Rensselaer Republican, Volume 18, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 October 1885 — Page 7

GENERAL GRANT AND THE BLOODY SHIRT.

LFrom the Chicago Tribhne.l The<Democratic papers ar6 making a great flourish of a statement made by General Grant during his . dying moments and reported by his son as follows: I feel that we are on the eve of a new era, when there is to be great harmony between the Federate and the Confederates. I cannot stay to be a living witness to the correctness of the prophecy, but Ifeel it within me that Jt is to,be so. The universally kind feeling expressed lor me at a time when it was supposed that each day would prove my last seems to me the beginning of the answer to “Let us have peace.” Assuming that Col. Fred Grant has reported his father’s words correctly, it is not remarkable that Gen. Grant should have uttered them at a time when the affairs of this world had no further interest for him and he was anxious to be at peace himself and to leave the earth with some kindly message of farewell. Under such circumstances we may well imagine that what seems a prophecy was only a wish, and that had Gen. Grant been aware, as he was when he was well, of the condition of things in the South, his lips would either have remained silent or he Would have uttered indignant protest. When he was in robust health and in the prime of his physical and mental powers he expressed himself on political subjects as follows: There Is not a precinct in this vast Nation where a democrat cannot cast his ballot and have it counted as cast, no matter what the predominance of the opposite party. He can proclaim his political opinions, even if he is only one among a thousand, without fear and without proscription on . account of his opinions. There are eight States, and localities in some others, where Republicans have not this privilege. _ In one of his messages to Congress he described as follows the objects of the South Carolina Bourbon Democracy: To deprive colored citizens of the right to a free ballot; * > * to suppress schools in which colored children are taught, and to reduce the colored people to a condition akin to slavery. * * * To effect these objects many murders and crimes of minor degree have been perpetrated and have been left unpunished. As the situation has not changed since Gen. Grant uttered these emphatic protests against Southern injustice and intolerance and the suppression of the liepublican vote in that section, it is absurd to suppose that his opinions haqUchanged, or that because he hoped for a change in these respects and was magnanimous in his expressions towards ex-rebel soldiers he thereby gave his consent to outrages at the polls and to the terrorism of colored voters, as it is to deny that these outrages are committed because Gen. Grant gave utterance to a hope for reconciliation in his dying moments. Suppose that Gen. Grant were living now and were fully cognizant of what is going on in Virginia, what would he be likely to say? Supposing that he should visit V irginia and travel about the State, what would he behold ? He would see the Bourbons gather together at their meetings to be addressed by Fitzhugh Lee. He would see Fitzhugh Lee, mounted upon his uncle's war saddle and the horse he rode arrayed with Lee’s old rebel war trappings, ridingover the public highways, escorted to his meetings by a troop of rebel cavalry carrying their old rebel battle-flags and banners inscribed with mottoes intended to recall the lost cause. He would hear the rebel yells and the Southern war songs sung at these Democratic meetings. He would hear speakers who had been officers in the rebel army appealing to their hearers with arguments based upon the memories of the slaveholders’ secession re- ’ bellion and the good times of the chivalry in the days of slavery, and trying ing in the most incendiary manner to inflame them with a hatred of colored Republicans and their white friends, and to intensify their hatred of the National Union North. All about him would be flaunted the rebel bloody shirt. He would witness a fierce and malicious rebel bloodyshirf campaign, and see the rebel bloody shirt exhibited at all Fitzhugh Lee’s meetings and wherever a meeting of Democrats was held. He would see more intense bloody-shirtism at one Virginia Bourbon meeting than at all the Republican meetings addressed by John Sherman in Ohio during this campaign put together. n If he should go to Mississippi—a strong Republican State —he would see a campaign without a Republican ticket in the field at all, because the colored Republicans are prevented by the shotgun and ballot-box stuffer from voting. And when Gen. Grant had seen these things, is there any doubt what his utterances would have been? Does any one doubt that he would have flamed out with honest indignation, and that some of the severest and sharpest comments that have ever been spoken by him would have characterized his opinion of these outrages? If to protest against them is to wave the bloody shirt, would he not have waved it ?

Vindicating the Southern Issue.

