The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-08-04
A DILEMMA.

That Is a cruel dilemma in which the Re
publican press Of the North Is placed by the
Potter investigation. If the Louisiana wit
nesses are telling the truth now, they must
have lied In their original testimony which
served TO put Hayes in office; IL they are
lying now, this only proves that they are I'M
worthy of belief and not the sort OF people
upon whose testimony the Prescriptions
arising from majority Of 5000 votes should
be set aside. We can very well afford to as
sumo virtue, II we have 1t not, and with a
rare generosity allow the Republicans TO Sc
lect the horn Of this dilemma upon which they
shall prefer toimpaLe themselves. In any event,
abuse OF these witnesses will only bring odium
upon the fraud whose tenure Of the Presi-
dency rests upon nothing else under the heav-
ems except the credibility Of these same peo-
pie. Destroy their credbility and Hayes is
left without q foot to stand on, and any as
sistance rendered by the Republican press In
this direction is the most efficient aid and
comfort that can possibly be extended to the
Potter committee It is quite natural that
the Republicans should be very angry at
these rascals and periurers, but it can do
no good TO abuse them. This Is all very
sad, but II they are sensible they must
needs exercise such self control rs may be
necessary to keep them from cutting OIL
their noses in order to spite their faces.
Among the Republican papers, however,
| none Of them, not even the New York Times,
with all the wisdom Of a serpent, have exer-
| cised this wise discretion, while the Tribune,
| with all the ardor OF proselyte, has devoted
| Its whole time and energy to heaping con-
tempt and ignominy upon the perjurers who
made Hayes President.
| Let 1t be remembered that before the sub
committee left New Orleans 1t had examined
more than thirty Of the ninety -odd intimida-
| tion witnesses John Sherman clamored for SO
voclferously, and then did not want
after all. or these, all but three
recanted, and swore they had been bribed
to make the af1idavits they swore to for Re-
turning Board use, or else that they had not
sworn to them ut all. The three who did not
recant and stuck to their original af1idavlts,
| established for themselves and on their own
testimony, freely and even boastfully given
much worse and more depraved characters
than any other witnesses that had appeared
before the committee It Is not unusual to
find men who will steal, lie, Or commit almost
any infamy in the dark; but it Is q case OF
phenomenal depravity when man will come
out and confess, with no sense of shame, that
he will commit for q consideration, 81
low, mean crime, which is, under all
circumstances, q disgrace to common
manhood Yet this Is just what these three
consistent witnesses did do. They swore that
they would lie Il they were paid for it, and in
order to established their sincerity In this as
sertion, they claimed to have been paid and
then to have betrayed those who suborned
them. Or the rest Of these witnesses the 1fi-
baune very justly observes:
Men who have sworn on one side OF a case
do not afterward volunteer to come forward
and swear on the other without a considera-
ton. What could the consideration have been
In this instance? We surely are not asked to
believe that there has been sudden quicken
ing of conscienees all through the Feliciana
parishes, and that colored people In that re-
gion are so tormented by the memory OF q lie
that they cannot help making public, confess
sion of it, for the good Of their, SOUS. The
moment this squadron OF douDle-enders be-
gan to demolish their own testimony 1t was
i perfectly plain to ell reasonable and unErelu-
Il diced people that a systematic manlpniatlozI
OF witnesses was going on at New Orleans,
and cur CHIEF curiosity at the North Yves g