Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1880-10-16

trial by jury. Personal freedom
property and life, if assaIled by the
passion. the prejudice or the rapacity
of the ruler, have no security what
ever. 1t has the effect of n bill OF
attaindcr or Il bill o! pains and pen
sltles, not upon a few individuals,
but upon whole masses, including the
millions who inhabit the subject
states aD't ever their unborn children.
These Wrongs being expressly forbid
den, cannot be constitutionally in.
hlcted upon amy portion of our peo-
pie no matter how they may have
come within our Jurisdiction, and no
matter whether they live in states,
territories or Districts"
When General Hancock had made
his preliminary survey of the situa-
ton at New Orleans ne discovered
that the whole order of government
and OF society had been subverted. and
that General Shcridan's construction
of the military bill had failed in prac-
tlce because he had chosen to construe
permissiye powers as mandatory.
General Hancock was advised by the
attorney-genural-and no lawyer has
ever been found 10 disgree with the
advicc-that the military bill was to
be construed precisely as a long line
OF Judicial! decisions had settled the
Inede OF constituting constitutions,
and that those who acted under the
Dill were ITO take up The powers
commanded, 10 leave alone what was
forbidden, and to use discretion III
exercising conferred powers where
they were not obligatory but Gully
permissive." IT. was under such cir
cumstances that Order No. 40 was
issued, and in connection with these
circumstances it is impossible tor any
unprejudiced person not to perceive
that Order No. 40 exhibited General
Hancock as q lover of his country, its
law and its government, and as an
administrator of rare acumen,courage
and wisdom. =.
According to DIR. Fowler, General
Grant, in confiding to him certain
criticism upon General Hancock real
ly intended for use by some as yet
unascertained republican stump
speaker, made these observations
about General Hancock:
"Wnen the army Of the Potomac
was hunting for commander it took
almost everybody-cven came over
into the west for officers, but nobody
ever even suggested Hancock for the
place. Gen. Grant in his interview
with a correspondent of q Chicago
newspaper concerning the apocalypse
OF Fowler, neither repeated these OBJ
serVatIons nor alluded to them. Is
Or. Fowler prepared to assert that
Gen. Grant told him that "nObody
ever even suggested Hancock for the
of commander of the army of
the Potomac? Not even in 1864 ?
An Endorsement of this statement OF
DR.. Fowler by Gen. Grant would be
all Interesting contribution to the
annals of the civil war. Why has not
Gen. Grant Endorsed this statement
Of DR.. Fowler?
The correspondence between Gen.
Hancock and Gen. Grant, as it is
given i'll to-day's World, with the ac-
;ompanying documents, puts Gen.
i'll the saihe unpleasant posi-
non i'll which he vas once placedsby
Andrew johnson. 1t is not good for
The reputation of a public man that
issues of veracity" should common
y be raised with his public state
nents. Still less is it good for HIM
hat records of the time to which he
'efers should be promptly produced
~ which it is made evident that he
8 Oh the wrong side of that issue.
has happened to Geu. Grant.
The indisposition of the better por-
ion of the republican press to make
political points out Of Gen. Grants
Interviews Was fortunate as we'll as
reditable. This indisposition pro-
eeded, no doubt. from a clear per-
option, thai the reports of the inter-
Jews, taken by themselves, would
great harm 10 Gen. Grant aud no
arm at all 10 Gen. Hancock. 1t is
mazing that Gen. Grant himself
hould not have perceived that his
'ublic recital of a confidential con-
with a brother officer in
tied by himself, held, thirteen years
go AMI now reported for the pur-
'ose of doing that officer all injury,
would injure himself i~rretrievably.
Logan might have c%ounselled
i'm, but Senator Conkling. who is at
east aware of the code of social
.uties held by decent persons, could
OF possibly have counselled him, to
UGH an act. If every word which
Grant. was reported to have
AID had been deHonstr IDLY true, the
utilization of the interview would
have hurt Gen. Hancock
AZ less than it would have hurt Gen.
A soldier who makes an un-
attack upon another SOL
Ter, to whom an honor has come with.
IYt Snokinn yrhirh 1o hoo -
'usly sought III vain, may be said to q,
ave ended his public career. The
ne virtue which has always been
'nceded to Gen. Grant, of standing
y his old comrades, Gen. Grant has
NV shown that he does not possess,
his, we repeat, would be fatal to
Grant even if he had told the
nth about the facts which he UNDER
ok to relate. But the correspond
shows that Gen. Grant told
'mething utterly wide of the truth
'ncerning the administration Of b
Hancock in New Orleans, and A
s story Of that administration is all g
ere is in the interview except some Q
use personal abuse of Gen. Hau- Il
ok. Gen. Hancock's action was v
It only taken in the exercise of the tt
allowed to him as a dis il
let commander under the recon a
ruction laws, but that discretion o
wisely exercised. He was en- a
rcing a precedent set by his prede- Il
ssor, Gen. Sheridan, in a case in n
bich he had really 10 choice but to t.
fer the federal authority to be Il
ought into public contempt or to t.
move The men who had defed it. is
is melancholy to see a man like I
Grant descending from what b
5 been a distinguished and UNIQUE O.
'sltion in order to exhibit the tone il
d temper Of a second-rate politi- d
III, and exposing his own lapses of b.
emery and his W recklessuess of fc
i'll an unrrovoked attack a
Il brother soldier. T
SOUTHERN CLAIMS, g
TKicbmOnd Djsnatcb nam , Sout IN I,