The returns of the Ohio election show the falsehood of the assertions made by the Democratic and mugwump journals that Senator- Sherman’s speeches condemning the systematic practice of fraud at ■ the elections in some of the Southern States as a means of practically disfranchising the colored vote, had produced widespread disgust among the Ohio Republicans. Those who have not read Mr. Sherman’s speeches, and who have obtained their impressions oi them from the misrepresentations of the journals referred to, may suppose that he has been “waving the bloody shirt” and seeking to revive the animosities of the war period. But Senator Sherman is a statesman who' deals with living questions, and the Ohio Republicans do not understand that he was “preaching the gospel of hate,” as the Democratic papers allege, when he complained of the suppression of the majority in some of the States by fraud and force. It is a very Vital issue, and the time has not come when the American people will consent to the policy of silence on a flagrant injustice simply because the means of correcting it are difficult and cannot be at once applied. The existence of a great number of ignorant voters who are easily made the dupes of corrupt politicians, is a serious evil, and the Southern people, if

they will show a proper spirit in deal l - I ing with it, will have the hearty sym- ' pathy and support of Northern Repub- i licans. But the intimidation of voters 1 and fraudulent returns are not the proper methods. They demoralize and corrupt the whole body politic. The men who have learned to cheat the colored voters by tissue ballots and fraudulent counts will not stop at that point. They will employ the same methods to maintain themselves in power against ‘ white voters who are opposed to them, and complaints of such practices are already heard in the South, especially in Louisiana. If the Southern whites will adopt some test of intelligence which will apply equally to white and black, and then hold honest elections, Senator Sheyman and others like him will cease to complain of the management and results of Southern elections. In the North we have large numbers of ignorant voters, who are as subject to the lead of corrupt men as the innocent Southern negroes, but we do not think it the proper manner of improving their politioal education to teach them that, although they may vote, their ballots shall be deprived of all influence by the falsification of the election returns under the management of the superior and cultivated class.— Milwaukee Sentinel.

GEN. GRANT’S ADVICE TO VOTERS.

Why He Was a Republican. [From Gen. Grant’s speech at "Warren, Ohio, Sep. 28, 1880.] It may be proper for me to account to you, on the first occasion of my presiding at a political meeting, for the faith that is in me. I am a as the two great political parties are now divided, because the Republican party is a national party, seeking the greatest good of the greatest number of her citizens. There is not a precinct in this vast nation where a Democrat can not cast his ballot and have it counted as cast, no matter what the predominance of the opposite party. He can claim his political opinions, even if he is only one among a thousand, without fear and without proscription on account of his opinions. There are fourteen States, and localities in some others, where Republicans have mot this privilege. This is one reason why I am a Republican. / But I am a Republican for many other reasons. The Republican party insures protection to life, property, public credit, and the payment of the debts of the Government, State, county, or municipality, so far as it can control. The Democratic party does not promise this. If it does, it has broken its promise to the extent of hundreds of millions, as many Northern Democrats can testify to their sorrow. I am a Republican as between existing parties, because it fosters the productions of the field and farm, and of manufactories, and it encourages the general education of the poor as well as the rich. The Democratic party discourages all this when in absolute power. \ The Republican party is a party of progress and of liberality toward its opponents. It encourages the poor to strive to better their condition; the ignorant to educate their children, to enable them to compete successfully with their more fortunate associates; and in fine, it secures an entire equality before the law of every citizen, no matter what his race, nationality or previous condition. It tolerates no privileged class. Every one has the opportunity to make himself all he is capable of. Ladies and gentlemen, do you believe this can be truthfully said in the greater part of fourteen of the States of the Union to-day which the Democratic party control absolutely ? The Republican party is a party of principles, the same principles prevailing wherever it has a foothold. The Democratic party is united in but one thing, and that is in getting control of the government in all its branches. It is fpr internal improvement at the expense of the government in one section, and against this in another. It favors the repudiation of solemn obligations in one section, and honest payment of its debts in another (when public opinion will not tolerate any ’other view). It favors fiat money in one place and good monfey in another. Finally, it favors the “pooling of all issues” not favored by the Republicans, to the end that it may secure the one principle upon which the party is a a most harmonious unit, namely: gaining control of the Government in all its branches. I have been in some part of every State lately in rebellion within the last year. I was most hospitably received at every place where I stopped. My receptions were not by the Union class alone, but by all classes without distinction. I had a free talk with many who were against us in the war, and who have been against the Republican party ever since. They were in all instances reasonable men, judged by what they said. I believed then, and now, that they want a break-up in the “Solid South” political condition. They see that it is to their pecuniary interest as well as to their happiness, that there should be harmony and confidence between all sections. They want to break away from the slavery which binds them to a party name. They want a pretext that enough of them can unite upon to make it respectable. Once started, the Solid South will go as Ku-kluxism did before, as is so admirably told by Judge Tourgee in his “Fool’s Errand.” When the break comes those who start it will be astonished to find how many of their friends have been in favor of it for a long time, and have only been waiting to see some one take the lead. This desirable solution can only be attained by the defeat and continued defeat of the Democratic party, as now constituted.

