Franklin Repository

By reference to the election proclamation in our advertising columns, it will be seen that the act of the last legislature relative to the votes of deserters, imposes sever penalties upon election officers for receiving such votes, and also visits with punishment the tender of such ballots. As the question is a most important one, and will be construed differently by persons of different political proclivities, we propose to state it as it is presented by the laws and the courts.

The act of Congress of March 3, 1865, provides that any persons who were deserters, either from the draft by refusing to report, or from the army, or who had fled the jurisdiction of the government to escape service, "shall be deemed and taken to have voluntary relinquished and forfeited their rights of citizenship, and their rights to become citizens." In addition, they are declared ineligible to any office of honor or profit under the United States. Under this act deserters were clearly disfranchised, as the constitution of our State confers suffrage only on citizens of the United States.

The Democrats protested against this law as being unconstitutional, and, as a large majority of the deserters were confessedly Democrats, they publicly advised election officers to disregard the law. Extraordinary as such counsel was, proposing to make election boards the judges of validity of our laws instead of our Supreme Courts, we believe that every Democratic election board in the State received such votes, while Union boards as uniformly rejected them. The main ground on which the Democrats urged the election boards to nullify the law, was that it was an act of Congress, and our State laws made different provisions relative to suffrage.

In the case of Reily vs. Huber, tried in the Court of common pleas of this county, the constitutionality of the act of Congress was broadly raised, and it was decided that, while the penalty of disfranchisement was but just for desertion, the crime was not ascertained under the act of Congress by due process of law. Judgement was therefore entered against the election judge on a case stated, for one dollar and costs. The case was carried to the Supreme Court of the State, where the judgement of the court below was affirmed--Justice Strong deciding that while the penalty was just, Reily had not been properly convicted and sentenced, and therefore was entitled to vote. This decision would be conclusive of the binding force of the act of Congress in Pennsylvania, until decided otherwise by the Supreme Court of the United States; but in the meantime the legislature of the State passed a law to carry into effect the same forfeiture of suffrage, and imposing stringent penalties for offering or receiving the votes of deserters.

The Pennsylvania statute provides in the first section that it "shall be unlawful for the judge or inspectors of any such election to receive any ballot or ballots" from persons defined as deserters in the act of Congress; and also that it "shall be unlawful for any such person (deserter) to offer to vote any ballot or ballots." The second section provides that, receiving such votes by an election officer, shall be a misdemeanor, and on conviction, the person offending shall pay a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and undergo imprisonment not less than sixty days. The third section imposes like penalties upon deserters who may vote or offer to vote at any election in the State; and the fourth section fixes the same penalties for any person who "shall hereafter persuade or advise" deserters to vote.

It must be born in mind that the act of our legislature has never been judicially questioned, and its provisions remain the law of the commonwealth, binding upon all its citizens, until it is repealed or declared invalid by the proper judicial tribunals. It is not competent for an election board, a town meeting, or any body of authority whatever other than the courts, to determine whether an act of assembly is in conflict with the constitution of the State or of the Union, and while it is unquestioned by the proper authority, it must be obeyed. If election boards can determine questions of constitutional law to suit their political convictions or prejudices with impunity, then might any and every man decide that the laws against robbery, arson, burglary and murder are wrong, and proceed upon his own judgement, as to the validity of laws, to rob, burn or murder to suit himself. We have tribunals created to determine all such questions, and to them and them only can an appeal be made against the constitutionality of legislation. It may be insisted that on the principle decided in the case of Reily vs. Huber, the Supreme Court will declare the act of the legislature unconstitutional; but the same court decided the conscription law unconstitutional on the 9th of November 1863, and on final judgement, in the same case, it decided the same law constitutional on the 16th of January, 1864. How it may decide the act of Assembly, we cannot anticipate so as to nullify the law, and it is the duty of every election officer, and every citizen, to obey it.

The act of the legislature is officially published as part of the law to govern election officers and voters, and it is the sworn duty of every such officer to enforce it, and it is the duty of every law-abiding citizen to aid the officers in its observance.

To the Editors of the Franklin Repository:

Having been selected by the Central Committee of the National Union party, without my knowledge and consent, a delegate to the late Philadelphia Convention, I attended it to ascertain the principles and purposes proposed to be carried out by its members.

It had been publicly and uniformly claimed until that time that the National Union party, which had called the Convention, was a loyal party, with loyal principles and could not make common cause with traitors and copperheads.

