New-York tribune., 1880-10-06
rLrr E1rLL1 nnCET


They tell lis secession is dead; that the
question was settled forever al Appomat
fox: that 10 one Of all that great host Of
Southern Democrats who raised the standard
of rebellion in its support, or OF Northern Dem
ocrars who believed in tie doctrine ard sup
ported the clam, prctcnds now TO assert Inc
night Of a State to scccde They formulate
their present belief in the sounding ph'a @,
An indissoluble Union of iudcsuuctib.e
States" ana they laugh at the idea that Seccs-
sion will ever again be attempted or dissolution
Of tie Union dreamed OF. Tie war; they say,
settled that question forever. Bat tucy 90 10;
admit that, except the question OF slavery, II
settled any Other. And they a1in!ain as
urgently now as they ever did before the war
the doctrine of Sia,c Rights, or State Soyer-
eighty. with the single CmISsion Of this logical
outcome Of it. They call IT now Home hule.
Does Home Rule differ III anything from Sccro-
sion. except in so far as that It's advocates prom
lse that when their principle of Home Rule
is established 50 ii MY that 10 power will re-
side in the Federal Government TO "c0erte
" sovereign State,r or hinder il from seeding,
tley will stop there and viii not secedc
What is there after they have established their
!
it to the logical conclusion of secession upon
any convenient pretextl Nothing but their
present admission that they have been beaten
once upon that issue, and the loose promise of
irresponsible leaders that they will not under
take it again. How easy by-and by, when they
lave bound the Federal GovernmentnO to in
terfeIe to say the promise was made under
duress or that the concession of State Soy
eregnty so obviously included the right of
secession that no party had any right TO m lc it
an exception!
What is the logic of this Pretty dogma of
Home RuleY Let us see. FOltcnaJely we do
not have to Iest upon conjecture or resort to
mere assumption and unsupported assertion in
this important matter The Democratic sup
porters of the doctrine have fully enlightened
us as to its meaning and their own designs.
We need not suspect, for we know. Their in
terprttation of the doctrine of Home Rule need
not be guessed at it is matter of record. 1t
repeats in 1850 the demand of 1861. 1t says
to the Federal Government now, as then,
Hands of !" The first step toward Home Rule
was the withdrawal of troops from the States
lately in rebellion A Republican Administra-
ton conced ID it III the belief that the people
lately in rebellion could be trusted to abide by
the results of the war, and that it would be no
longer necessary 10 maintain the rights Of citi-
zens by Federal authority. That step cannot
be retraced. We know the results of it the
suppression by violence and fraud of hundreds
of thousands of votes, the restoration of power
to men who bad forfeited it, and the rule of
ploscriptve and intolelant minority. "NO
troops at the pols!' is the cry with which they
brace up the doctrine of Home Rule at the
South. 1t is simply to perpetuate their power.
he second step is the abolition of Federal
supervision of elections. This feature OF the
doctrine is for the benefit Of the Democrats in
the large cities of the North where local Demo
cratic majorities may have opportunities to
carry elections by fraud, as they did in this city
and State in 1868. The plea ls that the Gen
eTal Government has no right whatever of in
terference or of supervision of the ballots, even
when a National Executive and National Con-
eress ale chosen. The Democratic notion Of
Home Rule is that Democratic Boss " in this
CITY of New-Y0rk is so independent of the Fed
eral Government that he may order such a
counting of votes in the city as will defeat the
will of the people of the whole State, and per-
maps Nation, in the choice of President, and
the General Government has no right to DO rep
resented ut the voting OF the counting.