New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-03-30

everywhere. The demand for the with
drawal of the Federal troops, and the
claim that each State shall be allowed to
govern the citizens Of the United States
residing within the State limits, is exactly
the claim to be let alone in 1861, and
with the acquiescence in the demand APP
pamattox would have been fought in vain,
and the terms of capitulation woul1 be in
effect nullifed. We have read those
mysterious agreements upon which the
Democracy has claimed an impossible
dereliction of duty by the President. We
find the friends of Mr.. Hayes declaring
to certain Democratic Representatives
thus:
We can assure you, in the strongest posi-.
Bile manner, of our great desire to have him
adopt such a policy as will give to the peO-
pie of the States of South Carolina and Lou
isiana the right to control their own affairs
in their own way. subject only to the con
stitntion of the United States and the laws
made in pursuance thereof.
They add their reasons why:
And to cay further, that from an &C.
qualntaDce WIN. anu BnOWieugo OF Gov
ernOr Hayes and his We've, we have the
most complete confidence that such will be
the policy of his administration.
We read this pledge carefully. There
is not one word that does not meet our
approval. If the constitution and laws of
the United States are observed and en-
forced we should have had, as we must
have, the Republican administration
maintained in possession and respect If
Mr.. Hayes should prove incapable of ex-
ecuting the constitution and laws in the
State of Louisiana, none would be more
disappointed in their pledges than the
friends who wrote the letter quoted from.
There is curious dissent from that letter
which betrays the purpose to compass the
notification of the capitulation of 1865.
Mr.. Brown, of Kentucky, had ayowed his
determination, with Watterson and other
Southern men, to vote against all "dila-
tory motions, and to advocate "the in
flexible execution of the electoral bill"
when approached by Messrs. Foster and
Matthews with conciliatory suggestion.
This interview resulted in the presenta-
tion next day Of letter by Mr.. Foster,
which was read by Mr.. Brown, who ''took
my Thisl pen and erased one paragraph. Z"
Another manuscript letter was suisse
quently presented OF which Mr.. Brown says
"that it contained some generalities [hel
did not like"
Now, if any one will take the trouble
to compare the first and second draft
of the Foster Matthews letter, there will
be found but one difference. 1t is con-
tanned in the words, "Subject only to the
constitution of the United States and the
laws passed in pursuance thereof" We
feel authorized to infer, therefore, that the
zone paragraph which Mr.. Young took
his pen and erased" was precisely the Sec
ton of the sentence which We have
quoted. We may further say that the
''same generalities" which Mr.. Brown
''did not like" were precisely those which
we have quoted. They cover, however,
the whole capitulation at Appomattox
with these words, The national suprem-
acy Of the government is established
Strike them out and the capitulation
would be nullifed, and Mr.. Hayes with
other hundreds of thousands would have
shed their blood in vain. The flag of the
Union would be captured by the shameful
and shallow device to purchase the ma
tional commander who carries it.