The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-27

" ishes OF some politicians In certain quarters |
u at the letter should AT ~ leak out but Tn tt
certainly is no reason why they should fui |
tsult with those who only desire 10 furnish |
matters of record as valuable Information to |
an interested public The New YORK Times |
d drnies that Gen Grant wrote said letter, witch |
denial is ent rely superhuous-your correspon-
dent never having stated Jhat Jh Il gentleman |
wrote the now famous letter. Others again
ttate hat Gen. Grants brother ln-law di not
write 10, and by confusing, apparently with a
purpose, everything ia re,atiol TO this matter.
endeavor 10 make the public believe, then one
~ am not acquainted with the Grant family
but know that General Deaf is not the bro
ther'in law. but the father in-law Of the Gene.
rel Who the person Is who signed the initial
ID. TO the lctter which accidentally came under
my notice, and which has since created suco
General Grant does; aud the latter has nov de-
MED, and cannot deny the views expressed In
said letter."
This correspondent thus denies having ever
stated that General Dent was the author of the
etter in question. Here is what he did say
"It now turns out that the Grant meeting on
Wedn esday evening last was gotten up by the
personal friends of The General, who, in very
dexterous manner, succ eded In heading off the
cons rvative Republican committee, VINO had
engaged the hall for the same purpose week
later. When this became known, the Generals
fIiends in this city aud Washington set ABOUT
the work. The meeting IL en- was held, not only
with the full knowledge OF General Grant, put
IL also had his consent In confirmation OF thlS
give the following letter of General Grants
brother in law General Dent, member OF the
Generals staff) TO friend in this city, VINO
was very active In obtaining signatures fol the
call'- ..
This is quite enough on that point. It con-
victs the correspondent of distinct an un-
| Observation-Disclosures He did attribute
| the letter to General Dent. He now says that
the letter "came accidentally under his
notice'-and that he does not know who
signed the initial d. to it," We beg leave to
doubt this statement. He certainly knows
| from whom he received the letter, and he
knows also whether the initial d. was signed
to it then or not. And as he himself stated
! that il was from General Dent, brotheriu-
| law Of General Grant" he ought to know
also from whom he received that bit of infor-
nation.
Somebody has evidently fabricated letter
attributing certain political opinions to General
Grant, and pretending, in order to give them
importance in the public mind, that it was
written by near relative of the General and
a member of his staff. The COHrier'S cores
pondent stands in this predicament:-He is
either the person who did all this himself, or
else he has been made the tool or acoompce
of the per son who really did it. We know of
nobody else who is half as much interested in
being relieved from this dilemma as he is
himself, and no amount of equivocatiOn or OF
political slurs upon other persons can aid him
in the slightest degree.
The device of resorting to inventions and
forgeries of this sort, and trying to pass them
OH as Proofs OF superior newspaper 6uI6TpTlS0
has been pretty thoroughly exhausted. News
papers and their correspondents are held to a
somewhat more rigid responsibility than they
used TO be. A journal which pretends to any
standing, and expects to be believed, damages
itself very decidedly by resorting to SO stale
and so unscrupulOus trick for catching public
attention and exciting public curiosity. The
papers which have gained reputation for this
sort of enterprise have ceased to be relied
upon in the slightest degree for intelligence,
and are read only out of the curious craving
for something startling, whether true or false,
which always pervades every active, wide
awake community.
We would suggest to the Courier's correspon-
dent thas he does not consult his real interest
as a journalist by attempting to mystify so
plain matter as this.
Eighteen Hundred and SIxty.Seven.
From The NJ y Nation. .,e. .. .....r
If we were asked to give the year which is
Just ending a name which should indicate It's
leading characteristic with some approach to
accuracy, we should call it year of Olsen
chantment. OF course it has been remarka-
BILE for many other, and perhaps better things
but the thing for which it has been most re-
markable has been the number and magni
tude of illusions that have perished in it. II
analogous to that which the year 1868 wit
messed in the war. Up to that year there lin
gered in the popular mind faith which, how
ever mischievous, it was hard altogether tC
avoid admiring that the nations salvation
would be effected by some heaven-born gen
eral, some man sprung from the people, anG
able to manage armies and win battles with
out the aid either of social training or practi
cal experience, or any of the other slow ant
| unromantic processes by which men in tn,
|, Old World win their way to greatness
II could not be, people felt that in such {
country which raised twenty-five bushels o
wheat to the acre. and doubled its population
every twenty-five years, generals could not b.
produced when they were wanted without tn
J cumbrOus aid of military academies, or that
when battalions were needed for the field, oiti
3 zens as intelligent and we'll educated as our
3 would have to measure so many inches rount
I the chest, and have. to learn to march AM
wheel and obey painfully and laboriously lik
European peasants. Horace Greeley retained
: nearly to the close of the war the belief whicl
: most people cherished during the first tw
: years, that what was needed to bring the un
j happy business to an end was simply might
: rising of indignant farmers each armed with
/ musket and intent on getting to Richmond
9 The truth dawned on people at last. Scieno
q in the end asserted it's sway, as it always doe
/ in the affairs of men, in the long run. Tn
s warriors who went forth from every State i
a comm and of great legiOns without othe
IS knowledge of war than what they ha
/, got from popular histories, were slOwl
81 but surely brought to nought. Many vo
" lunteer by beginning low acquired an educa
4 4 60 r