Timely Remarks About the Bloody Shirt.

The Democrats, who as a party rebelled against the Government of the United States because Abraham Lincon was elected President, are disturbed about The reappearance of an apparition which they call the “bloody shirt.’’ 'fhe conspirators who murdered Caesar were, .troubled, we are told, in a similar way. No one who has done

wrong since Adam ever liked to be reminded of his wrong-doing. The Democrats adqiit the facts, but enter the defense that they occurred some time ago. They plead the statute of limitations. But do all crimes cease to be crimes after two decades? The Democratic rebellion was not for a few years, or for twenty years, wrong, but, as Garfield said, “ everlastingly wrong.” The killing of Judge Chisolm and his children was a barbarous, beastly murder seven years ago, and will be seventy years hence, and a very live issue is whether the vote of an unpunished Mississippi murderei - or rebel shall equal in national affairs the votes of two New York or Ohio Unionists. So long as the ballots of the triumphant friends of the republic count less than the ballots of its baffled enemies, this issue will be agitated. So long as negroes’ votes are counted for representation in the Electoral College and Congress, and not counted at the polls, just so long will a loyal press and people cry out against such injustice.— New York Tribune. ..

AGAINST THE NORTH.

A Southern Orator Warns the Bourbons that They Must Stand United. [New Orleans special.] Senator J. Z. George has just finished a canvass of the lojver tier of counties in Mississippi m behalf of the Democratic State ticket. In his speech at Bay St. Louis last night he uttered the following remarkable sentiment: Do you comprehend the issues upon which the Republicans have made their fight in Ohio, and have carried that State ? Do you imagine that they have forgotten the prejudices engendered by the war, and are willing to recognize us as brothers and equal s ? If so you have forgotten that their candidate for Governor and John Sherman, one of their most eminent statesmen, made the canvas on an issue which contemplates the denying to you of your equal rights to representation in Congress. My friends, if any man thinks that we are treated and considered by the Republican party of the North as equals in a common Government and Union he is sadly mistaken. Now, when these facts are presented to us, are we to decline to hold up President Cleveland’s hands or strengthen him in the administration of the Government on a basis of equal justice and fairness to us as well as to the Northern people ? I speak to you plainly. Ido not appeal to your passions. This subject is too important for anything but calm and cool consideration. We are in the minority, and we are' likely to find ourselves in a still greater minority relatively. The North is being settled up by immigration from Europe. Few come to us. Not many years will elapse before Dakota will be admitted into the Union. Then Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. This Will increase the preponderance of wealth and power of the Northern section of the Union. The South is growing, it is true, but our growth is slower and more by natural causes. Under these circumstances, when there stands nothing between us and the strong arm of a sectional majority but the Democratic party and the President, will you attempt to cripple that President and party ? I ask you to think of these matters. So far as lam concerned I intend to stand by President Cleveland and the Democratic party —firstly, because I think they are right; secondly, because I know that when I stand by the President I stand by you and assist in strengthening a barrier against sectional persecution, which will overrun this country unless defeated by the Democratic party.