In that convention no word was uttered against treason, no word of cheer or assurance of protection was given to the loyal men now oppressed by traitors in the South, and its chief work was to form a coalition with unrepentant enemies of the government to restore them to honor and power. Nor did it stop with the principle that traitors must be restored to the power they used to betray the Union into the power of treason, but the National Union party was transferred bodily to the copperheads in the North, and the demand made that the friends of the administration must support the copperhead candidates for Governor, Congress and the Legislature. Having long cherished political convictions which are not in harmony with the principles of the administration as now declared, it is but an act of justice to myself to say that I shall hereafter, as heretofore, cordially support the entire Union ticket, and give my best efforts for its success. If for thus maintaining fidelity to the principles taught the nation by Andrew Johnson, I shall prove offensive to his administration as an official, my place is at his disposal, but my convictions and my sense of duty are my own.
JOHN W. DEAL.
Chambersburg, August 25, 1866.

SOLDIERS:--Those of you who intend to vote as you fought--for the Union and against the Rebels--are requested to organize at once into Clubs of "Boys in Blue" in your respective townships, that you may come to the grand Soldier's Mass Convention, to be held at Chambersburg on the 17th of September next, by companies and delegations. Your comrades in other parts of the State are moving. Their innumerable blue badges strike terror into the heart of their old enemies. They recognize the same foe they have once already conquered. Fall into line. March again side by side to victory over the enemies of the Republic. Let the rivalry be, which townships shall boast, all things considered, the greatest number of Union Soldiers at Chambersburg, on the 17th of Sept. By order of the Soldier's County Executive Committee.
D. Watson Rowe, Chairman

At last the nation has a full account of the New Orleans massacre, with the portions of official despatches deliberately suppressed by President Johnson supplied, and it is the most damning record ever presented against an administration. It shows conclusively that from the outset, the President not only sympathised with the rebels, but he actually counseled lawlessness and violence against the Union men of Louisiana. Thanks to the firmness of Gen. Grant, the whole record is before the world, and it leaves not the shadow of justification or excuse for the President and his rebel supporters in New Orleans.

The official correspondence opens with a despatch from Lieut. Gov. Voorhies to the President, notifying the President that the Convention was called and that Gov. Wells had issued writs of election to fill the vacancies. Next is a despatch dated 28th July, from Voorhies and the rebel Attorney General Herron, stating that a radical mass meeting had been held ending in a riot; that the speeches were violent and incendiary, (they denounced treason) and they add--"You (the President) bitterly denounced." They notify the President that they "contemplated to have the members of the Convention under process from the criminal court," and ask--"Is the military to interfere?" To this the President replies on the same day that "the military will be expected TO SUSTAIN, AND NOT TO OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE with the proceedings of the court." The President on the same day asks Gov. Wells why he has recognized the convention, and by what authority the convention can assume to represent the whole State. Gov. Wells answers on same day that the people will elect members to fill all vacancies, and thus the whole people of the State will be represented.

Gen. Baird telegraphs on the same day to Secretary Stanton, stating that the Lieut. Governor and Attorney General consider the convention unlawful, and propose to break it up. He says he cannot countenance such action, and asks explicit instructions. No instructions were sent. Instead of telegraphing Gen. Baird, the President discarded the military commanders, and placed Gens. Sheridan and Baird subject to the orders of the rebel Attorney General Herron, formerly a General in the rebel service. His dispatch is as follows:

JOHNSON TO THE REBEL HERRON.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, July 30, 1866.

To Andrew J. Herron, Attorney General of Louisiana, New Orleans:

You will call on General Sheridan or whoever may be in command for sufficient force to sustain the civil authority in suppressing all illegal or unlawful assemblies, who usurp or assume to exercise any power or authority without first having obtained the consent of the people of the State. If there is to be a convention let it be composed of delegates chosen fresh from the people of the whole State. The people must be first consulted in reference to changing the organic law of the State. Usurpation will not be tolerated. The law and the constitution must be sustained, and thereby peace and order.
ANDREW JOHNSON.

With such an invitation to murder and be protected by the Union troops, the rebels at once proceeded to fulfil their bloody work. The next dispatch is from Lieut. Gov. Voorhees, as follows:

VOORHEES TO JOHNSON

New Orleans, July 30, 1866.

To His Excellency President Johnson:

Convention met. A riot broke out in the city. So far the police has the upper hand. Several white and colored persons killed. Called on Gen. Baird for assistance, which was cheerfully tendered. Intense excitement. Convention broken up.
ALBERT VOORHEES,
Lieut. Gov. Louisiana.

