Democratic Sentinel, Volume 2, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 October 1878 — HILL ON HAYES. [ARTICLE]

HILL ON HAYES.

A Scatliing Review of the Administration — “Civil-Service” Dangers, and Failure to Meet Them—Peijury Elevated Into a Virtue and Forgery into an Art. Some months ago, Senator Hill, of Georgia, who was, upon Mr. Hayes’ accession to office, so kindly disposed toward the President as to almost excite the suspicion of his Democratic constituents, published some rather caustic allusions to the President’s civil-service policy. These remarks have been sharply commented upon by Northern journals. Mr. Hill, replying to a Georgia acquaintance, defends his accusation in the following letter: Atlanta, Ga., Oct 2,1878. My Dear Sib: In this day of much printing it is almost Impossible to hari) one’s opinions or motives correctly represented. I suppose it is because misrepresentation is so easy. I have, never cast any “slurs upon the President.” I have never expressed any “bitterness toward Mr. Hayes,” because I have never felt any. I have never complained or indulged in any pique because Mi-. Hayes did not appoint persons to office who were recommended by me. I have never recommended any. I have indorsed some applicants as qualified, and have greatly desired to see the civil service improved—especially in the South. I trust no man who knows me needs to lie assured that in the discharge of my public duties I am incapable of lieing influenced by personal piques and disappointments. Vritli me all personal feelings and relations, whether of friendship or otherwise, are subordinated to the public good. But I should be uncandid if I did not confess that I have been most grievously disappointed in both Mr. Hayes aud his administration. If my grievance was only personal the world would never suspect it in my official conduct and opinions. It is because my grievance relates only to our national character and the public weal that I make known its existence, and -will proceed to set forth briefly my reasons for it I believe "that what is known as our “civil service” as it now exists, and has long existed, is a crime against popular government and civilization. I believe it has been the chief cause of many troubles and corruptions in the past, and if not thoroughly reformed will surely undermine and destroy our free institutions. 1 will not stop here to discuses the grounds of this belief. They have been long and well considered, and have produced absolute conviction. I always did abhor that old party slogan, “To the victors belong the spoils.” It was never suited to any but liandits and plunderers, and was always disgraceful to men claiming to bo patriots and statesmen. It reduces the science of government to the tricks of gamblers, the hypocrisy of demagogues and the blows of ruffians. I heard Mr. Hayes when, in his inaugural address, he announced his policy, or rather his purpose of civil-service reform. To say I was pleased would feebly express the truth. In spite of my conviction that he was not elected by the people, but owed his office to unmitigated frauds for which I believed he was not responsible, I felt willing to bury this last and greatest wrong with the many that had preceded it, and for which all sides were more or less responsible, and unite my humble efforts in support of a policy which, in my judgment, promised escape to our whole country from all such wrongs in the future. What is spoken of as Mr. Hayes’ Southern policy was of far less significance. The Southern policy was a necessity of the situation. Mr. Hayes had no power to avoid it. The end of carpet-bag plundering in the South and disgrace to the nation had come by events. Even Gen. Grant saw that the army could no longer be used to settle contested elections in the States and maintain robbers in pow-er. But with our corrupt and ever-corrupting civil service the situation was different. This evil had its origin before the war. It had grown up under the nurture of the leaders of parties. It had pushed its brazen supporters and beneficiaries to the front seats of authority. It had grown and strengthened with every year, and seemed to have intrenched itself impregnably during Gen. Grant's administration. When, therefore, in the very day of its insolent power, in the very midst of its pampered courtiers, and on the very field of its greatest sway, Mr. Hayes announced in clear and unfaltering voice his purpose to strangle this hydra of many heads, he seemed to exhibit the courage, manliness and patriotism of one worthy to be President. This exhibition gave me high hopes of the man, and several early free and frank interviews which I felt encouraged to seek with him greatly strengthened and encouraged these hopes. Now, my friend, it is the utter and sickening disappointment which these hopes have experienced, and nothing else, wliich has forced from me the few words to which you allude, and which have been falsely construed by Republican papers to express personal bitterness and hostility on my part toward President Hayes. In my opinion Mr. Hayes has utterly failed to improve—indeed, has strangely thrown away—an opportunity to make for himself a name worthy to be enrolled with that of Washington, because that opportunity improved would have conferred on Ins country a benefit equal to any conferred by Washington himself. He has failed because he has shown liimself utterly unequal to liis opportunity. He has shown himself unequal in that he has utterly failed to realize that the Chief Magistrate of a great country has no personal friends, no personal enemies, and owes no personal obligations, but is under obligations only to his country, and to that country’s honor, glory, prosperity, constitution