The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-02-20
soMETHIEG-NoTHING.

Seward IN the use OF diplomatic euphemlSm,
and it labors with a zeal and an assiduity
which might have astonished even Talleyrand
in illustrating the idea that language was
given to conceal thought In Mr.. Seward
letter to the President regarding the last cab
met interview with Gen. Grant, though his
words resemble nightly the footprints of a
fox threading his way among larger and more
ferocious animals, yet it is possible to trace
them to some logical destination. When he
] says, fo1 example, that, according to his re-
| collection, Gen. Grants admissions were cir
| cumstantial rather than categorical that the
| general did not deny the promise imputed to
him, nor was his answer TO the Presidents in
| terrogatory ON the subject evasive, it is evil
dent that he wishes to render the manner Of
his testimony as mild and inoffensive rs pos
sible. But in logical effect, he practices no
evasion; his words only lubricate the sting of
Gen Grants self-conviction on the point of
honor, as well as on the point of We
racity. Very different is the suaritsr IN
mode Of the New York Times. This
moral nihilist comedies that the President
may be right, and that General Grant may be
right 1t allows that General Grant may be
wrong, and that the President may be wrong.
1t assumes that both may be equally right,
and both equally wrong. 1t argues, in short,
that whether or not the complaint of either
is Just, and whether or not the statement of
either is false, the issue does not affect the
integrity and the truthfulness of one or the
other. Tie language in which the Times sets
forth this something-nothing view of the case
is a curiosity in the way of verbal iugglery.
Those who may have fancied that they were
living in q republic, and not under rulers de-
irving authority from divine right, will be
surprised to learn that there is a divinity
which doth so hedge round both Grant and
johnson as to put them beyond impeachment
on the score Of verbal accuracy, even when
each disputes the others veracity. This is a
difficult nception-impossible in fact, to
the merely human intellect. Nevertheless. it
is fundamental to the Times's explanation of
the moral positions of the distinguished par
ties to the Grant-Johnson correspondence;and.
consequently, to less than superhuman intelIi-
gence, the explanation is a piece of unmid-
gated nonsense. That we do not overshoot
the mark in speaking thus, let these words of
the Times show:
The question at issue can scarcely be STYLED n
question OF yeTacity, since it cannot be supposed
that such question could arise between two
gentlemen holding their respective positions
Neither OF them can be supposed TO make an in.
tentionslly false statement. Their recollections
of a particular conversation are certainly quite
different, aud the President is substantially sus
tanned IN his view OF the case by the testimony of
four others who heard all that passed.
This is to say that an Intentionally false
statement on the part of either i not suppos-
able, and that yet "f-,se statement" is
fastened upon one by testimony which con-
firms the opposite statement of the other.
But what has become of the intention, which
if Gen. Giant be mortal and morally respon-
sible. he must be presumed to have enter
timed when he first made his statement. and
when he reiterated it after it was proved to be
false? If the ethical theory of the Times be
valid, there is need to add TO the calendar
a new order of sainthood, with Gen. Grant at
its head, including those wondrous characters
who have graduated in virtGe to such degree
that they are superior to the possibility of in.
territorial wrong-doing, and are, therefore, i'm
peccable, while still in the flesh, no matter
what concrete sins they may commit.
We quote again.
The real question involved is whether Gen.
Grant was Iigtt IN the course he pursued He
may have been hasty aud inconsiderate in giving
the President to understand that he would aid
him in keeping Stanton out and he may have been
De gectiu IN not notifying the President that he
had changed his mind as TO the requirements of
the law. We can hardly suppose that the Presi-
dent is correct in understanding Gen. Grant to ai.
nit that, when he took the place he did it with
the intent and for the purpose of defeating the
object for which he knew il had been given n
hun; for such course would have been less d.
rect and manly than we can suppose Gan Grant
would pursue. And upon this point We shall |
await further explanations from the general him
self.
Here, once more, we cannot admit the de- |
Tense set up for Gen. Grant without assuming
that he is either saint or an idiot, and. there
fore, incapable of wrong intention. If n |
rational and unsainted human being, he must |
have intended the precise result to which his |
action conducted, especially as it was clearly |
IN his power to arrive at a different result, and |
one which he had repeatedly promised the
President to secure. Both intrinsic proba-
bility and personal testimony are against the
of good faith.
The Times only ceases to be equivocaI.
mystical and nihilistic when it speaks Of the
final action Of Gen. Grant-thus:
Bot as TO his final action. we think there can be
no dcnbt as TO its propriety. When the Senate |
refused TO concur in his suspension, Mr. Stanton |
became az once, under the Law, secretary of war.
here was no longer any such post a secretary /
al interim, and Gen. Grant had no longer any
Office which he could resign. He acted strictly ia
accordance with the requirements Of the law.
But there was no requirement Of the law to
deter Gen. Grant from resigning the Office to
he President from whom he received it, as
be promised to do, in time for the appoint
Tent Of another incumbent who would await
he result Of legal proceedings before giving
t up. The truth is that, as a subordinate in
he executive department, Gen. Grant had
nothing TO do with the law of the case, either
before or after the inconvenience of the
senate. The Senate was about as much to
lim then as Hecuba, and he was no more