Year: 1876

Carl Schurz has written long letter to his
quondam independent associate, the editor OF
the New York Stats ZeiteGag, giving his rea-
sons for his support of Hayes. In his treat
ment of the subject he takes somewhat
wider view of the situation and of both par
ties than did Mr.. Goodwin in his letter in favor
of Mr.. TildeD. We make room for some of
the more important portions of his very able
statement, and in doing so, assure our readers
that they will find every word we quote worthy
of careful attention. He first considers


THE FINANCIAL QUESTION.


You know fully as well ss L do. and have
often enough admitted the, fact in YOUR paper.
that, with reference to the financial ouestion
the Republican party Is assuredly not all that
the whole, than the Democratic party. The
history OF the last few years. the votes in Con-
gress, the elections in single states the party
organs, fp.mish indisputable evidence that
heaVy plsJority of the 'sOftmoney" element
and a.oout all the lust of reputation that ex-
lists, ara to be found on the Democratic side.
Now. if such party-which still almost daily
as write, shows itself through its majority in


the House of Representatives hostile to hard


money-would nevertheless have US believe,


that the hard-money interest would be safe In


its hands, it must of necessity give us. both by
explanation and by acts, strongers guarantees
than we should require of a party with better


antecedents. In order to deserve confidence,


the Democratic convention should at least have


adopted hard money platform, free from all
stipulations and compromises, and then have


nominated for the presidency-and no less for
the iee-presidency- candidates whose princi-


pies in regard to the hard money question stood


beyond the reach of doubt Less than this
could not have been demanded. And what has
the Democratic party done in its convention?
After arraigning the Republicans for great


sins of omission, chiefly to raise dust for the
concealment of its own far worse record, it


proposes as the only specific measures the re-


peal of the resumption bill of January, 1875!
You and L have been of the same opinion


that the resumption bill of 1875 was INSULT


cient in its details but of value as the distinct


promise of the acceptance Of specie payments
on the side OF the government. You and
during the sessionEof this Congress have con-
demned every attempt to repeal the resump-
ton bill as vancouver of the infationists.
With perfect truth you have declared in the
Stats Zeitung that 'such a repeal without at
the same time accepting some practical meas
ure for specie payments would be moral VIC
tory of the infiationists." You and 1 know
that for two years past the battle cry of the
int1ationists has been the repeal of the sump-
tion act and if now the Democratic platform
in acting upon the finance question presents


as its only specific demand that the resumption


bill shall be repealed, every honest hard money
man who seriously considers the question, will


ask: What does this mean? The reason can
certainly not be that which the platform itself
puts forth, that the promise TO resume is in
itself the hindrance to resumption, for among
rational people it is an unheard of thing that
man was unable to pay his debt simply be-


cause he promised to do so. No. that demand
was incorporated into the platform for the
simple purpose of pacifying the inhationists
and binding them to the party by concession.
This is no mere conjecture The chairman of
the platform committee openly declared in the
convention that this platform was a compro-
mise, against which the hard money party of
the eastern states had already strongly pro-


tested. And they have justly protested,
because, as you yourself admit, this was
moral victory of the infiatonsts." The
extreme inflationists in the convention were
not satisfied with this compromise; naturally
so for compromise never satisfies, because it
only gives part of what is desired. And
what was the argument whereby the chairman
OF the committee endeavored to move them to


accept compromise? That in this question


the convention could not retrograde further
without running every chance OF success for
the Democratic party in the state of New
York. This had its effect, and the compro-


mise was accepted by large majority. Thus,


for the sake of victory, the intationists re-
Trained from further demands. But what fol-
lows party victory? Must not every hard
money man who is faithful TO his convictions
first of all answer this question?


THE NOMINATION OF HENDRICKS.


Still, this was not the only concession which
was made to the nflationists. The convention,
with singular unanimity, nominated Mr.. Hen


bricks as candidate for the vice presidency
Who is Mr. Hendricks? You name him in


your journal "a politician without character,


who has no views of his own concerning the


question of finance" But you know just as


well as that he was one of the favoriIe can
didates of the intiationsts, and that character
ICES his position in regard to the question Of
finance. And this man is candidate for vice.
presidentwit Mr.. Tildenl 1t is true that men
have been nominated on the same ticket here
totore who were unequal in ability and
strength of character, but, TOR the first time in
the history of the country, the Democratic
convention has furnished an unheard-of ex-
ample 10 placing two candidates together, who
Oh the chief question, represented exactly
opposite principles.


REFORM By THE ELECTION OF HAYES.


So much in regard to the question of finance.
As to the question of reform 1 most willingly