The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-03-21

our southern OOfJef from sea 10 beH,anu
nearly to the Isthmus, are equally con
genial to vigorous manhood. But the
people have degenerated there, because
they have allowed themselves to be sub
ieced by the predatory classes, who have
monopoized the soil and stripped the
people of all political and property
rights
The instinct of our race has taught us
to defend our political rights as the foun,
dation of both our moral and material
welfare; and our past prosperity was due
to the sacrifice made by our fathers in
the Revolution. in the maintenance of
purely abstract right. We have certain
y lost the spirit of our fathers if we can
patiently see fraud enthroned in the cap
ital, and representatives of the masses
who have been deffauded in close alli-
ance with the beneficiary of the fraud,
enjoying his favor, humbly accepting
places and patronage from him, and
dispensing it to quiet all questions OF his
title.
But the people do not see this with
patience. The corruption which, as we
have seen, has so deeply tainted the or
ganzations of both parties, has not pen
etrated the masses. The Democratic
masses have twice overridden the politi-
clans in nominations in this decade, and
they will do so again. There is danger,
indeed, ola new organization-the Work
ingmen's party-owing to the betrayal
Of the interests of the masses by the
leaders of the Democratic organiza.
tion.
| recalled on the l4th some of the cir
CumstanCes which proved this betrayal
in the count of the electoral vote. re-
ferred to the open and direct overtures
of Hayes to the Southern leaders, through
his immediate organ, the Cincinnati Ga,
zette; his invitation to Mr. Lamar, the
Chairman of the Texas Pacific Railroad
Committee, and Of the caucus of Demo-
cratic members of the House to visit him
given through his intimate friend Murat
Halstead; to the fact that Mr.. Lamar
sustained the ultra radicals in the claim
that the President of the Senate had the
right to count the vote upon which it was
then supposed Hayes's election depend
ed that John Young Brown and his as
soCiates, who deserted to the enemy to
vote in Hayes, did so upon an assurance
that Hayes would surrender the Govern
ments of South Carolina and Louisiana
to the Democrats, and would not have SO
voted but for that assurance that the
pretenCe then made that they so voted
because they felt bound in honor to abide
by the result of the Electoral bill was
fnlga hot th1xy Aid 81 -
theEeCtoral bill to avoid war, because con-
fessedly they were ready todefeatit unless
their wishes in regard to the State Gov
enments of South Carolina and Louisi.
ana were gratifed, and hence that they
could only have carried it out to defeat
Tilden, because that accorded with their
wishes that accordingly an open alliance
now exists between the Administration
and the men by whose treachery it was
put in power, Notwithstanding they vot-
ed (perhaps with Hayes's consent) for
the resolution of the House of Represen.
tatiyes declaring that he was fraudulently
elected. None of these points were con-
troverted by the gentlemen who followed
mein the debate, And it so happened that
the main points stated by me were re-
stated by Mr.. Hewitt in the House of
Representatives on the same day without
contradiction. have the official report
of Mr., Hewitt's remarks, and call partic-
ular attention to his full confirmation of
my statement, that the subsidy men re.
fused 10 go on with the count until they
had satisfactory assurances that the Gov
ernments of South Carolina and Louisi.
ana would be surrendered to the Demo.
Gratis. This is the decisive point. 1t
shows ConclusiYely that they did not ap.
prehend war from the defeat of Hayes,
and that they did not hold themselves
obliged in honor to stand by the elector-
al commission. 1t necessarily follows
that they did so because they preferred
Hayes to Tilden. No fact of the con.
temporary history is better established
than that this bargain was made and that
Hayes was counted in under it. And it
was in writing, too. An editorial in the
Columbus Journal on the 22d of February,
1877, upholding Packard, bad brought
the count to a sudden halt. Stanley Mat
thews at once telegraphed for disclaim.
er of it for Hayes, and it came but John
Young Brown says it was not until the
Southern men had written assurance
to the contrary from Hayes's managers
that the count was suffered to 60 on.
The New York World of 26th, 9th
and 2Sth March states circumstantially
the details of the manner in which Hayes
was counted in by the votes of Southern
Representatives, and gives names of the
Southern leaders who sanctioned the ar
rangenent. 1t is undeniable, however,
that number of Democrats of the high
est character CO'Operated with the sub.
sidy men and Radicals in forcing on the
count, under what is plainly mistaken
sense Of honorable obligation. But they
were not sufficient strong to affect the re-
suit. Mr.. Hewitt, who is a gentleman of
fine talents and a noble character, was
one of these. But nothing can be plain
er than that he erred. He not only had
the Judgment of nine.tenths of his Dem
ocratic associates against him (including
the subsidy mem, but he had himself
exposed the false pretences by which he
had been induced to commit himself to
the Electoral bill, which were of such
character as entirely to release him from
all obligation to abide by the result. He
showed that Mr.. Hoar, to procure the
establishment of the commission, main
tained on the floor of the House, that it
would be it's duty to 60 into the merits
of the controversy, and that by Hoar's
own vote in the commission, ii had refu-
sed to do so. No court of law or ofhonor
holds private man bound to carry out
an arrangement into which he has been
induced to enter by such false pretences.
A fOrtiori, representative of the people
would not be bound. Moreover, all obli-
cations to sustain the decision of the
commission was removed by the fact
that it was fraudulent on its face, and
not sustainable on any theory. The COM
mon idea, that the commission held it.
self bound by the returns, and refused to
go behind them is altogether unfounded.
The returns prescribed by the act of 1892
for electors were the certificates of the
Chief Executives of the States. The COM