Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-08-04
THE HANCOCk-sHERMAN LETTER.
s...s,r B.y.rd,. 0pi.,.. er 1t.

pleased with the letter that despite MS
chronic objection to the interview as
method Of eliciting the opinions Of public
men he talked freely about the matter. |
Mr.. Bayard said that the first thing to be
noted in the letter was the quiet and un-
conscious force of character displayed in
it. Letters" he said, written with an
object are like all prearranged affairs
opt II to the suspicion that some things arc /
deliberately suppressed and other things |
made unduly emphatic. This letter ex-
hibits Hancock the patriot and soldier |
writing out his unprecedented views upon |
a grave political crisis. The letter was call |
ed out by repeated letters from his military |
superior. He did not originate the cores |
pOndence, as the opening sentences show. |
TO appreciate its full force and meaning you |
must have seen and known as l did what |
was than going on in Washington and at |
the war department.. Troops even then,
under CamerOn's inspiration and with
President Grants approval, were being
moved towards Washington. The army
had overthrOwn already the Louisiana cleo
tion, for Wells and Anderson and their
negro colleagues would not have dared to
pervert the returns unless they had been
backed and protected by the military arm
of the United States government. Florida
and South Carolina had suffered the same
fate, and the work only remained to be
consummated at Washington in February
by reception on national scale Of the
frauds committed in New Orleans and else
where in November"
How do you think the letter will af-
feet the judgment of HancOck's political
abilities ?"
1T will dispose forever of the pretense
that he is mere soldier, a 'namby- -pamby'
sort of man with no ideas concerning poll
ties and civil government. He has as dis
tinct views concerning public affairs as any
man know, and he gives expression to
some of them in this very letter with
simplicity and directness that make his
presentation rs strong as any that was
made by any man of his views on these
subjects before Congress Or electoral CON-
mission during the pendency Of tho elec-
tOTal dispute. Contrast his language con-
cerning the decision of the South Carolina
supreme court with General Grants an
swer to Senator Randolph, who cited that
decision to him and was bluntly told by
Grant that he cared nothing for the deci-
sion of the court. Indeed General Han
cock S view of public duty form tho most
decided contrast to those of Grant How
can l, soldier, best sustain government
of law p always seemed to be HancOck's s
inquiry. How can l, soldier, best as
sert my military power, despite the re-
straint of laws?' seemed to be the usual
thought with Grant,
"What do you think Of his allusiOn to
the proper mode of settling the count Of
the electoral votes -
"Having given the constitutional ques-
tions connected with the election of presi-
dent and vice president and the control of
the two houses of Congress over the elec-
ton much thought and study, must free
ly confess that General Hancock has en-
phasized in his letter the true meaning Of
the constitution in such 4 way and with
such force as to give me new and stronger
light upon the subject. He presents with
great clearness the idea of the separate de-
posits Of power in the House of Represent
atives and in the Senate in the case of the
inability Of the two houses in joint session
to unite in declaration that a majority of
the electoral votes have been delivered for
any candidate. In that case the duty of
choosing a president Immediately devolves
on the House of Representatives by states,
while the duty of choosing vice president
devolves on the Senate. This line of sep
arate action is continued in analogy by the
separate power given the Senate alone to
elect as president its own presiding officer
in the event of the death of the president
and vice president. In that election the
House of Representatives has no voice."
''You think, then, that is the best part
of his letter 90
"NO, vii! not say that. The golden
sentences in the letter, in my Judgment,
are these The army should have nothing
to do with the election or Inauguration OF
. a PRESIDENT The people elect the preSi-
dent The Congress declares in a joint
session who he is" Our system does not
provide that one president should inaugu-
rate another there might be danger in
that, and it was studiously left out Of the
charter.' Here is the keynote of the diff
ference between Hancock and Grantism.
II Grant had held the doctrine of Hancock {
letter there never would have been an
electoral commission nor any need for one.
1t was the threat of Grant that he would
inaugurate as president the candidate whom
he decided ought to be inaugurated, and
that he would do it by force if necessary,
which made it requisite that an unusual
device should he adopted to preserve the
and to prevent storm in which our sys'
; TEN of government would have been
wrecked"
Mr. Bayard spoke freely of his recent
, visit to General Hancock and said that,
though he had often met the general be-
fore, his recent conversation had impressed
him more strongly than ever with his
knowledge and correct judgment OF public
affairs. "Anybody," he said, "who
imagines that Hancock will depend on
some one else for his ideas of civil admins
, tration will have to surrender that opinion
on reading this admirable letter, written
out in Missouri where he had not even the
aid of clerk. Furthermore" said the
senator, General Hancock has in this let
ter presented the great issue raised by the
; fraud of 1876 to the American people with
the force which really belongs to it and
divested of all that NAV have tended to
weaken or obscure it. It is an issue we
should never lose sight of. For our coun-
try cannot with safety endure a repetition
, of such grave wrongs as were successfully
perpetrated in 1877. Our people would
either abandon all respect for and interest
; in their elections or they would take up
. arms to make them respectable"
Mr.. Bayard concluded the interview as
follows: "Ger. Hancock's letter is in the
highest sense state paper, though not
, intended to be one. 1t is devoid of the
: formalities which attach to official cOmmu-
nicatiOns, but it deals with a most difficult
problem of constitutional powers with
wonderful clearness and force. The man
who shall herafter deny to Hancock the
need of having ably dealt, and in high
spirit of patriotic statesmanship, with the