The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1868-04-23
From the Ant-slavery Standard April II.
Another AssanIt Upon Grant by
Wendell Phillips.

have 20 facts to furnish. The best proof
that Grants friends have no real, suff-
cient proof of his hearty assent to the rad
ical theory of reconstruction is the miser-
able shifts they resort to in their efforts to
prove such assent. In every other case
of a presidential candidates opinions we
have been furnished with authentic, pre-
else, aud authorized accounts Of bis con-
versation, or with letters stating distinctly
his views. Now, We have guesses and
assurances and conjectures.
Mr. Washburne thinks and supposes, is
confident, and has no doubt; Mr. Wilson
asserts; Mr.. Thaddeus Stevens believes,
but no one ever protcnds 10 speak by au-
thority. The last straw which this drown
ing faith catches at is the recollection
which the Hon. Mr.. Gooch, of Massachu-
setts, has Of conversation he held, two
years ago, with General Grant, in the
course of which the General said john
sons evil conduct would have good ef
feet, as it would make the nation more
radical and yigilant Now, this may mean
something or nothing. We asked Mr.
Gooch, souie six months ago, to allow us
10 cite this conversation lie declined,
on the ground that the General might not
recollect anything about the matter, or
attach any importance to it.
By the time this scrap Of a rcoollected :,
incidental talk reaches Cincinnati, it
swells into conversation on impartial
suffrage, and the Commercial, of this city,
says the Boston Journal, referring to Hon.
D. ". Gooch's statement ola conversation
With Gen. Grant on impartial suffrage,
says it is reminded Of another conyersa-
ton with the General at dinner party,
given while he Was On q visit to his FORM
er home. in Brown county, two years ago
last summer "It will not be improper to
say" remarks the Commercial, ''that suffi-
Grant was fully up to the most advanced
ideas of the day on the question of suf-
frage, and tEat he was unqualifedly in
favor OF giving the ballot to the negroes
Gho had entered the service and fought
on The side f,he government for the sal
vation Of the union. We never doubted,
from that moment, where General Grant
stood. IF our recollection is clear, Gen.
eral Sherman held the same opinion at
that time aud We have no reason to
think that either Of these distinguished
men has ever changed his views"
Here. again, we launch on conjecture.
The talk is two years old, ''but sufficient
vas said to convince as" "i.' our rscolec-
| ton is clear" ''no reason to think" either
Of these distinguished "men had ever
changed lis views" Every man OF COM
mon sense knows what bosh and stuff al
his dreamy recollection and idle suppo-
sing would BE considered ic any case in
volging ten cents Of disputed property.
When men fall back cn such babble
ground of action. il il convincing proof
,ha. :here IS no evidence 70 be produced.
That 10 man on the continent. is author
ised to pledge Grant 10 any course Of pol
icy, i we'll known. If any man doubts it,
r, point him to the eagerness with which
Grants friends clutch ut these straws. as
sufficient proof that they have nothing BET
ter TO offer.
SO Of Grants intemperanca. We thin !.
tie evidence was sufficient bef,re Bat If
anything in the way Of proof WIS lackiny,
Il IS amply supplied by The speech cf Nr
Dodge, Of New iors, th, president OF The
National temperance society, and By the
letter of Mr Senator Wilson, published in
.ha Boston Daily -Advef'ser, April /.
Mr.. Dodge has bean in Washington,
and assures temperance nlen they need
have 10 fears. He knows Of the reports
of the Generals recent public intoxication
At such moment, and speaking as an OF.
fcer Of 4 Temperance society, Mr. Dodge
would have denied the truth Of these re-
ports if he had been .ble TO DO so. His
omission to do that, and the evasivc, gen.
eral terms in which he INDUCES, will con
vince any Thoughtful tectota!er that Mr.
! Dodge knows aad feels that lie cannot De-
ny The Generals intemperance. lie has
schOolel himself into thinking tha. it does
no. amount to enough 10 peril the state.
aud hence. letting his party feelings over.
si1e his temperance principle he is viii
/ ing to run the risk. What we claim IS
that, before he asks us to run any risk, Le
let us know the exact facts. Then wc viii
decide whether to run it or not.
! ur. Wilson's letter is even more char.
ac;oristic, an4 therefore cyasive. lie, too
knows Of the reports as to Grants drunk
euness, On q particular day in last Janua.
r.. If we mistake not, these reports were
5rough. n ore than once to his notice. II
MS letter he says: II have seen Genera
Grant in camp, in his Office, at his owr
house, and at dinner PARTIES where liquor
we're freely used by others, but have
never seen him drink even glass of win,
nor have ever seen him when had tn,
slightest reason to think he was 10 any
degree under the influence Of drink"
OF course, 10 douot. We can briu:
10000 people in that very city of Wash
ington who never saw Grant drunk
There are 10000, 900 in The north wh,
never saw Grant drunk. If any shrey,
lawyer had, in such circumstances. receiy
ed from such an answer, he would hay
asked no further questions, but taken i
for granted and argued to the jury that tn
witness had substantially admitted tn
drunkenness. To US no further evidepc