Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1871-03-30

their support in hiscandidacy for the
coveted Craftsmanship, Was, Il ap.
pears to Us, Mr.. Summers fault and
his alone. His was the old story, 60
common. He was q man just out Of
a fine ONCE, without enough friends
to return him to 1t. 80
The creation Of its committees is
among the most responsible of the
Senate's duties, for the body itself
and not its committees Is responsible
| to the nation for all that itself or its
committees may do. The majority
must of course bear this pesPonsibil-
| ity, and consequently in the plan Of
helping and fastening legislation by
the means ofcommittees, should with
wisdom choose the men composing
them, selecting those in whom they
can mos. have confidence and whose
views they deem the soundest and
safest. In this instance, itseems, the
deciding power preferred to put in the
place Mr.. Sumner long had held an
other Senator. Itwas theirs to make
the choice; it will be theirs to be re-
sponsible to the country for the result
ING good or i'll. To speak, right
here, what we personally believe, we
think the selection Of Chairman a
mistake. For had we been a Senator
| in the caucus, holding the viewwe
do of Sumner, and his fitness fo' the
place, we should have voted far his
return to the head of the committee;
and under no consideration, with the
opinion we have Of the man, could
we have given our support to Simon
Cameron. But while holding this
view, we would not condemn as un-
warranted and cruel, the course OF
the majority Of the Senate In think
ing and acting otherwise. That was
their right, clearly; and they exercise
it, bravely. The most OF them vo-
ting against Sumner, have served
with him for years, and knew better,
than the wisest men outside of the
Senate could, the real strength OF MS
claims upon their votes. We do not
see why Charles Sumner, becaure ne
lacked the popularity to get the place
he asked OF his fellow Senators,
should cry at the misfortune, or hold
his grief up to the country, any more
than John Smith, who had held a
good Office four or five terms, and
wanted it again, but couldn't get 1t.
The only real consolation to be ten
dered him, is the one that the indif-
ferent public always offers as "a balm
to the disappointed office-seeker: he
ought to have had more votes. He
was not divinely commissioned to
the place, and, like any other demo-
cratic mortal, had to depend on votes,
and of them he had not enough.
But, It Is claimed by many, it was
Grant, and not majority Of the Re-
candidacy to come to the defeat 1t
did. The President was3this other
Brooks that made Mr.. Sumner again
a martyr. Those that mourn on this
line Of lamentatiOn must first con-
denim as mere creatures of the Presi-
dent all the Senators not voting for
Sumner, something from which the
common sense Of the nation recoils.
Perhaps Gen. Grant Is not cordially
Mr.. Summers friend. 1t would be
strange II he were. Since he assumed
the Executive Chair, and cheered the
country with the sign that hewas not
to be piece of machinery mtnipula-
ted by Mr.. Sumner, the latter gentle
mans hand, II not against linn has
been turned almost aiwaysfr6n him.
The country knew then. 1t has Been
given no chance to forgetdt since,
that throughout Grants admins
tration there was to be constantly
a struggle for the determination OF
the question, whether the man elec-
ted or the Senator from Massachusetts,
should be President. Gen. Grant
held the certificate Of cleo ton, and
resolved to All the chair. This reso-
luton raised the question:. whose
hand should be proved the strongest
In the end, Grants or Surmner's.
The contest has been making head
way, not secretly; and some time since
the imperious Senator ceased evenlt0
speak to the stubborn PresideAti
The prejudice Of the feud had with
him grown SO bitter that it led the
Senator, never before convicted Of
anything like evasion or deceit, to
play double part in the San Domin-
60 fight-at one time assuring the
President no wOuld sllnfjtirf the