and laws. He has thrown away an opportunity to honor himself, and even his country, by recognizing an obligation to reward those who, by frauds most disgraceful to their country, gave him this opportunity. He has thrown away the grandest opportunity ever given to man, only that he might give offices to as w-orthless a set of rapscallions as ever disgraced humanity. A man may become President by reason of a crime and yet himself not be tainted or even culpable. Twice, in our liistoiy, have men become Presidents by reason of crime. Andrew Johnson became "President by reason of a wicked and foul assassination. Mr. Hayes became President by reason of a wicked and foul conspiracy to change, and which did change, the ballots of the people after those ballots had been cast. Yet each became President through the forms of the constitution and laws. How did Mr. Johnson deal with those who committed and who were charged with aiding to commit the crime by which he became President? He pursued them for punishment with such vigor that, as all the world now believes, an innocent woman was hanged! How has Mr. Hayes dealt ■with those who committed and those who were charged with aiding to commit the crime by which he became President? If you will’examine the list from the humblest"manager of the election precincts in Florida and Louisiana, through the visiting statesmen (as they are nowin- mockery called), and up to and through the Electoral Commission, and show me one, black or white, high or low-, who is known to be guilty, or who is suspected of the guilt of this crime, who has not received or been offered an office, you will relieve to that extent the pain and mortification I feel in looking over these sickening developments. There was a woman charged to be among the conspirators in both crimes. In Mr. Johnson’s case Mrs. Surratt, protesting her innocence with an honest woman’s tears and a devoted mother’s entreaties, was chained andmocked and hungIn Mr. Hayes case, Agnes Jenks, confessing her guilt in brazen gibberish never before equaled, receives an office of good pay and little work in the treasury, and that, too, at a time when ladies of unquestioned worth, with hungry children, and husbands slain in battle, were rudely turned away with the gruff answ-er “ no vacancies.” If, instead of fleeing as a criminal, Wilkes Booth had sought the presence of Andrew Johnson as one who had rendered the latter good service, and Mr. Johnson had entertained him at the Executive Mansion and given him an office, what would the world have said? What would you say ? Letters have been produced before the Potter committee, written by Republican members of Congress, which were written to Republican friends and not intended for publication, which strikingly exhibit the superior influence of Kellogg, Packard, Wells, and Anderson at the Executive Mansion. In other ways we know now that almost every person connected with the fraud has claimed or exercised special influence or favor at the White House. But the contrast may be stated in one short sentence: In Mr. Johnson’s case all the criminals, real or suspected, were specially marked for punishment. In Mr. Hayes’ case all the criminals, real or suspected, were specially marked for reward. I would be really glad if I could find some excuse, some apology or some palliation for e course Mr. Hayes has pursued in this matter. But, after fuU consideration, I can find none. It is no palliation to say that assassination was a greater crime than fraud. Both were crimes. If it is right to reward crime at all, then the greatest crimes should receive the highest re-

wards. You cannot produce innocence, much less merit, by grading crimes. AU deserve punishment and none are entitled to reward. To reward fraud is a greater crime than to commit it, for the reward invites many commissions. If Andrew Johnson had rew-arded Booth the whole world would have pronounced him a greater criminal than Booth. It is difficult to conceive of a greater crime than the defeat by fraud of the popular wiU in a government which rests on the popular wiU. If there be a greater crime it is committed by those who reward the authors of such fraud, for such reward invites the perpetual defeat of the popular will; and, therefore, a direct subVerelon .of the Government, and assumes the most insidious form of treason. It is worse than no excuse—it is itself a crime to say that Mr. Hayes was under obligations to these authors of fraud. If there had been no assassin Booth there would have been no President Johnson. But was the President, therefore, under obligation to the assassin? If there had been no frauds in Florida and Louisiana there wotfld have been no President Hayes. Is the President, therefore, under obligation to all who helped to commit the fraud ? It seems that all have claimed reward. It is no apology to say that Mr. Hayes did not believe these people were guilty of any fraud. It was his duty to protect the character of the nation and the integrity of the administration. He can do neither by placing great numbers of men in office who are charged with crimes and whom largely more than half of the people believe are guilty. In truth, Ido not believe any intelligent man doubts their guilt. But I trust wc have In this country a sufficient number of men of unsuspected honesty to fill the offices, and both the public character and the public interests require that only such men should be appointed. Besides, if these men were in truth innocent they would not have asked or accepted office from Mr. Hayes, for they would not have been willing to bring -weakness" upon the administration or disrepute upon the civil service. Their universal and brazen demands for office is the highest proof of their