The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-23
General Grant, Mr.. stanton, and tn
President.

General Grant, Mr: stanton, and the
President.
From The NJ Y. Times.
The removal of General Sheridan affords the
Tribune a pretext for again misrepresenting
and assailing the position of General Grant.
Our contemporary divides its attention be-
tween Mr.. Johnson and the General, charging
them with equal responsibility, and repre-
senting the latter as voluntarily and faith
lessly instrumental in carrying out the Presi-
dents design. Here is an exemplifcation of
the tone in which the Tribune renews its
assault
THAT instrument which Edwin M. Stanton
refused to become which no power OF the Pre-
sident could make him, Grant is. We judge by
the facts. For one year Andrew Johnson con-
templated the insult to the nation of removing
the soldier who of all our soldiers best repre-
sents its principles, but dared not, could not,
while Mr.. Stanton was in the Cabinet. on
August IL Mr.. stanton is removed; on August
IL General Grant accepts his place; on August
10 General Sheridan is removed. Why, this is
logic! One little week after General Grant be-
comes Secretary of War, Sheridan is dlsgraced
/ How is the conclusion to be avoided that the
| President sought and found in General Grant
the means by which he might break down
| sheridan, and with him the spirit of the peo-
pie? Bitterly, indeed, have the loyal been de-
celved who thought that General Grant might
have said to an apostate President:-'If become
part of an administration which every patriot
despises, and take at your hands this civil
Office, which have as much right to refuse as
that OF Postmaster-General or Postmaster, do
so on this conditions: you shall respect the loyal
principle of the nation-you shall not remove
Sheridan. But as General Grant did not say
this, the President took him into his Cabinet,
and dictated to him the order by which Sheri-
dan is dishonored and the people threatened
and detied."
According to the Tribune, then, General
Grant is the instrument in Mr.. Johnson's
hands for waging war on the reconstruction
policy of Congress. Grant is ''the means"
''sought and found" by the President "by
which he might break down Sheridan, and
with him the spirit of the people," What Mr..
Stanton dOggedly refused to do, General Grant
has cheerfully and readily done-he has be-
come party to 'the order by which Sheridan
is dishOnored, and the people threatened and
defed." Such are the Iribune'S allegations.
What are the facts
The first point that challenges remark is the
found fondness for Mr.. Stanton which the
Tribune displays. We are asked to believe
that 'for one year, he alone prevented the
removal of Sheridan. Now we are not un-
mindful of Mr.. Stanton's frmness in opposi-
ton to the ill-advised course of the President,
and on that ground have regretted and con-
demned his suspension. How happens it, how
ever, that 'for one year, and more the Tribune
uttered not word in Mr.. Stanton's praise,
but on the contrary uniformly did what it
| that when Mr.. Stanton was suspended the
Tribune looked on complacently- forgetting
public interests and party necessities in the
| qualification of a lOng-cherished personal
| grudge? The Tribune then said nothing about
| Mr.. Stanton's support of Sheridan-nothing
about his fidelity to the Republican policy
nothing about the outrage to the party implied
in the Presidents act. What is now printed
in Mr.. Stanton's praise is a mere atter-thought
| Of cha11 dintatad
regard for him, personally or politically, nor
by any other consideration than desire to
| tarnish the reputation of General Grant.
In the pursuit of this object, the Iribune's
only chance lies in the Justification of unques-
toned facts. AS the basis OF its attack, 1t as
sumes that but for Mr.. StantOn's suspension
and General Grants temporary acceptance OF
the War Department, Sheridan would not
have been removed. The hypothesis is too
absurd to deceive anybody. Mr.. Johnson re-
moves Sheridan now in defiance of General
| Grants remonstrances; as easily might ne
| have done so six months ago, whether Mr.
| Stanton concurred or not. 1t is an assertion
| of Executive authority which the war De-
| partment could nowise hinder Save IN the
| form of protest, both Mr.. Stanton and Gene
raj Grant were powerless in the premises.
| All that is needed for the justification OF
1 either is proof that he did exert his innu-
| ence honestly and energetically, in support
| of Sheridan. So far as Mr.. Stanton Is con-
cerned, this is admitted. How is 1t with re-
| gard to General Grant
We are not required to go beyond the
| columns of the Tribune for an answer. From
its editorials, brimful of malice and perver-
sion. we turn to its Washington dispatches.
| These afford conclusive evidence that General
Grant was not the passive 'instrument" he is
/ alleged to have been-that he was not the
willing ''means'' in the perpetration of a
blunder and wrong. And on this subject
| our contemporaries correspondent is in har-
/ mony with the correspondents of all the daily
journals. Without an exception, so far as we
have observed, the Washington dispatches
/ from whatever source bear testimony to the
fact that before and since his acceptance Of the
Secretaryship General Grant steadily and
earnestly opposed the removal of Sheridan.
To this extent Grant stands completely justified.
He has not accepted the Presidents policy.
| He has not identified himself with the Presi-
| dents insane conduct. He has not made him
self a party to the responsibility of the Presi-
dent in this deliberate onslaught on the policy
of Congress.
But does not Grants issue of the order i'm
plicate him Most assuredly not. We can
imagine the form of an order which General
Grant could not have signed without self
qualification and dishonor. An order, for in
stance, embodying oensure of Sheridan for the
manner in which he has executed the Recon