The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1869-02-18
WHO WILL SURRENDERs


with regard to the selection of his
cabinet, and in this was less respectful
than presidents elect have generally
been in speaking of the party to which
they owed their elevation, it would be
extreme simplicity and innocence that
would assume from this that he in
tends to seek a quarrel with the ma-
jority in congress.
While this is true, it is also true
that his speech is a direct intimation
that he will not be bulied, and that he
regards the civil.tenure act as a lash
in the hands of the senate. So far as
that act is concerned, there is now an
open controversy between the senate
and Grant. The house rushed through
the bill for Its repeal several weeks ago,
on minutes notice, aud under the
operation of the previous question.
Grants friends in the senate, headed
by Mr.. Grimes, have persistently tried
to bring the bill before the senate and
have a vote on it. The committee to
whom It was referred have not even re-
ported on it. The radical senator's say
the bill for repeal shall not pass. In
this they are supported by the New
York Tribune aud other leading re.
publican newspapers.
The action, or rather non-action, Of
the senate on the bill. considering the
circumstances under which it came be-
fore that body. says, as plainly as words
could say it, that the majority in the
senate do not want to repeal the civil
tenure law. If they do repeal it, they
will do So only under a pressure which
will wound their pride and overthrow
personal interests which each one of
them possesses by such control over
the appointing power and public pat
ronage as the civil-tenure act gives
him. Grant says he wants the law re-
peaed before he begins his admiDistra-
ton. The senate has virtually said,
up to this time, that it will not consent
10 repeal the law. So stand the par
ties to the controversy now. Que of
them must yield, or there must be
collision.
1t is not true that Grant, in demand
ing repeal, was the assailing party.
The avowed purpose Of congress in
passing the law was to curtsil the pow
er Of president whom it alleged to De
a traitor to the party which elected
him, and a bad and dangerous man.
Up to the time of the passage of the
law. all of our presidents had exercised
the authority to remove, which the law
wres.ed from Mr.. johnson. This fact
ought to be conclusive proof that. if
congress was actuated by honest and
patriotic motives in the passage Of the
law. its provision, were designed spec
ially to affect Andrew johnson. and
were not based on principles for poll.
cy which justify their application to a
chief magistrate worthy Of trust and
respect.
1t follows, inevitably. that that re-
tention OF tn. law in the statutes is, in
fact, plain charge that General Grant
is not a man who will be likely to make
such chef ma .istrate. The law was
intended to put gives on one whom
its authors declared to be bold and
wicked man, placed high in authority
and welding vast powers. Must his
successor in Office be so shackled g? Is
not declaration to this effect declara-
ton that he is no better than the man
"hom he succeeds as president
From these facts and inquiries, men
disposed to Judge fairly may see who is
the aggressing party in this matter.
On Saturday. Grant gave notice
that he would kick against the law.
Will the senate, in consequence. recede
from its nresen' position and repeal the
law Will it back down at the bid
ding of the president elect? He has
given it snub. 1t is no. his fashion
to back down and congress has so
long and SO successfully played the
bully that it will be very humiliating
for either branch of it to acknowledge
it has found a master = Chicago Times
COLFAx is improving. The drub-