only to inevitable
deleat?" A Washington dispatch tells
us that in that city this version of the
difficulty which the President was re-
quired to meet is quoted approvingly as
at once sagacious and complete To us it
seems to be neither. fit were better to
be right than to be President, most rs.
suredly it were better to be frustrated in
the support of a righteous cause than by
tame surrender to lose forever its in
herent and distinctive strength. Had
the President resolved to uphold the will
of the Republican majority in the two
States in question, and had his efforts
proved Intellectual, the situation would
undoubtedly have been embarrassing,
perhaps dangerous. He would have fail
ed, Mr.. Morton declares. because the
Democratic House of Representatives,
having control of the purse strings, would
have refused to appropriate money for
the support ofthe army, ifany part of it
were to be used in defence of the Cham
berlain and Packard Governments. Con-
cede that this dilemma was probable,
what them Should President withhold
from rigntfully constituted Slate Govern
ments the aid they looked for at his
hands simply because partisan majority
in one branch of the Congress threatened
to stop the supplies If this were the
issue before which the President sue.
cumbed, what becomes of the glory
claimed for the "policy of consultation"
A concession to the inevitable implies no
merit. What it does suggest is the in
quiry whether the country would not
have preferred to see the contest fought
out between a President adhering man
fully to the right, and Democratic House
intent upon restoring the Confederate
element to power in States whose eleCtor.
al votes were on the Republican side.
Assuming that the opposing forces were
as Mr.. Morton depicts them, the struggle
will arise again some day, with the Re
publican party weakened by surrender
which should not have been made un-
Ill the true character of the contest was
fairly before the country.
All things considered, then, we cannot
Join in the plaudits which Mr.. Morton's
defense of the President is eaid to have
called forth at Washington. 1t reOpens
controversy which we would glaFly
have regarded as closed. Its admissions
are mcst damaging to those in whose be-
half they are made, and its apology will
hurt none so seriously as the President
himself. Since the inevitable must be
cited as factor in the quarrel, we would
rather accept it as an argument for sub
mission to a policy which in essential
particulars is irreversible than as an ex.
cuse for proceedings which, judged by
Mr.. Morton's own standard, are indefen.
sibIe. The only tribunal whose verdict
will be finally decisive is that of expert
ence. Let us see the results of the new
Southern policy before being called upon
to extol its wisdom, or even to admit that
it really was inevitable.