The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1878-08-31
Result Of the Potter Investigation.


direct and indirect, have totally failed TO
smirch the Administration with the slightest
eountenance of fraud. The appointment TO
Office of the Republican politicians who took
active part in the Louisiana and Florida per-
Torrance was in strict pursuance Of the spoils
system as practiced and justified by both par
ties, but it was an inconsistent and weak act
upon the part of this Administration. # is
for that, and for that alone, that it is to be
blamed. Mr.. Potter viii be forced in honor
10 report that the accusations of fraudulent
conspiracy against Ar. Noyes and Mr.. Sher-
man were utterly unfounded. and that no kind
Of dishonorable imputation attaches to either
of them. No new light has been thrown upon
the known rascality Of Louisiana politics on
both sides, but the Democratic purpose of
showing guilty completely with that rascaiity
upon the part of leading Republicans has been
completely bafaed.-HdTper' Weekly, Dug. II.
We take the foregoing extract from
Harper's Weekly, a journal of fair average
intelligence, and yet, it is so full of parti-
san prejudice as to be unable to do justice
in the premises The testimony before
the Potter Committee has elected the fact,
to the satisfaction fallunprejudieed minds,
that the Administration is not only badly
'smirched" by the evidences before the
Potter Committee, but is a party to the
fraud. Hayes made promise before he
was inaugurated, while the Presidential
question was still pending, and those pro-
misses we're fulfilled TO the letter by him
after he was indicted into Office. Every
man who had hand in the fraud has been
appointed to fat place by Mr.. Hayes.
These appointments were not accidental,
but made in pursuance of bargain be-
tween the contracting parties, and as a
reward for the fraudulent services rendered
Mr. Hayes in the Presidential count, so
rendered on the faith of pledges given by
Mr.. Hayes and his nearest and most con-
fidential friends. Any other conclusion
can only be reached by rejecting the clear
est presumptive evidence, aud by doing
violence to the most reasonable and logical
differences. Aud yet, HarPer's Weekly
pretends to say that these appointments
were made sin strict pursuance Of the
spoils system as practiced and justified by
both parties" So far from this being true,
we venture to affirm that no list of APP
pointments was ever made by any pree.d-
ing Administration so carefully providing
for all those in any way connected with its
service, not emitting a single one. No
parallel can be found in the history of
parties to this proceeding Of Mr. Hayes,
but Mr.. Curtis is willing to make even
this weak defence of the fraudulent Presi-
dent, because he finds it difficult to frame
better. In making such a defence of
his chief, he is constrained TO pronounce
it "a weak and inconsistent act upon the
part Of the Administration" as if to still
the chidings of his conscience in so per-
verting the evidence before the committee.
He also advances the opinion that the re-
port of that committee will in honor be
forced to exonerate Messrs. Sherman and
Moves from all dishonorable imputations
in connection with these disgraceful pro-
ceedings. The positive evidence as to the
existence of Sir. Sherman's letter has not
yet been disproved. 1t has been denied,
or denial has been attempted, but the
affirmation of its existence is quite equal
to the weight Of this attempted denial, and
Mr.. Sherman docs not stand exonerated,
according to the accepted rules of evil
dence. When that evidence comes to be
properly summed up and linked together
in its natural connections it will be found
too clear and forcible for rejection by an
impartial public Judgment. "No new light
has been thrown upon the known rascality
of Louisiana politics on both sides, )" says
the Heekly. Here again is fresh evidence
of the strait to which Republican journal
lists are reduced in essaying to defend or
palliate the great fraud of the Presidency.
Forced by stubborn facts to admit the
''rascality" of their own party in this bust
ness, they have sought to break the force
of such admission by alleging "rascality
on the part of the Democrats also. Now,
the difference between the two parties in
this fraudulent business is this :-Repub
lican ''rascality" is clearly proven by Re-
publican witnesses. The alleged "rascali-
ty" Of the Democrats is not only not prov
en-, but all the facts in the case show that
the Republicans have trumped up those
charges against their opponents in the hope
that they would serve in some measure to
qualify or modify their own acknowledged
villainy.