Fair play., 1893-02-04
THE HISTORY OF A FRAUD.
Mr.. Hayes Titlo to the Presidency and
How 1t Was Obtained,

How 1t Was Obtained.
These are the words of Hon. William
NJ. Evarts in referring to the great
crime By which Samuel J. Tilden was
kept out of the office of president Of
the United States, and by which the
late Futhe erford B. Have. was seated:
sit is all matter of history" said Mr..
Evarts. "Iou see, when one party
gets in the other is ont. SO there must
be a diversity cf opinion
II il MI a matter OF history. rcath
wipes out some scores, and 5UItens per-
sonal Judgment, l,ut if death wiped
ont All -cores, if the disposition to say
ciiy kind things of the departed were
allowed to orercOms the truth, history
with its lessors and warnings could not
be written. The accepted record OF the
past wond lie one continuous, amia bic
falschood.
An otherwise creClitai,ie and honora
bic life was biaclIencd forever by the
acceptance of stolen office There are
now advanced two views of the con-
duct Of Mr.. Hayes at the critical time
which tested the quality of his soul:
and both are false. One is the view of
the partisanship which devised the con-
spiracy to defeat the will of the people,
and pro:ited along with Mr.. Hayes by
the success of that conspiracy. 1t is
tersely expressed by the leading re-
publican newspaper. No other presi-
dent" says the New York Tribune,
ever had so valid and incontesta bic Il
title to the office Whatever may be
said of the struggle over returning
boards in the three contested states il
cannot be denied that by the concur
rent action of both houses of congress-
and of the United States supreme court
his title to the presidency was passed
upon, sanctioned and guaranteed. The
supreme legislative council and the
conrt of last resort united in certifying
to the validity of his election, and it
WAS morally impossible for him TO act
otherwise than he did in taking his in
auguration oath" Those who hold
this view maintain that Mr. Hayes was
honestly elected as president; that his
title, originally good, was strengthened
and confirmed by the eight to seven
votes of the electoral commission; and
that in taking the Office Mr.. Hayes took
only what was his own.
The other theory regards Nh. Hayes
as having possessed no better title to
the presidency than that which he de-
rived from 4 tribunal of doubtful con-
stitutionality, but of practical neccs-
sity in the emergency that arose from
the contested election. Many repub-
licans and a few democrats are now
saying that although the frauds in
Louisiana and in Florida, and the
partisan decision of the commission.
gave to Mr.. Hayes an Office that had
rightfully belonged to Mr.. Tilden, both
parties had virtually agreed to abide
by the decisiot of the improvised court,
and Mr.. Hayes only did his duty in
standing by the verdict. They acIuit
him of personal blame. lie was inno-
cent, whoever may have been guilty.
In other words, according TO this view
of the events of 1876 and 1877, Mr..
Hayes was morally right in taking and
occupying an Office that morally be
longcd to Mr. Tilden, whom the people
had chosen.
Merely to state these propositions is
to exhibit their falsity. 1t is not our
purpose to threSh old straw anew, but
no occasion is more appropriate than
the present for reminding the people
that the late Rutherford B. Hayes was
himself Il party to the conspiracy by
which he protited and an active agent
III promoting the monumental crime.
The proof of this is found in the un-
disputed fact that the corrupt agree
mcnts entered into while the success of
the conspiracy was s:ill doubtful were
carried ont to the letter by Mr. Hayes.
as the beneficiary, after he had been
fraudulent!y seated in Mr.. Tilden's
place. Others had made the bargain;
he paid In. Y. Sun.