New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-08-09
sHRRIDANs DISPATCHES.

TIE Ne,c. York Times does not moot tho Point We
mako about the Sheridan dispatch printed August
Sin that Journal exclusively. This is its argument
What right has THE TRrB challenge 1sny dis.
patch the literal fidelity Of which the soldier TO
whom II was addressed has not called IN question: GA
what Petense Of right does IaE TRBrSs doIaud that the
ready appeared in these columns Does THE TRBUSs aege
that Gen Grant party TO forging or garbns or TO whom
tend to convey The idea that Geo Grant has for FIVE days al
lowed dispatch TO stand having been received By him
not received that he has permitted Gen. Sierlan
official communication to be tempered With without protest
attempt 10 obtain redTessP
We only exercised the common right of criticism
The evidence was too conclusive TO DO overlooked
The dispatch in The Times made it appear that Gen.
Sheridan absolutely condemned the Convention, with
no rebuke for the rioters and no sympathy for the
murdered negroes. II made Sheridan appear as
unequyocally indorsing the Presidents whole course
even to the supersedure of Gov. Wells by the law
officer Of his cabinet and Of himself by Rebel jabird
named Monroe. This was the impression the first
dispatch made, and it the impression the authori-
ties in Washington intended to make.
The other dispatches place Gen. Sheridan in a diff.
ierent position. No one disputes his right to dislike
the Convention We have Radical friends as eminent
az Durant who do the same thing, and we have 10
doubt that Sheridan announced his dislike very en-
phatically, both in the garbled dispatch and the
others. Bm he sierny denounced The rioters and tir
leader and went further in deed by making " an ex-
ample of a rowdy who attacked a peaceful negro"
We none Of this denunciation in The Illness dis
patch. We believe it was there. The whole ques-
ton meet categorically, thus:
l. We challenge The Times dispatch because it did
Gen. Sheridan gross injustice by placing him in
position not in keeping with that shown by his other
dispatches.
III. We challenge it because we believe ii was al
tered in some way gnrbled suppressed, for pur-
poses of deception. The deception was successful.
Ii lasted just day, until The TRIBUNE printed
the subsequent dispatches, which, we are assured
were confidential I" and worried" certain eminent
persons.
Ill We do not allege that Gen. Grant was party
TO the alteration as Gen. Grant did not furnish the
dispatch. 1t came from the White House.
". We do not say that Gen. Grant has remained
silent for five days, as we have assurance of his
silence. 1t is possible that Gen. Grant may have
urged the publication Of the true dispatch just as We
bit. Will The Times deny that he has made this To-
quest of the authorities
We are only asking for information. The Times
does not give it. If it will produce letter or dis
patch from Gen. Grant saying that the dispatch
printed August 3, purporting to come from Gen.
Sheridan was verbatim copy, we shall say no more,
and make any proper amend for having been so crit
cal Asi the business looks suspicious and shabby
and does injustice to Sheridan. Let Us have word
from Grant in the interest of truth.