voted for all these acts, whenever you voted at all, without a single word of remonstrance or even of inquiry. Indeed, almost all the other practices which you now complain of as abuses existed when you were the chairman of the committee whose principal duty it was to investigate them and to provide a remedy. You failed to do so.
And now you do not blush to pursue, with wanton and malignant falsehoods men whose office it became at a later time—an office sometimes performed with great regret—to execute the laws which, in great part at least, through your neglect of duty, have become what they are.
FROM EX-PRESIDENT HAYES
Your reply to Julian is capital. I read it to Mrs. Hayes. You know there is a warlike side to her sympathetic nature. She was delighted with it. Brother Julian is a censorious old dog—soured and malignant. He was once too near to success ever to forgive those who passed him in the race. Your famous speeches in the anti-slavery conflict were no doubt a great offense to him, but when you added to that triumph a signal example of efficiency in the Executive Department with which he was most familiar, you were guilty of a personal affront which stirred his bile beyond control. You are square with him now. He will not forgive you. You will hear from him again.[1] Thanks for your attention to the von Holst matter.
A Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune writing of the condition of the Departments says of the Women
- ↑ On May 6, 1883, Hayes wrote: “I knew Julian would come back at you. He is fond of controversy.”
