The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-17
General Grant and a1s Assailants.

From the N. Y. Times.
An allusion in these columns to General
Grants acceptance of the war portfolio, and
the fortunate coincidence of his views with
those of the conservative majority in Con-
from the Tribune. Our contemporary as
usual, insinuates what it dare not openly
allege. 1t suggests political crimes which it
dare not openly charge. 1t asks, in what it
calls ''the kindest possible spirit" when
General Grants ''habitual reticence'' has ever
permitted him to declare himself in favor of
the reconstruction policy of Congress 1t
desires to know whether he did not, after an
official visit, report upon the progress of resto-
ration at the South under the Presidents
plan 1t wishes to know whether some caves
dropper in the scullery at the White House
has not heard the President declare his belief
that he had the support of General Grant
1t demands to know if General Grant did not
take part in the Presidential tour to Chicago
And it asks, finally, whether General Grants
acceptance of the Secretaryship did not $50
completely disarm Mr.. Stanton that he
Tetires Y''
These are, in brief the Iribune's points of
attack. They are enlarged upon with that
peculiar oiliness of expression and that feigned
humility of sentiment which invariably be-
token the hypocrite and the coward. If the
Tribune desires to injure General Grant politi-
cally, why has its editor not the manliness to
strike an open and fair blow, instead of
striking foul? The questions the Tribune asks
I are the feeblest kind of impertinences. 1t
might, with about equal proprety, ask if
General Grant is not committed irrevocably to
the Southern Rebels by using Virginia tobacco
What the country has to do with is not the
Acting War Secretary's reticence in the COM
pany of radical schemers and wire-pullers but
his Interpretation of the duties of his position,
his prOmptitude, his discretion, his loyal de-
votion to the cause of the whole country, and
his ability to resist the. Importantly of radi-
cal conspirators and party plotters of every
degree.
How cordially General Grant and Secretary
Stanton have acted together at every stage of
reconstruction (under the laws of COngress)
is thoroughly apparent in every part of the
correspondence of the War Office with the
military district commanders at the South.
Where the Secretary suggests and urges addi-
tional vigilance for the repression OF lawless-
ness and anarchy, the General simply endorses
the circular. Where, again, the General, as
in the case of Governor Jenkins, desires to
know from the Secretary to what extent the
law in the case can be made to operate etfec-
| lively, the Secretary responds with prOmpti-
tude, and throughout there is perfect concert
of action. So also when, after the removal of
Governor Wells, of Louisiana, the violent
editors of New Orleans stated (and stated
more manfully than the Tribune is capa-
BILE of doing) that Secretary Stanton and
General Grant were in favor of reprimanding
Sheridan, Grants prompt response was this:
'There is not one word of truth in the
story" AS late as the 2Sth of June, in one OF
his dispatches for Sheridan's guidance, Grant
says:-"Enforce your own construction of the
Military bill until otherwise ordered" These
are but samples-not alone of the constant
anxiety which marked the labors of the Gene
raj at the head of the army in giving effect to
the reconstruction lsws-but they are sam
pies, as well, of the thorough and steady
cooperation of the head of the army with the
head of the War Department. It is only the