John 8. Wise is making the fight for Governor of Virginia as a straightout Republican. In this he is taking a proper course, whatever the result may be. He believes that he can be elected as a Republican, and in that event his will be a triumph worth celebrating, while an election as a Readjuster, or Independent, or any other nondescript candidate would be of no significance. There are only two political parties in this country. Local issues may modify the relative'status of each organization, but States will be Republican or Democratic according to the preponderance of popular sentiment. If Virginia is Republican, as Wise believes it to be if cheating and bulldozing can be suppressed, then let the fact be signalized by the. election of Wise as a Republican. Such an event may be a broad opening for a permanent Republican foothold m the South, which will be the chief beneficiary of a breach in its? Bourbonic solidity. The result of the (election in Cuyahoga County shows how the Ohio Democrats love the negro. Tilley, a colored man, was nominated for the Legislature by the Democrats of that county, with a great flourish of trumpets, to show how Democratic feeling had changed toward colored men. After the election it was found that the white legislative candidates ran very closely together, and that the colored man was unmercifully cut in every ward in Cleveland ahd in every township in the district. He ran 2,500 votes behind his ticket. It is not likely that Tilley or any other colored man will ever take his chances again on a Democratic ticket in Cuyahoga, notwithstanding the change of feeling which the Democrats of that county claim to have experienced toward them.— Chicago Tribune. Senator Kellogg, of Louisiana, says the condition of affairs in that State now is worse than it ever was under the so-called carpet-bag rule. He says “when the Republicans had the State the schools were supported, and they can’t do it now; the police were paid—they can’t do it now; the interest on the State debt was paid, and they can’t do that now.” . The Prohibition party was but a.. Democratic side - show—a part of the Democratic circus. Ohio is one of the 'Republican strongholds, and has never, since the Republican party was born, given any other than Republican victo- .< ries, except upon purely local issues which shattered party lines, and drove Republicans into the opposition.—Philadeiphia Telegraph. -

GRANT AND JOHNSON.

