New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-01-07
MIR. coDKIN's IYsIDIoUs APPEAL

VIII DO repeated this afternoon and evening.
MIR. GODKIy'S IYSIDIOUS APPEAL
A PIECE OF INrAMY WHICH TIE HAS ALWAYS
TAKEN PECULIAR PLEASURE IN coNTEM
PLATING.
To the Ffffor 81 The Trfbmns.
SIR: ] much obliged TO yon for calling atom
ton to the article in "The Nation" Of November 90
1875 advising Of tho 1876 Republican electors
to cast his vote for other person than Hayes,
so as TO failure 10 electr and TINS throw
the election into the House OF Representatives under
the Constitutional provision and relieve the country
from what then appeared a very formidable danger, ~
tbs Electoral Commission had not been thought o.
have always considered II Of best things which
appeared in The Nation about that time, but must
not claim credit which does not belong TO sp-
proved Of the article responsible for IT, and would
have written Il myself II the plan proposed had oc-
CURED mo. But It the composition Of ano her,
a writer whose eminent competence, both moral and
Intellectual, for discussions OF that nature. you would
yourself in calm moments am sure, fully acknowi-
edge. The view he took Of the power OF electors,
under such grave and impressive circumstances to no
what he suggested afterward Let me add, fully
confirmed by the Republican counsel before the Elect
oral Commission. no less person than Mr.. Stanley
Matthews, Judge OF the Supreme Court,wh said
In his argument february 3, 1871:
Tho election OF the two high officers IL not par
tcular election either according to the spirit OF fho
Constitution the meaning of its trainers the inter
probation OF the generation which adopted II, or tho
practice nndeI IT, Isere IS seecr p1uy o, men h IN
who to make that election and need not remind
the tribunal that they have right TO mako solcc-
ton rs well as an election II II altogether. In my
Judgment mistake TO suppose that the electoral bod
les are delegates representing the state or the people
OF State as agents TO accomplish their WILL They
not only have the power In the OF might. but
they have authority in tho sense Of right to vote upon
the day named for the persons who in their judgment.
I m he all hprS
OF the nation.
have been much amused-pardon me for saying so
by your efforts to mako this article appear In
sIdous appeal" from Mr. Godldn t. Mr. Lowell. which
Mr.. Lowell successfully resisted, {" resistance of
course, connotcs struggled, on the strength Of In
f.rmaton received by General siclles from "a
entitled to the utmost respect. that such elector
might be found in Massachusetts," and the strength
OF "suppOse' IN "The Evening Post, OF December
.. 1877 that II James Russell Lowell was urged 10
vote for other persons than Hayes and Wheeler hs
would do well not to do so. These things among
the comicaes OF journalism" which sensible men
enjoy but do not discuss. What wish seriously to
call your attention to is dispatch rom The Evening
Post" OF December T. 1877, which you quote as fol-
lows with headlines OF Your own:
MR.. LOWELL HIMSELF SUPPOsES THAT TT WAS
MEANT. BIT REJECTs HIS Bosom FRIEND
CODKINS INSIDIOUS APPEAL
Specior Dispatch TO The Erening Pos.
Boston. Dec. A report having gained some cur
rcncy that the article in last weeks Nation In re-
gard to tho duty OF Republican electors had the ap-
proval of Professor James Russell Lowell, OF tho
Republican electors OF Massachusetts,, he was asked
as nsv , roe leader for The Sation and had
nothing do with its article on electors. HIS Do
cIsIon ss 70 his own duty he had reached three wccs
ago and II had never changed namely that nc must
vote according to the understanding on which he was
chosen by the people He might wish II were oiher
wise II he ambitious man h, might, he said
cast his vote for other person than Hayes hut
for honest man. there could be no evasion OF an
% - N
az the time he nominated. What may have hap
pened since IS OF his business. As TO Whether
Southern states Professor lowell said that he didn't
think any man thousand miles away was competent
to judge.
VIII you kindly point ont here. the passage in which
Lowell himself supposes he meant, but rejects
| his bosom friend Gock.n's insidIous appeal The
| article in "The Nation" which you name appeared
November 80. 1870 Mr.. Lowell here says he had
made up his mind what his duty three weeks be.
when. then. did he reject his friends insidious
pea'' by throwing light on this point With yonr
accustomed candor and mpartality, you Will obiige
numerous readers Of your valued paper, including,
Yours truly, f. L. GoDKIS
Mere York Jan. @. 1888.
Since Mr. Godkin acknowledges that he ap-
proved, accepted appropriated, sent out on its
damnable mission and has always been proud OF
the insdous appeal to a Republican electOr TO
bctiay his trust, there is no need to say anything
more On that point just at present
Il is unnecessary to point ont here" any par
ticular passage in the interview with Mr.. Lowell
+" in which he supposcs he meant" inasmuch
| as the whole interview is conclusive proof that
Mr. Lowell supposed that he was the insulted
elector and that it behoovcd him TO forget for
once his aversion to talking WITH reporters AMI
make hot haste to acquit himself in the eyes OF
the country.
As for the Hibernian concet that it is impossible
! to appeal to a man who has previously reached
| decision, or for such an appeal to be rejected.
q consideration Of the following point may help
! to clarity Mr.. Godkns ideas Since he has given
us a bit Of Office history and glimpse OF his
mental processes, perhaps he will tell US whether
or not he wrote "The Evening Posts" famous
battle-cry of lss4-that chastity is not an es-
sental virtue, that offences against II have
often been consistent with the possession Of ALL
the qualities which ennoble human nature and
dignity human life and make human progress
possible" And If he did write il, and il. after
he had determined do so, his Office boy or some
other intelligent person had begged him TO refrain.
wouldn't il have been just like him to reject the
insidious appealP
The reference to Mr.. Stanley Matthews does
not concern u.s. We are not engaged with him.
though if we were there is q vast difference be-
tween o constitutional argument and a personal
appeal The most pitiful thing in Mr.. Godlsin's
frivolous letter is the revelation that he has frit
tered away his conscience and his comprehension.
until he Is unable to perceive that when hc urged
an elcctor to palter with his vote he counseiled
as black perfdy us man ever devised fol
another or that, percevns it, he finds his 20
sition congenai.