the
selection of Judges, as erroneously stated by Mr. Rhodes, it seems
that the Democrats were obliged to utilize Republican talent,
experience and ability to assist them in framing a new constitution. I
am sure the assertion can be safely made that Sim rail and Alcorn were
not among the "lovers of good government" who rejoiced "at the
redemption of Mississippi" through the employment of means that Mr.
Rhodes so much regretted.

"The judiciary," the expert asserts, "was the best department of
government under Reconstruction in Mississippi," and yet the Judges
were all appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. It goes without saying that if the Governor's
appointees were good, the appointing power was equally as good. The
expert virtually admits that there was no justification for the
declaration that "all lovers of good government must rejoice at the
redemption of Mississippi," when he used the following language: "Mr.
Lynch confines his figures to state finances; while it was for local
finances that the Reconstruction government of Mississippi is most
severely condemned." In other words, there was nothing wrong with the
State administration; it was the local county and municipal
governments that were bad. And yet, a fair and impartial investigation
will reveal the fact that there is no more foundation for this
allegation than for those about the State government. It is admitted
that during the early part of Reconstruction the local tax rate was
high, the reasons for which are fully explained in _The Facts of
Reconstruction_. Such an investigation would show that the charges of
extravagance, recklessness and maladministration so generally made
about the administration of county and municipal affairs were grossly
exaggerated and nearly, if not all of them wholly untrue. In fact, the
expert flatly contradicts himself on this point, because he admits
that the evidence does not support the charge of dishonesty in the
case of the Negro sheriffs, and yet the sheriff is the principal
officer in the administration of the county government.

With reference to the financial affairs of the State the expert makes
no effort to disprove a single statement I have made. He simply makes
the broad statement that my conclusions do not agree with other
statistics, and yet he fails to produce the statistics with which they
do not agree. To illustrate his point he calls attention to the
different _rates