Gen. Baird, the Union Department commander, next report to Secretary Stanton the account of the riot. He says that "the police, aided by the citizens, became the assailants, and from the evidence, I am forced to believe, exercised great brutality in making arrests." At this point Mayor Monroe appears on the record by a letter to Gen. Baird in which he asks Baird's support "to disperse this unlawful assembly," which Gen. Baird promptly declines. He says to Monroe that he understands it to be the right "of all loyal citizens of the U. States to meet peaceably and discuss freely questions concerning their civil government." The President next assured Lieut. Gov. Voorhees again that the military must support the courts. On the 31st of July Gen. Baird telegraphs Stanton that the city is quiet, and adds that "nearly all unite in attributing the chief blame to the police for the troubles yesterday." On the same day Gen. Baird telegraphs the War Department, as follows:

DISPATCH FROM GEN. BAIRD.

New Orleans, July 31.

Comparative quiet has been restored in this city by the military, who still occupy the streets. There is, however, apprehension of slight disturbances in the lower faubourg of the city. In consequence of the limited force at my command I am compelled to make use of the city police, whose conduct in the riots of yesterday is most reprehensible. There is every reason to fear the imminent peril to which the lives and property of Union men of the city will be subjected by restoration of the reins of power to the present civil authorities of the city.
A. BAIRD, Major-General.

Another dispatch from Gen. Baird the same day to Gen. Howard says that "about forty persons have been killed and a large number wounded, nearly all being friendly to the convention." This is followed by a dispatch from Atty. Gen. Herron stating that he had ordered the arrest of the few members of the Convention who had escaped the massacre. At this point Gen. Sheridan appears, and sends his first dispatch, on his return from Texas, dated the 1st inst. He had been absent in Texas when the massacre occurred. We give his dispatch in full, including the sentence suppressed by the President, which we give in italics:

GEN. SHERIDAN TO GEN. GRANT.

New Orleans, August 1, 1866.

GENERAL: You are doubtless aware of the serious riot which occurred in this city on the 30th. A political body, styling itself the Convention of 1864, met on the 30th, for, as it is alleged, the purpose of remodelling the present constitution of the State. The leaders were political agitators and revolutionary men, and the action of the Convention was liable to produce breeches of the public peace.

I had made up my mind to arrest the head men if the proceedings of the Convention were calculated to disturb the tranquility of the department, but I had no cause for action until they committed the overt act. In the meantime, official duty called me to Texas, and the Mayor of the city, during my absence, suppressed the convention by the use of the police force, and in so doing attacked the members of the Convention and a party of two hundred negroes with firearms, clubs and knives, in a manner so unnecessary and atrocious as to compel me to say that it was murder. About forty whites and blacks were thus killed, and about one hundred wounded. Everything is now quiet, but I deem it best to maintain a military supremacy for a few days, until the affair is fully investigated.

I believe the sentiment of the general community is great regret at this unnecessary cruelty, and that the police could have made any arrest they saw fit without sacrificing lives.
P. H. SHERIDAN,
Major General Commanding.

It will be seen that the President mutilated Gen. Sheridan's dispatch by suppressing the most important sentence in it. That he did so mutilate and suppress it cannot be doubted for he gave the dispatch out for publication.

Next we have a dispatch from Gen. Baird explaining to Secretary Stanton the necessity for martial law to hold the police under military supervision. But the President did not want the rebel murderers restrained, and on the 1st of August he telegraphs Gen. Baird still "not to enterpose any obstacles in the way of the civil authorities," the men who had conceived and executed the murders. On the same day the President telegraphs through his Adjutant General, to the rebel Lieut. Governor inquiring whether martial law could not be dispensed with. The members of the Convention were not all butchered, and he seemed uneasy lest some of them should escape with their lives. Of course Gov. Voorhees insisted in reply that the civil authorities "could easily enforce the law" and adds--"Martial law wholly unnecessary." By this time Gen. Sheridan had been in New Orleans long enough to understand the whole affair thoroughly, and he telegraphed as follows:

GEN. SHERIDAN TO GEN. GRANT.

New Orleans, August 2, 1866.

