The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-03-21
ANDREW JOHNSON VS.. U. s. GRANT

- D. L.
From the Harrisburg Patriot.
When Andrew johnson became President
Of the United States, he sought to fix q policy
for his administration. He believed that the
shortest road to peace and restoration of
the practical workings of the Union was to
adopt the results of the war. He maintained
that the Union had been preserved, or, what
is better, that it had not been dissolved. for
the reason that the Rebellion for that purpose
bad been failure. What Mr.. johnson be-
heved was, that as the Union had not been
dissolved, as matter of course no State
had been out of the Union, and this being
true in theory as well as fact, he held that
as soon as the Rebel armies were disbanded
the people of the Southern States should be
allowed to resume the exercise of their local
governments. They had been interfered with
in the enjoyment of this right by armed
bands of insurgents, who being defeated and
dispersed by the Federal authorities, the State
Governments should at once resume their
functions. This was the policy adopted by
man put into the Yice-Presidency by the Re-
publican party. Did Republican Senators
agree with Mr.. johnson No They not
only differed with him, but they prescribed
all who agreed with his policy, and no Sena-
tor was more eager to prove his hostility
by fierce acts than Charles Sumner,
ex-chairman of the Senate Committee
on Foreign Affairs. We now only propose
to set forth the Republican history of Re-
publicanism. The Republican party in the
Senate, at the time to which we now refer
would not allow the President to have a
policy, and all who dared to sustain the Chief
Magistrate were prescribed. Special laws
were passed to enfetter the President. His
appointing power was curtailed. Congress
remained in perpetual power to watch the
Executive, and if even one branch of the
Government usurped the functions of a CO.
ordinate branch, it was done by Congress
when Andrew johnson was President. Mr..
Sumner led in that proceeding, and he held
the notion that it was a sacred Republican
privilege for a Senator to oppose the Presi-
dent whenever bis duty dictated such course
of actien. But the Republican party is not
immutable. 1t has it's weaknesses There is
flaw in its machinery wbioh occasionally
creaks, which has been lately beautifully
demonstrated, as Mr.. Sumner has discovered
to his sorrow. Poor man! he believed he had
right to be consistent, but, alas for him,
that is not part of Republication. 1t was all
right to fight with Andrew johnson. In that
case the President had no authority to have
policy, for the reason that there was no de-
vices in that; it only meant the restoration
of the Union; it did not propose to take
millions of dollars out of the treasury
to purchase disease-infested territory,
and disfranchised men to security and their
political franchises. A United States Sena-
tor could differ with President having in
view such objects, and still be Republican.
But when the President makes himself the
great centre of ring to plumber the treasury,
when he seeks to force a measure on the
country which the party thai elected him re-
pudiates, the Senator who dares resist such
encroaehments is assailed and degraded
by his own partisan colleagues, a majority of
whom acknowledge they are the SER
vile slaves of a satrap in the White
House. There is nothing in history to equal
this exhibition of political inconsistency.
One President, who dares TO differ with a
Republican Senate, is sought to be impeached,
and the Republican Senators who differ with
him advertise themselves as the purest pa
triots. In four years thereafter, when a
Republican Senator emulates this exam
pie, finds himself compelled to differ with
the Chief Magistrate, his colleagues depose
him for his independence. Was ever party
in such plight? We leave it to its worst
condemnation, its OWN shame.