Democratic "reconstruction."

CrxctNXATi, ínly 2(5. - Tho followinparn the lötterë silt VPaterday to representatives of tne 5'v Departure and Liberftl iuuVeñieiit, by Mr. Grroesbeck : Cin'CINN-ati, July 25, 1873. Jmlgo Oollina : Mï Deau Sir - I foei very mncli obligod to you and tho centiemen who called to-day, for the bi nor you propose to confer uppn me, hut l will not reconsidor tho answer I then made. I will not accopt a noniiiifitioti for thü oflioo of Üoernor. Wliile this is So, I warmly symprtthtze in what you propose to acoompliah, and hope tho timo is noar wben thö prt!stnt Democrafs and the f'oriner Demócrata and all dissatisfiod Republicana shall ho cordiully united under a singlo örganization. I don't think there is anythinfi sacred in niere party orgahizatioñs. ïhoy arp only machinery which sliould ba rcpaired when out of ordtr, and ronewed whon tooltiüch worn. A constitutiou of governhient is a more eaered organization than that of a political party. Yet we dun't hesitate to pull down a constitution in order to put up a new otie. We havo a convention at Oolunibus now engaeed in that work. I pive you the letter to whichyou referred. It was written to a gentleman in New York, bet'ore your movement began and without reference to it. It was not vvritten for publication, and not exactly as I wöuld havo written it with that view, but you are at liberty to publish it if you think it raay con tribute in tfco least flegrfie to a closer and rirmer Union of all who aro opposed te the present administra tion. Very respectfully, W. 8. Gkoesbeck. CiNciNNATT, May 5, 1873. My Dear Sir- I have your letter of April 23d I should have answered it sooner and have no sufficient apology for not doine; so. Permit mo to sa y that tlio reply 1 hure make to it is not for pnblication, but personal to youraelf aud thoso at whoso Suggeation you havo written. I believo the historical Democratie gamzation 13 spoiled. Hiundermg con■ttintly during the last ten years, and shaUeri'd by luany defeats, it surrendered fiually at the lust presidential election. ft cannot iúcall tbat simeudcr or the confessiuns tlien made, and it has no longer utrength enough for victory. In this extremity, it will be wiso to lay asido the old organization and enter into a new me. ïhe new orgaaization shou'.i tiecept thu rosults of tho war, as was done.at Baltimore, and it should aceep them in c;ood fath and so as to comraand the confidence of tho people, and, in order to comuiand the confidence of the peoplo, the new organization should bo something ditterent írom a recast oí tbc old oiie. There should bo no exclusiveness about it, nor should it be merely Democratie. It should be made up of present Dumocrats, of former Democrats, and of all Republicana who nro offended by the policy and the tendencies of the present tidmiuistration. The new organization should be the joint work ot Democrats and Kepublicans, and both ehould be equally at home in it, neither the guest of tho other. You ask, " What sbould be its namo'r" Cali it the Liberal Deinocmcy ; tbat will mean the free, unbelfish goveinment of the people. And iiow as to its doctrines or principies. Tou ask in Ihis connection how tho question of negro euffrage sbould be treated. That question ia no longer before us. Kegro suft'iase is the bloody tion of a great war, and iiuthing short of War can undo it in our óay. In my opinión it will endure in this government as long as general suö'iage I coinpreKend the objeotionf to it and tliink it was granted too soon to that part of our populatiou recently euianeipated. All should make somo prtparation for this duty. Yc■ deny suffrage to the foreigner for a tiuiu in order that he may prepare for it, and we have schools for all on the Tneory mat au süould prepare tor ït. But it is granted, and it cannot be recalled, nor do I tbink it wise for sueh a government as thia to keep permanently so large a par1; of nnr pcoplo in an inferior, degradad condition. Slavcry was always a danger. ïo hold this population, now frec, m a aegraded condition, would be a daugtr, and always trouble ug. Hay wc have adopted a doubtful policv. If that is dono, I accept it, and doubtful expediency, I sha.ll for the remainder of my Ufe, if perchance I must err, strive at Juast to be tolerant, gener0U8 and humane ; and after a], t rely for a good verdict as much ujjon the heart as upon the head. I concur in what yoo Buggest, that thonew organization shoVilrl oppose all forms of monopoly, 'i'his is I tóo plain to need argument. Monopolies nre an offense against tlie peoplo. ïhe new organization should oppose centralizxtion, and it should advocate bome governraent in all local affaire, and to the utmost extent that is practicable. You unuiitii jítoi t jtiupiü inwi siuruy finu intelligent, witifotit hamo government. It ishoine governinent that trains as, toaches selt'-relianoe, and develops tuanlinoss. Tukc it away, and the fïeeman disappears. Centralize jjower at Washington, nd we are transferred to outsido manag'iuent, no longer governing ourselves. We must be govcrned. Öepending upon Washington, we lose onr self-dei)endence, and; the citizen even degenerates into a mere subjeca wliose whole duty is to obey law, and whose only desire is to be nmused in idltness. You refer me also to the question of free trade. ïhe.new organizution should make it one of its Cardinal doctrines. Thero ehould bo no equivocation or doublé meaning about tuis. A pronibitory taritt is m plam contradiction to the character cf' ourgovernment ; we are uil equal in rigbts, privil eges, and immunities. There should be no diserimination, no favoritisni, no partiality, personal or financial, and as a comniercial policy, a prohibitory tariffis behind the age, almost a barbarisuj, and belongs to the times when nations were walled and commerco without wings. I believe I have substantially answered your letter. The new organization may properly antagouize the party aow administering our affairs at almost every point ; while this is so, it fhould not uidertake to do everything at once or push reforms without some regajd for consejuences. Changos thnt shock by their ftbruptness ars not always just or fair, tí o DJiuuiu iievt'i luiítíL sound principies, and we should mova toward them gradually. I don't believe in daily revolii-tión, or ia sudden and violent derangetnent of public affairs. Let me suggest a doctrine ïo which yoa havo not referred ; I nioan th doctrine of striot construction of the constitution. IIít! you oomidered what a certain preventivo of mis-government may be found in tho faithful application of this doctrine? I believo noh an applioation of it would correct almost every public evil of which va corai)lain, and it is worth whileto test its reach and efficiency. And what a splendid doctrine for such a gOTenrme&t as oivrs! How it exalts the individual man, and how it suhordinates tho government ! It may fetter the government now and then, but oever the citizen. Hu alwaya remnins irppermost and magter. I aui irot a politician or competent to advise, but i f you shouW make .uch a movement as yrojjtrae, lt ahoutd be oondoctuu so as to gire the strongcafc aseurance that it Bought reform and nok placa. I' am a Deinocrat, but I should be yery glad to ee the "Diimocrscy move out of its old Orjanization into a new oue. You will jron stTceeed unless they do. It may be they wiü refbM and prefet to tarry wbere they are fo-r the balimse of the century, and un til they can fix the n3aning of the reielutions of '98; if so, I'suppose I shall tarry with theiu. After all, I liko them, and' I ïike the old potftical homestoad-; l conffess iirïs somewhat dilapidatèd ; there are ao bniyners upon its walis, and victorij,on shoutiügs are no loiiger heard williin, mt it is a home stil], and T sliall no luavo it. nntil it i pulled down. ïory ivspectt'ully, W. S. OltOESBECK.