U. S. Grant, General, Washington, D. C.

The more information I obtain of the affair of the 30th in this city, the more revolting it becomes. It was not riot; it was an absolute massacre by the police, which was not excelled in murderous cruelty by that of Fort Pillow. It was a murder which the Mayor and police of the city perpetrated without the shadow of a necessity. Furthermore, I believe it was premeditated, and every indication points to this. I recommend the removing of this bad man. I believe it would be hailed with the sincerest gratification by two-thirds of the population of the city. There has been a feeling of insecurity on the part of the people here, on account of this man, which is now so much increased, that the safety of life and property does not rest with the civil authorities, but with the military.
P. H. SHERIDAN,
Major General Commanding.

It is needless to say that the above dispatch was at once suppressed by President Johnson. After mutilating the first dispatch he could do nothing with the second one but attempt to hide it. But Gen. Sheridan saw his mutilated dispatch, and the suppression of his later dispatches, and he appealed to Gen. Grant to demand the publication of the whole official correspondence. Gen. Grant did demand it, and President Johnson was compelled to comply, as he found that he could not make two of his bravest and best Generals parties to his falsehood and treachery. On the 3d inst., Gen Sheridan again telegraphed Gen. Grant as follows:

GEN. SHERIDAN TO GEN. GRANT

New Orleans, August 3.

U. S. Grant, General, Washington:

I have the honor to report quiet in the city, but considerable excitement in the public mind. There is no interference on the part of the military with the civil government, which performs all its duties without hindrance. I have permitted the retention of Military Governor, appointed during my absence, as it gives confidence and enables the military to know what is occurring in the city. He does not interfere with civil matters. Unless good judgement is exercised there will be an exodus of Northern capital and Union men, which will be injurious to the city and to the whole country. I will remove the Military Governor in a day or two. I again strongly advise that some disposition be made to change the present Mayor, as I believe it would do more to restore confidence than anything that could be done. If the present Governor could be changed also it would not be amiss.
P. H. Sheridan,
Major General Commanding.

Notwithstanding President Johnson's repeated dispatches against martial law, Gen. Grant answered Gen. Sheridan instructing him to continue martial law, as follows:

GEN. GRANT TO GEN. SHERIDAN.

Headquarters Army United States,
Washington, D. C., Aug. 3, 1866.

Major General Sheridan, New Orleans, La.:

Continue to enforce martial law as far as may be necessary to preserve the peace, and do not allow any of the civil authorities to act if you deem such action dangerous to the public safety. Lose no time in investigating and reporting the causes that led to the riot and the facts which occurred.
U. S. GRANT, General.

Gen. Grant did not think proper to sustain the rebel civil authorities in the murder of Union men, and he ordered Gen. Sheridan to depose whenever he thought proper.

The President was thus foiled by his faithful Union Generals in screening the rebels, and he suppressed Gen. Sheridan's dispatches with the hope of getting him to say something, in reply to direct questions, to palliate the massacre. With that view he addressed the following dispatch to Gen. Sheridan, by which it will be seen that he asks especially only as to the evidences of guilt on the part of Union men. His cross-examination of Gen. Sheridan in behalf of the rebel murderers was as follows:

THE PRESIDENT TO GEN. SHERIDAN.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, D. C., Aug. 4, 1866.

To Major General Sheridan, Commanding, &c., New Orleans, La.:

We have been advised here that prior to the assembling of the illegal and extinct convention elected in 1864, inflammatory and insurrectionary speeches were made to a mob composed of white and colored persons, urging them to arm and equip themselves for the purpose of protecting and sustaining the convention in its illegal and unauthorized proceedings, intended and calculated to upturn and supersede the existing State government of Louisiana, which had been recognized by the Government of the United States. Furthermore, did the mob assemble and was it armed for the purpose of sustaining the convention in its usurpation and revolutionary proceedings? Have any arms been taken from persons since the 30th ult., who were supposed or known to be connected with this mob? Have not various individuals been assassinated and shot by persons connected with this mob, without good cause, and in violation of the public peace and good order? Was not the assembling of this convention and the gathering of the mob for its defence and protection the main cause of the riotous and unlawful proceedings of the civil authorities of New Orleans? Have steps been taken by the civil authorities to arrest and try any and all those who were engaged in this riot and those who have committed offences in violation of law? Can ample justice be meted by the civil authorities to all offenders against the law? Will General Sheridan please furnish me a brief reply to the above inquiries, with such other information as he may be in possession of? Please answer by telegraph at your earliest convenience.
ANDREW JOHNSON,
President of the United States.

In reply to this direct appeal from the President to Gen. Sheridan to say something to excuse the rebel murderers, Gen. Sheridan reiterated the truth as follows:

GEN. SHERIDAN TO THE PRESIDENT.

