The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-12

acoords support so negative as to be posi-
lively damaging to their cause He refuses to
say one word of praise of the principles or
achievements of the Democratic candidate,
simply referring to him incidentally as an
eminent statesman" but fully and heartily
expresses his admiration for the great genius
OF the distinguished soldier'' who cond duered
the Rebellion, and the "hghest respect for the
services he has rendered the country" He
cannot find it in his heart to approve the Re-
publican platform, but he does not fully en-
dorse that OF the Democracy; on the contrary,
he takes plain and direct issue with it by de-
olaring himself unequivocaly in favor of
the maintenance of the national credit in
violabls."
The Democracy publish enthusiastically.
as II twas avery effective statement the names
of other prominent Union soldiers who sup
port their candidate, among them Generals
Hancock, Rousseau, Steedman, and Granger.
But no assurance of sympathy with the party
or its candidate has been had from General
Hancock since the unfortunate adjournment Of
the Convention, so artfully managed by Mr.
Seymour and his friends, forever ruined his
chances of becoming President. General Rous-
seau has not only persistently refused to speak
in favor of Mr.. Seymour, though generally
favoriDg the principles of the Democratic plat
form, but declared in this city, Just before his
departure for his present command, his utter
repugnance for the candidate of the party.
General Steedman, day or two after the
nomination of Mr.. Seymour, openly declared
that while he Couldn't vote for Grant, he
wouldn't for Seymour" and Gordon Granger
at the same time asserted, in his usually ele-
CANT and emphatic style, which we cannot
shock our readers by quoting, his disgust at
the nomination and his unwillingness to sup
port the candidate. The support of every
| Union officer quoted by the Democracy has in
| every instance been negative. Even Andrew
| Johnson declines to either speak or act posi-
| lively for the party he labored so hard to re-
! vive. In fact, conservative Democrats every
where are either lukewarm in their support,
or definitely repudiate the present radical and
revolutionary candidates of the party; and
many will vote for the more conservative can
| didates of the Republicans.
On the other hand, the unanimity of the
Republicans is marked and significant. They
are as compactly formed and consolidated as
were Grants armies in the field. 1t is the
sure presage of victory. Only in single
Congressional district in the country does
there appear to be serious division in the
ranks of the party, and in that there is little
fear of defeat. That division has been caused
by the impolitie nomination through sharp
caucus management of a man who has made
himself distasteful to the party by the advo-
cacy OF certain form of repudiation expressly
condemned by the Republican and embodied
in the Democratic platform. The opposition
of the Republicans of his district to the re-
election of General Butler is a positive as
surance of their conservatism. General But
Ter has threatened to publish the fact of an
alleged arrangement between his Republican
opponent and the Democratic leaders of the
district, by which the Democratic vote will be
cast for MIR. Dana. We shall be heartily glad
to hear that such an arrangement had beer
made, for we are sure it could not be con
cluded at the sacrifice of any principle or
Richard H. Dana's part. There is far less
danger of the success and future effectiveness
OF the Republican party OF the Fifth Massa
ohusetts Congressional District beiug de-
stroyed, as General Butler affects to fear, by
such an arrangement, than by his re.elec
tion to misrepresent it and to clog the national
party.