hington.

If, in this statement, President Hayes is thoroughly sincere,
then he will not hesitate to approve emphatically the principle
of national protection for national citizens. He will see that
the protection of all the national citizens in all their rights,
civil, political, and religious--not by the muskets of United
States troops, but by the peaceable authority of United States
courts--is not a principle that applies to a single section of
the country, but to all sections alike; he will see that the
incorporation of such a principle in the constitution cannot be
regarded as a measure of force imposed upon the vanquished, since
it would be law alike to the vanquished and the victor. In short,
he will see that there is no other sufficient guarantee of that
equality of all citizens, which he well declares to be the
"corner-stone of the structure of restored harmony." The Boston
_Journal_ of July 19, said:

There are cases where it seems as if the constitution should
empower the federal government to step in and protect the
citizen in the State, when the local authorities are in
league with the assassins; but, as it now reads, no such
provision exists.

That the constitution does not make such provision is not the
fault of the president; it must be attributed to the leading
Republicans who had it in their power once to change the
constitution so as to give the most ample powers to the general
government. When Attorney-General Devens was charged last May
with negligence in not prosecuting the parties accused of the
Mountain Meadow massacre, his defense was, that this horrible
crime was not against the United States, but against the
territory of Utah. Yet, it was a great company of industrious,
honest, unoffending United States citizens who were foully and
brutally murdered in cold blood. When Chief-Justice Waite gave
his charge to the jury in the Ellentown conspiracy cases, at
Charleston, S. C., June 1, 1877, he said:

That a number of citizens of the United States have been
killed, there can be no question; but that is not enough to
enable the government of the United States to interfere for
their protection. Under the constitution that duty belongs
to the State alone. But wh