New Orleans, August 6, 1866.

His Excellency Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,

I have the honor to make the following reply to your despatch of August 4:

A very large number of the colored people marched in procession on Friday night, July 27, and were addressed from the steps of the city Hall by Dr. Dostie, Ex-Governor Hahn and others. The speech of Dostie was intemperate in language and sentiments. The speeches of the others, so far as I can learn, were characterized by moderation. I have not given you the words of Dr. Dostie's speech, as the version published was denied, but from what I have learned of the man, I believe they were intemperate.

The convention assembled at 12 M., on the 30th, the timid members absenting themselves because of the tone of the general public was ominous of trouble. I think there were but about twenty-six members present. In front of the Mechanics' Institute, where the meeting was held, there were assembled some colored men, women and children, perhaps eighteen or twenty, and in the Institute a number of colored men, probably 150.

Among those outside and inside there might have been a pistol in the possession of every tenth man. About 1 P. M., a procession of say from sixty to one hundred and thirty colored men marched up Burgundy street and across Canal street, towards the convention, carrying an American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal street a row occurred. There were many spectators on the streets, and their manner and tone towards the procession unfriendly.

A shot was fired, by whom I am not able to state, but believe it to have been by a policeman at some colored man in the procession. This led to shots and a rush after the procession. On arrival at the front of the institute, there was some throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of disorder. The procession entered the institute with the flag, about six or eight remaining outside.

A row occurred between a policeman and one of the colored men, and a shot was fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate fire on the building through the windows by the policemen. This had been going on for a short time when a white flag was displayed from the windows of the institute, whereupon the firing ceased and the policemen rushed into the building.

From the testimony of the wounded men and others who were inside the building, the policemen opened with an indiscriminate fire upon the audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The doors were broken in and the firing again commenced, when many of the colored and white people escaped through the doors, or passed out by the policemen outside.

But as they came out the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens who formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with brickbats, in the yard of the building, whither some of the colored men escaped and partially secreted themselves. They were fired upon and killed or wounded by policemen.

Some men were killed and wounded several squares from the scene. Members of the convention were wounded by the policemen while in their hands as prisoners, some of them mortally. The immediate cause of this terrible affair was the assemblage of this convention. The remote cause was the bitter and antagonist feeling which has been growing in this community since the advent of the present Mayor, who in the organization of his police force selected many desperate men, and some of them known murderers.

People of New Orleans were overawed by want of confidence in the Mayor and the fear of the Thugs, many of whom he had selected for his police force. I have frequently been spoken to by prominent citizens on this subject, and have heard them express fear and want of confidence in Mayor Monroe, ever since the intimation of this last convention movement. I must condemn the course of several of the city papers for supporting by their articles the bitter feeling of bad men.

As to the merciless manner in which the convention was broken up, I feel obliged to confess strong repugnance. It is useless to attempt to disguise the hostility that exists on the part of many here towards Northern men; and this unfortunate affair has so precipitated matters that there is now a test of what shall be the status of Northern men: whether they can live here without being in constant dread, whether they can be protected in life and property and have justice in the courts. If this matter is permitted to pass over without a thorough and determined prosecution of those engaged in it, we may look for frequent scenes of the same kind.

No steps have as yet been taken by the civil authorities to arrest citizens who were engaged in the massacre, or policemen who perpetrated such cruelties. The members of the convention have been indicted by the Grand Jury, and many of them arrested and held to bail. As to whether the civil authorities can mete out ample justice to the guilty parties on both sides, I must say it is my opinion unequivocally that they cannot.

Judge Abel, whose course I have watched for nearly a year, I now consider one of the most dangerous that we have here to the peace and quiet of the city. The leading men of the convention, King, Cutler, Hahn and others, have been political agitators and bad men. I regret to say that the course of Governor Wells has been vacillating, and that during the late trouble he has shown very little of the man.
P. H. SHERIDAN,
Major General Commanding.

Such is a plain, unvarnished history of the deliberate, premeditated rebel massacre of Union men in New Orleans, and the official record fixes upon President Johnson the blistering stain of aiding, encouraging and approving it, and it is approved by all who sustain the policy of his administration and demand that rebels should be restored to power. This terrible page in our history cannot but arouse the loyal sentiment of the North, and make it demand with renewed earnestness, and with most inflexible purpose, that murderous rebels shall not rule the land they sought in vain to destroy by causeless war!