class="x-ebookmaker-pageno" title="[Pg 28]" id="pgepubid00054"/> its unnecessary savagery. But the revelation is no new one. We have already had proof upon proof that under "conciliation" there is no law, justice, nor mercy for the unfortunate colored people of the South: and this merely adds another to the long list of butcheries, and worse than Turkish barbarities, of which the blood-thirsty rebel element have been guilty.—Traveller.

Henrietta Wood, a colored woman, of Cincinnati, has recovered two thousand five hundred dollars damages against ex-Sheriff Ward, of Campbell County, Kentucky, for unlawful duress and abduction. In 1853, when living in Cincinnati, she was enticed over the river to Kentucky, and delivered over to Ward, who kept her as a slave seven months, when he disposed of her to a slave-trader. She was sold South, and remained fifteen years in slavery. She returned to Cincinnati after the close of the war, and commenced the action which has just terminated in her favor.

The "Macon (Ga.) Telegraph" demands that the Southern people shall be paid for their emancipated slaves. Next they will probably want pay, at hotel rates, for the entertainment of Union prisoners during the war.—Philadelphia Press.

The colored Republicans in Somerville County, South Carolina, carried the local election recently by a large majority, but the Democrats managed to count them out, on the ground that it wouldn't do for the Republicans to carry the first election of the season.—Journal.

And this right under the much-praised administrative system of Wade Hampton, who, with Gordon, Lamar, Stephens, Hill, and the rest of the treasonable species, constitutes the organic beau-ideal of statesmanship. Turn the other cheek and let them slap it, Mr. Journal.

A Sad, True Story.—A letter from New Orleans to the "Philadelphia Press" thus refers to the native Republicans of Louisiana:—

"The leaders were beset with dangers and difficulties such as have never even been dreamed of in the North. One by one they have given their life's blood in the cause. They have lain down their lives, true to the flag. They have been thinned out by assassination and violence. Their graves—the graves of the victims of Democratic outrage—are scattered throughout the South. There are comparatively few of the living to tell the tale. A large proportion of these, even, have been maimed and crippled in the fight.

"They are to-day, as a rule, none the less true to the Republican faith. The Southern Republican leaders have nothing to offer by way of palliation or excuse. They have fallen one by one in the enemy's front. The Republican masses have been massacred by wholesale; have been murdered and outraged upon every occasion and in every manner. They have been hunted as the beasts of the jungle. Their blood cries to Heaven from every hillside, from every by-way, and from every bridle-path in the South. There has been more of blood—Republican blood—that has dyed the soil of Louisiana alone than all that has been shed in all of the Indian wars of a quarter of a century. It has been shed, alas, in vain. The American people were not a nation. There was not, there is not to-day, to their shame be it said, the power within the American people, to protect the life, or avenge the murder of an American citizen, within the American lines."

We would crucify our extreme modesty and suggest to the above writer the reason why "there is not to-day the power within the American people to protect the life or avenge the murder of an American citizen." Is it not because we, "the people," put their political power into the hands of the commander-in-chief of our army, in trust for four years, who betrayed that trust by the transfer of that power into the hands of a contemptible knot of armed and defiant rebels, thus constituting a solid South with which to rule the nation? And is it not because the said commander-in-chief, at the demand of the said rebels in arms, packed up his traps and withdrew our "federal bayonets" from the South, thus giving them, in addition to their State rule, our national supremacy, by further giving them two States with large Republican majorities?

And furthermore, is it not because the loyal North did not arise as one man and demand the impeachment of the traitor who bartered their liberties for a sham peace, taking rebel promises for pay which have since been repudiated?

But the men who assisted the President in this nefarious business are coming to their senses. In a speech a few days ago, at Toledo, O., the Hon. Charles Foster, M. C. from Ohio, and a member of the political firm of Matthews, Foster & Co., renounces the Southern policy of the administration, which that firm helped to inaugurate, as follows:—

"I believed in and supported President Hayes in the policy of refusing the use of force to sustain State governments. I believed in it as a matter of principle, though his course can be sustained on the ground of necessity. I had hoped that his policy of kindness and conciliation would result in the formation of a public sentiment South that would permit Republicans to exercise fully all of the political rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and the amendments thereto. Knowing that there are a large number of the people South who are tired of the Bourbon Democracy, I hoped that the President's course would permit them the more easily to assert themselves in some form in opposition to the Democracy. I see signs of a realization of this hope, especially in the States of Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas, but in less permanent form than I had hoped. The President's policy has lost him the sympathy of the great mass of his party. That he has conscientiously done his duty as he saw it, there can be no question. No matter whether the conventions indorse him or not, no man will rejoice more than he over Republican success—North and South. While he was beslavered with praise from the Southern Democracy, they seemed to be laying broad and deep the foundations for a solid South. Upon the attempt, through the Potter resolutions, to unseat the President, they, with bare two exceptions, voted for it. They declined even to give an opportunity to vote upon the Hale amendment, which would have permitted an investigation into Democratic frauds. Jeff Davis makes as treasonable speeches as those of 1861, and he receives the indorsement and approval of a large proportion of the press and people. Out of one hundred newspapers in Mississippi, ninety-five indorse and applaud Jeff Davis. Mr. Singleton, of the same State, on the floor of the House of Representatives, declared 'his highest allegiance to be due to his State, both in peace and in war.'

"By the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, the political power of the South in the Electoral College and the House of Representatives, was increased about forty per cent. The Republican party to-day can poll, if permitted to do so, forty per cent. of the vote of the South. Yet, in the coming elections, I do not believe that we can carry one in five of the districts that we know to be reliably Republican. By force and fraud the political power of forty per cent. of their people is exercised solely by the sixty per cent., thus making a solid Democratic South. The right of the citizens of the several States to enjoy the privileges and immunities of all the States is not respected in many localities. It is said, condescendingly, that a Republican can live in the South without trouble, if he will keep a padlock on his mouth.

"Now, my fellow-citizens, there can be no lasting peace until the amendments to the Constitution are executed in good faith, both in letter and spirit. A solid South is a constant menace to the peace of the country. It means