Further Concerning the Misunderstanding Between the President and ... the General. I ■ r- _ " Gen. Sherman Interviewed—What Ben Butler Says of the Impeachment Trial. Sherman Sheds Light. [St. Louis special.] The Globe-Democrat this morning contains the following interview with General Sherman on the pending controversy as to the relations of General Grant with President Johnson: “W hat was your understanding of President Johnson's intention in sending General Grant to Mexico?" “Grant was being spoken of for th? Presidency, and it was supposed that the intention was to get him out of the way. Ido not think, however, that Johnson feared any political foe. It was thought that Seward most dreaded the power of Grant and was most anxious to get ,rid of him.” “How was it you were sent to Mexico instead of Grant?” Before replying to this question. General Sherman rose and retired to a room in the rear of the library, into which he had first ushered the reporter. When he returned he held in his hand some proof-sheets of his forthcoming book, "After the War." "I have all the documents here,” he remarked, “ahd they will be published in time.” Referring to the proofsheets, he continued: “In the year 1866 I was summoned from New Mexico to Washington. When I arrived at Washington I called upon General Grant at his house in I street, and asked him the reason of my being ordered to Washington. He explained that President Johnson wanted to see me, but that he did not know the why or wherefore. He supi osed, however, that it had some connection with an order he had received to escort the newly appointed Minister, Hon. Lew Campbell, of Ohio, to the court of Juarez, the President-elect of Mexico, which country was still in possession of the Emperor Maximilian, supported b.v a corps of French troops, commanded by Marshal Bazaine. Gen. Grant denied the right of the President to order him upon a diplomatic mission unattended by troops. He stated to me that he would disobey the order and take the consequences. “I then went to President Johnson, who received me with great cordiality, and said that he was very glad 1 had come. He stated that Gen. Grant was about to leave for Mexico on business of importance, and that he wanted me to remain in Washington and command the army in Gen. Grant’s absence. I then informed the President that Gen. Grant would not go. He seemed amazed by that statement, and observed that it was generally understood that Gen. Grant considered the occupation of Mexico by French troops and the establishment of an empire there with an Austrian prince at its head as hostile to republican America. The President added that the administration had arranged with the Fiench government for the withdrawal of Bazaine’s troops, which would leave the country free for. President Jnarez to occupy the City of Mexico, and thefact that Mr. Campbell was accompanied by so distinguished a soldier as Gen. Grant would emphasize the act of the United States. I then reiterated that Gen. Grant would not go, and that he (President Johnson) could not afford to quarrel with Gen. Grant at that time. I then suggested that Gen. Hancock or Gen. Sheridan could perf< rm tne same office, and that, if neither of them was acceptable. I myself would go. The President answered, ‘lf you will go, that will answer perfectly.’ Accordingly the following order was issued: “Executive Mansion, Washington, > Oct. 30. 1866. f “To the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War: “Sir— ‘Gen. U. S; Grant having found it inconvenient to assume the duties specified in my letter to yon of the 2t:th Inst., you will please relieve him and assign them in all respects to William T. Sherman, Lieutenant General of the armies of the United States. By the way of directing Gen. Sherman in the performance of his duties, yonwill furnish him with a copy of your special orders to Gen. Grant, made in compliance with my letter of the 36th inst., together with a copy of the instructions of the Secretary of htate to Lewis D. Campbell, Esq., therein mentioned. The Lieutenant General will proceed to the execution of his duties without delay. Very respectfully yours, Andrew Johnson.” “In pursuance of that order, 1 went to Vera Cruz in the United States ship Susquehanna. We then cruised to Matamoras, where the Minister was in communication with friends of Juarez, and from there I returned to St; Louis. At New Orleans, however. I received the following dispatch from Secretary Stanton: “Washington, Dec. 21,1866. “Lieutenant General Sherman, New Orleans: "Your telegram of yesterday has been submit-ted-to the President. You are authorized to proceed to St. Louis at your convenience. Your performance of the special and delicate duties assigned to you is cordially .appreciated by the President, the Cabinet, and this department. “Edwin M. Stanton." “Have you the instructions to Grant of which you received a copy?" “Yes, I have copies of them somewhere, but they are on file in the State Department at Washington. Some time subsequent to my return—l do not remember the date—Mr. Stanton was suspended under the tenure of the civiloffice bill, and General Grant was appointed by President Johnson to be Secretary of War ad interim. He exercised the functions of that office until January 13, 1868, when, after some proceedings in the Senate, Mr. Stanton was reinstated as Secretary of War. This caused trouble between Gen. Grant and the President, which was probably never healed. That quarrel was the beginning of the trouble which resulted in the impeachment of President Johnson, who was regularly tried by the Senate and acquitted. After that Mr. Stanton resigned and Gen. Schofield was appointed Secretary ot War, and he remained in that office to the end of the Johnson administration. “No, I never understood Gen. Grant to express any fear that Mr. Johnson contemplated any violence. Mr. Johnson firmly believed that the Constitution anti laws then existing were all sufficient for the reconstruction of the Southern States. Congress thought otherwise, and in the quarrel between Congress and the President, Grant was in danger of being made the scapegoat." Gen. Sherman again returned to the rear of his library, and this time he emerged carrying a large file of Gen. Grant's letters. These letters from Gen. 'Grant cover the period in question. They are all of a friendly and confidential nature, but there is nothing in them which ' could go to show that Grant ever apprehended any national danger. When Stanton was restored to office, Johnson accused Grant of having'surrendered his office without sufficient resistance. That was the ■ cause of the quarrel. It was a fight between the President and Congress, and Grant was not willing that they should wage it over Lis shoulders. Stanton being backed by Congress, Grant retired. Johnson was hostile to Stanton, and he did not want him in his cabinet. Grant concluded that the best way out of the difficulty was to let the President, Congress, and Stanton fight it out among themselves. “1 think the papers are making too much of this controversy. It is simply an effort to rekindle the embers of a fire which has long since died out. Ido not believe Mr. Chauncey Depew intended to do more than repeat from memory a statement made by Gen. Grant at a dinner table. He is a very honorable gentleman, but he, no doubt, thought there was something in this matter. But there was nothing more in Mr. Johnson’s attitude than the ordinary political differences which will exist between men of different parties. » , “I repeat again, there was no violence intended. Everybody was sick and tired of war. Nobody thought of fighting, except on paper. Atter Stanton was removed, I wanted President Johnson to nominate Gen. Jacob D. Cox as Secretary of War, and his confirmation by the Senate would have settled the whole controversy. Mr. Reverdy Johnson coincided with me in this particular, but the President would fight it out in his own way. , “As 1 have already stated, Mr. Johnson was impressed with the belief.that with the constitution and the laws he could successfully reconstruct the South. Mr. Lincoln, I think, was of the same opinion. Congress, however, wanted to provide the machinery and dictate the terms upon which the States that had seceded should be received back into the Union.' ■ Gen. Schofield's Reminiscences. [Chicago special. J Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield, Who succeeded' Stanton as Secretary of War under President Johnson, was in a position to know as much, perhaps, as anyone else concerning the unwritten history alluded to in Chauncey Depew’s account of his interview with Gen. Grant. Like Gen Sherman, however, he declines to tell all that he knows. “It is true that I was intimately associated with President Johnson, Gen. Grant, and the Cabinet officers during a portion of the period you mention." he said yesterday, when questioned by a reporter for the Times. “and knew ali.jhat was going on. I may say that there are recoMs-Jp existence which would explain "t~v of a confidential nature, and cannot be made public. For the same reason I do not fee! at liberty to •peak. It is an indisputable fact that that wms

