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.