"Officers in command of troops often find it difficult to act wisely and safely when superiors in authority have different views of the law from theirs, and when legislation has sanctioned action seemingly in conflict with the fundamental law, and thus generally defer to the known judgment of their superiors. Yet the superior officers of the army are so regarded in such great crises, and are held to such responsibility, especially those at or near the head of it, that it is necessary on such momentous occasions to dare to determine for themselves what is lawful and what is not lawful under our system if the military authorities should be invoked, as might possibly be the case, in such exceptional times when there existed such divergent views as to the correct result. The army will suffer from its past action if it has acted wrongfully. Our regular army has little hold upon the affections of the people of to-day, and the superior officers should certainly, as far as lies in their power, legally and with righteous intent, act to defend the right--to us--the _law_ and the institutions we represent. It is a well-meaning Constitution, and it would be well if it should have an opportunity to be recognized as a bulwark in support of the people and _the law_. "I am, Truly Yours, (Signed) "WINFD. S. HANCOCK. "_To General W. T. Sherman_, "_Com'd'g Army of the U. S., Washington, D. C._" HON. GEORGE HOADLEY TO THE "EVENING POST," JULY, 1901 (MRS. SPRAGUE AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF 1876) "To the Editor of the 'Evening Post.' "SIR,--My attention has been called to an article which appeared in the _Evening Post_ of Saturday, June 30, giving an account of the various Democratic national conventions, in the course of which there is, I think, a cruel and untrue attack upon the memory of a lady who had hard luck enough in this world, without being followed into her grave, the late Mrs. Katherine Chase (Sprague). The statement is directly made that a bolt from the decision of the electoral tribunal which counted in Hayes in 1877 had been organized by Mr. Conkling, but that he was deterred from executing it by Mrs. Sprague's interference, based on revenge for Mr. Tilden's opposition to her father's nomination by the Democratic convention in 1868. "I do not believe there is one word of truth in this story, so far as it relates to Mrs. Sprague. It is perfectly true that Mr. Conkling organized such a bolt, and that he secured the adhesion of Senators enough to have reversed the decision of the electoral tribunal in the matter of the Louisiana electoral vote, and would in this way have made Mr. Tilden President had circumstances not happened to break up the scheme, in consequence of which he went to Baltimore, and was not in the Senate and did not vote on the subject that day.