very critical period In the history of the nation. Johnson was understood to be a candidate for another term, and nobody doubted that the Republicans intended to run Grant for the Presidency. Under the constitution the Ihresldent was Commander-in-chief of the Army, white Grant was the General in command, and there were fourteen States practically under military rule. The. friends of both these parties were terribly in earnest, and’ at such a tirna -to shortly after the close of the war—there was nothing absurd in the apprehension that the contest might develop into a collision of arms. I was aware that Gen. Grant believed that President Johnson's plan of sending him to Mexico was a ruse to get him out ot the country, but what foundation he had tor such belief Ido not know. My mission to France was in relation to the Mexican affair, and was in h trmony with the viewsof the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and Gen. Grant. The purpose of my visit was to terminate the occupation of Mexico by the French. 1 went in November. 18(15, and returned in May, 1866, so that 1 arrived in Washington while the impeachment trial was in progress. In the following fall I was made Secretary of War. My position was that of a mediator; that is, I was put at the head of the War Department to conciliate both parties by divesting the office of any pronounced political color. It was a measure deemed necessary at that time to keep down, as much as possible, the bitter feeling on both sides. "President Johnson," continued Gefieral Schofield, "was the firmest, most obstinate man in his adherence to his political views that I ever knew, and of course he would have carried out his views if it had been possible. I have no reason to believe that he was not conscientious in his views. Personally! have never believed that he contemplated any treasonable measure, though, as I said before, I do not know on what grounda General Grant based his opinion."

Col. Sam Small Defends- Johnson. [Atlanta (Ga.) telegram.] The Atlanta Constitution prints an article from Col. Sam W. Small on the revelations ot the Depew letter. When President Johnson retired to his home in Greenville, Tenn., he set about arranging his papers so that his biographer mignt have no trouble in dealing with the incidents of his life. About the events now under discussion he was especially particular. He called Col. Small to his aid in that work, and thus the latter came In’o the most intimate relations with the ex-l’resident. Since that time all of Mr. Johnson’s family have died save Mrs. Patterson, who was mistress ot the white house. For the purpose of refreshing his memory CoL Small has visited Mrs. Patterson, and the] present statements are the result: First, Andrew Johnson, on reaching the presidency, adopted the i o icy of Lincoln, as attested by Gen. Grant himself in evidence before a Congressional committee in 1867, lull extracts from which are given. Second, at the time when Depew alleges that exCoutederates were swarming around Washington, they could not have done so because their ■paroKs kept them at home. Third, Johnson never favored martial trials for Confederate leaders. He secured the written opinions of Evarts, Charles O’Conor*, and like men. by which he was guided. Fourth, the naming of Gen. Grant to accompany Lewis D. Campbell was done at the written request of Campbell, who thought Grant's military prestige would aid him. Fifth, the statement that Grant, in Johnson’s presence tn the cabinet, declined to go because it was a diplomatic mission, and the alleged scene which followed, was declared by Mr. Johnson to Mr. Small, in a conversation before the death of the former, to be false in every particular. Grant did not go because he feared that General Hancock might be appointed Secretary of War in place of Mr. Stanton. Sixth, Mrs. Patterson utterly denies all the alleged Secret history concerning her father which has been published. In this she is sustained by 'the widow and son of the lat i Gideon Welles, who was Secretary of the Navy. Col. Small produces abundant documentary evidence to sustain all his statements.

Gov. Hendricks Talks. (Indianapolis dispatch.! The Indianapolis A'ews contains an interview with Vice President Hendricks about the story put into circulation bv Chauncey M. Depew to the effect that President Andrew Johnson contemplated the establishment ot a congress composed entirely of rebel sympathizers. “That s;ory won’t do," said Mr. Hendricks, “and public opinion will not sustain any such charges made twenty years after the. alleged events happened, and after all the persons who were directly connected with them are dead. Personally I know nothing of Mr. Johnson’s opinions or intent‘ons further than the information that came to me in the position that I held. I was in the United States Senate, aud I botn spoke and voted against the impeachment of Johnson. While! never had anv conversation with him on the subject referred to by Depew, I am sure that Johnson had no such intentions. He believed in restoring, and not m reconstructing, States, and that the Federal Government had no light to change or abrogate their constitutions. I think Mr. Lincoln had this view also. I have no doubt Johnson wanted Mr. Stanton removed, but it was on personal grounds, for they were not friends. I cannot believe he had any such purpose as that attributed to him, and I have never heard it .charged before the last few days. It is not likely that such an important political mat’er conld have remained silent for twenty years. I have read the various statements about it in the papers, and 1 am inclined to give the greatest credence to that of Judge Goodin, of Greenfield, whose recollection about such matters is always accurate, and who was then in a position to know what President Johnson wanted to do."