guilt, for it shows they care nothing for Mr. Hayes—nothing for the" honor of the country —nothing for the good repute of the civil service. Their every act in pressing for office shows that reward was their object, and reward they must have. Every man of the guilty gang who has not been satisfied with the office offered him has confessed the frauds. Every man who has not confessed the frauds has been kept satisfied with office. Why should he confess whose confession would defeat his reward ? How does it happen that those only are not entitled to belief who confess the frauds? And how does it happen that the credit of none was denied until after confession was made? It is no palliation now to say that the larger number of these appointments were made by certain members, or bv a member of the Cabinet. If Mr. Johnson Lad made Wilkes Booth a member of his Cabinet he could not have complained if Booth had provided places for his tools and subordinates. Nevertheless, if, when the revelations on this subject were made before the Potter committee, Mr. Hayes had promptly ordered a sweeping purgation for the civil service of those obnoxious characters, as I greatly hoped he would do, he would have been largely vindicated. Instead, however, of dismissing any he appointed more, and some of the appointments seemed to have the special purpose of suppressing or affecting testimony before the committee. If anything were wanting to increase the wicked heinousness of the frauds upon the ballots in Florida and Louisiana it will be found in the only excuse which the authors and abettors of these frauds have offered for their perpetration. It must never be forgotten that the great facts are not denied, but admitted —to wit, that the ballots were changed after they were cast, and the verdict of the people reversed after it had been rendered and was known. The excuse for this, as alleged, is that there were intimidations at the precincts which prevented a free expression by the people. If this excuse is false in fact, then the crime stands confessed without excuse. Those of ns who have been familiar with carpet-bag villainies knew from the first that the excuse was false; but the proof now revealed abundantly shows that the excuse is not only false, but was actually manufactured for the express purpose of a cover for the fraud. Thus the excuse itself becomes part of the fraud, and the most infamous part of it. Not only was the excuse itself manufactured, but the "evidence to make the excuse deceive the Northern people was also manufactured in the Custom House in New Orleans and elsewhere. Forgeries are shown to have been numerous, and perjuries were secured under promises of reward. In this vile work men holding high positions took active part, and every one who took such part has received high "office from Mr. Hayes, and has thus been enabled to become himself a dispenser of rewards to bis subordinates. Take it all in all—its origin, its extent, its wicked adroitness, its deliberation, the variety of characters engaged, its numberless perjuries and reckless forgeries, its marvelous success and its absolute control of a great government of unequaled patronage for its reward—and it must be confessed that the Presidential fraud of 1876 is without a parallel in any history. It dwarfs all other frauds, conspiracies and rol>berics into comparative insignificance. If allowed to go unpunished it will elevate perjury into a virtue, forgery into an art, and will reduce usurpation to a science! The administration which I, for one, had fondly hoped would inaugurate a new era of elevation, purity and efficiency in our civil service has persistently identified its life, its power and its character with the frauds of its origin, and has thus done more than all our Srevious history to bring that civil service into isrepute and "the advocates of its reform to confusion and shame. The keenest pang of all is that which springs from the fact that will not down, that all this has been done to silence, gratify and reward as vile a set of scoundrels as ever robbed without remorse or lied without blushing. It has given me no pleasure to write this letter. I have been slow and reluctant to give up the hopes I had formed of this administration. I am not willing even now to discredit my own judgment of men so far as to admit that my first impressions of Mr. Hayes were altogether incorrect. I prefer to believe, and do believe, that he has fallen under the control of men who were deeply involved in the guilt of this fraud, and whose power over him he has not been able to resist. Even now, if he would purge his administration of every person connected with the frauds he might yet rally good men to his support and close his term of service with something of benefit to this country and respect for himself. But I fear the serpents of fraud have their coils so wrapped around him that he is unable and may have become unwilling to release himself. There is but one more step between our free institutions and destruction. The Government has become indentified with fraud, and is administered by the authors of fraud. If the people shall fail to repudiate the fraud and its authors, abettors and rewarders, then we shall have entered upon that phase of our career when the offices and immense patronage of this richest of countries will take the form of glittering prizes offered to induce the commission of crimes against the popular will. Assassins will be made heroes, and the greatest criminals will become most entitled to enjoy the honors and live on the benefactions of government. Beyond that, the man who talks of the safety and purity of popular governments will be a lunatic. 'Jour friend, Benjamin H. Him.. Hon. Robert C. Humber, Eatonton, Ga.