Year: 1876




The singular line of argument in Mr.. Sey-
mour's letter declining the democratic
nomination for Governor may, perhaps, de-
serve more attention than it has yet re-
ceived. The substance of that argument
was that it would be safe for the country to
elect Mr.. Tilden to the Presidency because
he would be SO curbed and hemmed in that
beyond the routine duties of his Office he
could dSnothing without the permission OF
his political opponents The fact is rs Mr.
Seymour stated it, but his inferences may
admit of question. Certain it is that for the
first two years of his administration, at
least President Tilden would he confronted
with q republican Senate, and that no bill
could be passed which the republican party
might think repugnant to its policy or Its
interests. We suppose Mr. Seymour In
tended his argument to apply prin-
cipally to the protection OF negro
rights in the South, the point on
which the republican leaders in this
canvass display more solicitude, real or
feigned, than on any other. Mr.. Seymour's
argument would be conclusive if the repub-
lican legislation for enforcing tire constitu-
tional amendments had successfully passed
the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. II the
enforcement acts had been sustained by the
judiciary, if they were still standing in the
statute book as valid laws, there could be
no successful reply to Governor Seymour's
argument. 1t would then be entirely true
that Mr.. Tilden as President. supported by a
democratic House of Representatives could
do nothing to impair the legal protection
which the republican party during its long
years of power has erected around the rights
of the colored citizens Of the South.


But this is by no means the present state
of the case. Mr.. Seymours argument is a
fallacy, because it ignores the great fact that
n republican Supreme Court has decided
that the Enforcement law is in con-
hict with the constitution and void.
With democratic House. scouting the
theory of federal protection, and demo-
cratic President armed with the veto,
the shattered legislation could not be re-
habilitated, and the negroes would remain
exposed to the tender merces of the State
governments What the republican party
demands is new legislation to take the place
of the void Enforcement law but the elec-
ton of Mr.. Tilden would render further
legislation for the protection of the negroes
impossible. With republican President and
a republican House there would, however,
be no difficulty in passing an Enforcement
law which might pass the ordeal Of the SUI
preme Court. Mr. Seymours argument
assumes, contrary to fact, that the present
state Of the law is satisfactory to republi-
cans, and that they only need to maintain
existing legislation to insure the stability of
their policy If this were so the election of
democratic President and House could
not disturb the security of the negroes SO
long as there existed a republican Sen
ate with power to block hostile leg
islation. But the real state of the case is
the same as if Congress had not legislated
on the subject. The republican party seeks
power to rebuild what the Supreme Court
has demolished. Mr.. Seymour's argument
rests on the false assumption that the repub-
lican legislation is still in force. If it were
still in force his reasoning would be unan-
swerable, and the negative action of re-
publican Senate would be complete guar
antee of negro rights. But, with the pre-
existing defences broken down by the high
est judicial tribunal, the republican policy
can be maintained only by new legislation,
which requires the joint action of the Sem
ate, the House and the President. If Mr..
Tilden is elected there will be no new legis-
lation on the subject, and the new President
will not lift finger for the protection of
colored citizens


We are not sure that the South would not
be soonest tranquillized by leaving it to settle
its own difficulties and manage its own
affairs. This is certainly the average senti-
ment of the democratic party, and Mr.. Sey-
mour showed lack of political courage
when he not only shrunk from avowing it,
but resorted to transparent sophistry in a
vain attempt to prove that the election of
Tilden would make no difference in the
action of the federal government. The real
truth is that if Tilden is elected there will
be no further interference in the South,
whereas if Hayes is elected, with republi-
can House, there will be q new Enforcement
law. Mr.. Seymours argument is calculated
to befog and obscure plain issue. That
issue is, Shall federal interference in tho
South be stopped or continued? Instead of
evading this issue the democratic party must
meet it boldly. The country may think the
non-interierence policy to be right. There
is no doubt great deal to be said in its
favor. But the issue must be squarely pre-
sented without skulking or subterfuge. SO
far as the Southern question is concerned.
Mr.. Seymour's argument is sophistical and
deceptive. No republican nor any democrat
can be Indifferent to the question whether
we are to have new Enforcement law and