"Word* in Johnson’s Behalf. [Washington telegram.] The Washington Ater prints interviews with W. Warden, who was Assistant Private Secretary to President Johnson, and A. H. Evans, Washington correspondent of the Boston Bout during President Johnson’s administration, regarding the President’s policy during the reconstruction period. Mr. Warden says that "there was not the shadow of a reason for believing that President Johnson ever had an Idea o's an armed conflict arising from his disagreement with Congress, and through bis intimate relations with the President had satisfied himself that no extreme measures would be employed. Mr. Evans says he enjoyed the confidence of Presideht Johnson, who related to him in detail the causes leading up to the quarrel with Gen. Grant. President Johnson told Mr. Evans that Gen. Grant had caused the suspension of Secretary Stanton by his repeated complaints agains that officiaL Gen. Grant agreed to assume the office of Secretary of War until it should please the President to relieve him, and that agreement was made before the full Cabinet. When President Johnson was informed that Gen. Grant had abandoned the office to Mr. Stanton and had returned to his headquarters he charged him with treachery at a Cabinet meeting. Ben Butler Interviewed. (Boston special.] Gen. Butler said to-day that there were many reasons why the GrAnt-Johnson matter was not brought into the impeachment trial. Johnson was not charged with the offense of which Grant mistrusted him, and the evidence they "could have produced would have been Incompetent. There was no legal evidence by which it could have been proveh. Gen. Grant could not have .disclosed it. There was another project of President Johnson’s, as to’ revolutionizing the Government, which was not brought into the impeachment proceedings "I had some very strong moral evidence,” said Gen. Butler, “which I did not care to make known in the impeachment proceedings. The facts, however, were not so conclusive that 1 deemed it proper to exhibit an article of impeachment. founded on them, against the President. I still retain some of the instruments of evidence that strongly tend to support my belief. The proposition of Mr. Johnson to control the Government, differing from that of Gen. Grant, it now seems to me. for the first time, must have been made after Gen. Grant had refused to accede to it. What was known to me was not in shape to be brought before the public.' General Opinion. [New York telegram.] The Herald of this city prints a long installment of interviews with persons on ttat Depew matter relative to President Jobnsonz I tank Thompson, of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and Col. Fred Grant reiterate their former statements. The latter said: “I have heard mv father say again and again the same things in very much the same language.’ I have documentary evidence in my possession that would be collateral proof of the fapts referred to in the conversation my father had with Mr. Depew, and I intend to collate them and my recollections upon that subject.*' Frederick W. Seward, secretary of Secretary Seward, said he never heard anything of the story fit question, and, like Hugh McCulloch, tbe story being new to him, he doubted its correctness. '

Gen. Sickles reiterated his story, saying: “There is no doubt of Gen. Grant's tear of Johnson’s loyalty to the Government. Such, fears were known to the leading Generals enjoying Gen. Grant’s confidence in 1 sex. I well remember how worried he was when he visited me at Charleston. He seemed to have very little confidence in Johnson's policy or intentions. On several occasions Grant talked over the situation at Washington with tne Until 3 or t o'clock in the morning It is true that Grant, did not reveal his worst suspicions, but he told me enough to show that he was alarmed for the safety of the Government and tbe success of reomstzuetion."

INDIANA STATE NEWS.

