The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-03-13
sPxRxx OF xzH PRESS.
Editorial Opinions OF the Leading Journals
upon Current Topios- Compiled Every
Day for the Evening Telegraph.
THE GRANT-sUMNER QUARREL.

The feeling which has been excited in
Washington, and extends to all places in tele-
graphic communication with the national
capital. in consequence of President Grants
attempt to degrade and disgrace one of the
most important members of the party by
which he was elected, is a noteworthy sign of
the times. In this heated Republican quar-
rel Democrats take no part. They are mere
spectators But in such an unseemly fracss,
bystanders are the coolest judges; and in the
present case, Democrats are more likely to do
Justice to both factions than they are to do
Justice to each other.
As between the comparative qualifications
of Mr. Sumner and Mr.. Cameron for the
ohairmanship of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, the question is ridiculous. In
domestic politics Mr.. Sumner is, to be sure,
a fanatic; but sincere fanatic is a more re-
spectable character than notorious corrup-
ZIONIST On foreign questions, Mr.. Sumner
is extremely we'll informed, whereas Mr.
Cameron has no more knowledge of foreign
politics than every man catches up from the
newspapers. Mr.. Sumner has a personal
acquaintance with many of the leading states
men of Europe; he has always taken keen
interest in European affairs; and being tho
roughly oonversant with recent European his
tory, and with the motives and secret springs
of modern diplomacy, his qualifications for
the position which he has held for the last
servile supporters of the President. If his
place could be given to another Senator equally
intelligent and accomplished, the change
would not provoke much comment; but an
exchange of Cameron for Sumner is so pre-
posterous in point of fitness that the country
would look on with amazement, if it could be
amazed at any absurdity perpetrated by Gene
raj Grant.
What is the excuse offered by General
Grants sycophants for supplanting tho
roughly equipped publicist like Sumner with
an ignoramus in foreign affairs like Simon
Cameron The excuse is that Mr.. Sumner
differs, on some points of foreign policy,
from President Grant and Secretary Fish
Such an excuse is grosss insult to the
Senate. 1t is an arrogant attack on its in
dependence. 1t assumes that the Senate has
no right to differ from the President on
questions of foreign policy; whereas, by the
Constitution, the Senate is entitled to sit in
Judgment and review upon the action of the
Executive, and ratify or reject its measures
according as Senators may or may not think
the Executive has acted wisely. The Consti-
tuition makes the Senate a restraint on the
foreign policy of the President, and autho-
rizes its own independent Judgment
in approving or rejecting his measures.
But General Grant insists that the
revising Senators shall be his servile
tools. He denies their right to any Judgment
which differs from his. He requires that
the Senators shall be, not his judges, as the
Constitution makes them, in questions of
foreign policy, but his echoes. In other
words, he is engaged in an attempt to break
down the restraints imposed upon the foreign
policy of the President by the Constitution,
and to make his own will supreme in ques-
tions of that kind. His demand that the
Senate shall not dissent from his views, and
that its Committee on Foreign Relations
shall tamely accept whatever he chooses to
dictate, is claim to be emancipated from
constitutional restraints and to exercise an
absolute control over the foreign policy of
the Government. By the Constitution the
Senate has right to differ from
and control him; has a right to reject
his treaties and overrule his foreign
policy; and is as free and indepen-
dent in Its own sphere of action as the Presi-
dent is in his. 1t is piece of insufferable
intermeddling and domineering arrogance for
him to dictate whom the Senate shall appoint
on its committees, and to demand that the
Committee on Foreign Relations shall be
packed in subserviency to his personal views.
He has no more right to say who shall be
chairman of that committee than the Senate
has to say who shall be Secretary of State
Nay he has less right; for the Senate can
refuse to confirm Secretary of State whom
the President appoints, but he has no shadow
the Senate committees. Yet this is what
General Grant has been doing; and it is no
wonder that his intrusive, intermeddling arro-
gahce provokes warm opposition.
One pretty certain consequence of this
quarrel will be the defeat of the Presidents
Santo Domingo job. There was only five
majority against Sumner in the Senate eau
Gus, and those Senators who opposed the
wishes of the President in caucus will have
as little hesitation in voting against his
scheme in the Senate. A treaty of annexa-
tion, which requires two-thirds of the Senate
to ratify it, would be defeated by superhuous
votes; and if an attempt should be made to
carry the project by joint resolution, the
Republicans will be 80 divided that the Demo-
cratic votes may turn the scale against it.
But defeat of General Grant now will be a
personal and political humiliation, whereas,
If he had not provoked this quarrel, the failure
of the Santo Domingo project would have
little significance
Another consequence of this quarrel will
be an organized opposition to the renomina-
tion OF General Grant as the Republican
candidate for President. The contempt in
which he has long been held by intelligent
Republicans who are best acquainted with
him, has now found good excuse for utter
ance, and from this time forth the RepHbli-
can party Is divided into q Grant faction and
an anti-Grant faction. With the enormous
patronage he wields he will probably secure
a denomination; but if he does. there will
either be an open bolt by his bitter Republi-
can enemies or secret conspiracies to defeat
bis election. This quarrel will become so
envenomed that there can be no reconcilia-
ton; aud as Grant is destitute of political
talents, his Republican enemies are pretty