Year: 1877

iveness and haste, has produced an ef-


feet on many well-meaning people.


In my judgment the history of the
| world does not show an instance In
which government after putting
down n rebellion against it has dealt
as generously as has ours with those
engaged In rebellion. Now if ii shall
appear that this additional act of gen.
erosity and confidence by our Presi-
dent shall be nisconstrued and disre
| garded, and has been used only to
make and keep solid SOUTH
think we shall not find 1t difficult to
make and keep a solid North,' and
a ''solid North" Is the stronger.
should regard the division of our peo-
pie into parties upon sectional lines
only less unfortunate than restora-
ton TO power of the Bourbon Democ-
racy. But if ii must be so, we must
make the best we can of it, and in the
end the country will be safe, and the
party that seeks to do the right and
just thing To all our people will tri-
umph. There is one thing that must
not be forgotten. We ali know thai
but for the firm, manly and honor
able stand taken during the Presiden-
tial count by some of the most promi-
nent Southern men in Congress, the
count would not have been completed
and we would probably have had in
| Washington the condition of anarchy
that has so lately ceased In South Car
olina and Louisiana. If they shall
continue TO act in the same spirit and
shall he able to carry their people
with them 1t will be II happy thing
| for the country. But whether the
pledges given to the country through
the President shall be kept or broken,
il will surely be unwise i'm us to fur
nish by our acts. to any who may be
disposed to break them, preteXt for
so doing. repeat then. that. in my
judgment, our State Convention will
act wisely in letting the matter alone,
and that we should wait patiently,
and so far as we can, hopefully, the
event.


You also ask for my "views direct
as to the policy of President Hayes"
That Is a much more difficult ques-
ton; one that l have neither the
time, the inclination or the inforIna-
ton necessary TO form final opinfoh,
upon. There Is one point in connec-
ton with ii upon which | have not
seen any discussion, and which seems
to me vital. The President did not
decide whether Chamberlain or
Hampton was the lawful Governor OF
South Carolina-w Packard or
Nichols was the lawful Governor OF
Louisiana. Was it not his duty un-
der the Constitution and the law to
decide these questions Take the
case of Louisiana. There was In that
State two persons claiming to be the
lawful Governor. Each of them was
supported by what claimed to be a
lawful legislature. Each had behind
him full list of State officers and q
Supreme Court, all claiming to hold
their offices lawfully. One of these
"Governors'' had by armed force
seized the Supreme Court room, eject
ed the judges claiming to hold under
the other Governor" aud installed
his own judges. 1t Is well known that
he had at his call large body of we'll
drilled and well-armed troops ready
to do his bidding. The other Cover
nor" held possession of the building
used as State House and containing
the executive offices, had barricaded
the building and maintained it by de-
fensive purpose and armed force. The
Constitution provides in substance
that the United States shall protect
each State against domestic VIC
lence," on application of the Legisla-
ture or of the Executive when the Leg
islature cannot be convened, and, as
understand. Congress has by law de-
volved this constitutional duty on the
President. Now, one of these Gov
ernments" was lawful Government !;
the other was a usurpation. One of
the Governors was a lawful officer
the other was IA rebel. 1t was not the
case of an ordinary contested election.
where one person held the office by a
21rima tacie title and the other con-
tested his right before the tribunal
provided for that purpose. There
were two antagonistic governments,
complete in all their parts, existing ut
the same time In the same State
There was not any tribunal provided
for such condition of affairs. One of
the Governors" and one of the LEG
islatures' applied to the President to
protect it against the usnrpation of the
other. Now, without touching the
question, which of these governments
was the lawful one, If the acts of set
ting up in State usurping govern
ment against the lawful one be do
mestic violence" was 1t not the dutv
Of the President to decide whether the
Governor making the application was
the lawful one, and If he so found him
to sustain him? have not examin-
ed this question with such care as Is
necessary for the formation of final
opinion. 1t will probably become my
duty to act upon 1t, aud then, of
course, must examine 1t as carefully
as l can and decide 1t for myself.
There are other aspects of the general
question of the Presidents policy Of
great interest in the future. But
cannot now discuss them. My health
has not been good for some time, and
although I am better than / was, l
still prefer idleness to work.


S. J. KIRkwOoD.