—Monroe County claims immunity from Trnstee frauds. —The Floyd County poor-house has sixty-nine inmates. —Mrs. Mary Young died in Muncie from the effects of a stove falling upon her. —Rev. Milton W. Stetson, pastor of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Orleans, is dead, < ' t —Henry Chamberlain, one of the pioneers of Fort Wayne, died in that city Monday. —A strange malady, resembling milksickness is prevailing among the cows of Wabash County, —Hon. W. C. DePauw has given to DePanw Female College, in New Albany, an aggreg >te of <525,000. p——A man digging s well near Lafayette came to a vein of petroleum, under which was a stratrtm of lead. General Hascall, of Goshen, was divorced from his wife, to whom he had been married about twelve months. —E. W. McKenna, Superintendent of the Louisville and ludiauapolis branch of the Pau-Handle, has resigned. «’ —A grand jury in South Bend indicted Thomas J aton for murder in the first degree for killing William Snyder. —ln Muncie, Mrs. Swain got judgment of S3O against the F. W.. C. & L. R. R. for being carried beyond her destination. ! —Janies Kerr, an old resident of Lagro, fell into an old lock of the abandoned Wabash and Erie Canal, and . twas instantly killed. ——-A burglar entered the residence of Father Schmidt, in Muncie, covered him with a revolver, and then ransacked the house. —David G. Miles, of Laporte, a patient in the Indianapolis iusaue asylum, hanged himself. His father committed suicide several years since. —A sugar refinery at West Point Was fired by lightning Sunday night, and destroyed, with its contents. Loss, $20,000; insurance, $2,000. —Mrs. Emma Plue has sued John H. Heffner, at Lafayette, for $15,000 damages, claiming that Heffner has at divers times asserted that she steals turkey eggs. —The barn of Stephen O. Dehart, near Lafayette, was burned, together with six valuable horses and a number of farming implements. Loss, $2,500; insurance, $1,200. —lndiana people are much disappointed in learning that Judge Gresham has decided to become a citizen of Chicago. He has leased the residence of Postmaster Judd, on Delaware place, in that city. —Prof. W. J. Williams, of Rochesterg, has accepted the Professorship of Pedagogics in Franklin College. He will assume the duties of this department at the beginning of the next term. Jan. 7. —James DeCamp, of Otisco, Clark County, was getting out stave lumber north of Charlestown, when a large oak tree fell, catching him under it, crushing his legs frightfully and inflicting fatal injuries, —lda Stephenson, a Sioux Indian girl, who with fifty-nine others, is attending White’s Manual Labor Institute, south of Wabash, while playing fell backward and struck the floor with such violence as to sustain injuries which will prove fatal. —Mrs. Electa Haven, who had been cast off by her husband, quitted her home at Loginsport, leaving a note stating that to avoid fu .erai expenses she would drown herself. The rivers have been drugged, but no body has been found. —While playing foot-ball at Wabash, Dorsey Coate, sou County Treasurer Coate, suffered a very severe fracture of the right arm. A young son of Nelson Zeigler, a well-known dry-goods merchant, was also severely injured at the same time. Samuel McDonald, an employe of a Chicago book and map firm, has been imprisoned at Winchester for attempting to bribe a township trustee to perpetrate a fraud. McDonald was formerly Trustee of Niles Township, and stood high in Delaware County. —Last Saturday night Oliver Hutsler, of Webster Township, Harrison County, received the most terrible flogging ever administered .to any one by the Harrison County Regulators. A physician reports that his back was beaten into a jelly and that every portion of his body bears marks of the lash. He is charged with stealing ducks. —The shooting of Harrison Taskel, the colored hostler, by Mem rod Hnendlind is the second homicide that has occurred in the Indianapolis Court House, which was opened in 1877. In 1878 Warren Tate, a well-known character, shot and killed William Love during the progress of the trial of a snit, instituted by Tate, growing out of Robustness transaction, in which Love was a witness. 5 —Dr. Neyro®, Professor of Anatomy at Notre Dame University, is the Nestor of physicians in the country. He is 94 years of age, and was a surgeon in Napoleon’s army during the Russian campaign and at "Waterloo. After the restoration he became a priest, and was an early missionary in the Northwest He is still able to conduct his class, and few men of 70, it is . said, are so strong and active. > —lndianapolis has a man who ought to join the muscular evangelist brigade. He found a burglar in his house the other morning, and commanded him to fall upon his knees and pray like a sinner should, or he would blow out his brains. The fellow hurriedly repeated such fragments of the “Lord’s Prayer,’ “Now I lay me." and other pious invocation»-''as he could remember, which wereinterspersed with exclamations of pain and pleading for hi* life until he was set free under the promise nevex burglarize that house again.— lnter, Ocean.