The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-25

Grant.
The cause cflsbre of Greeley versus Grant,
which is now on trial in the Court of
Public Opinion before jury of the whole
American people, is being watched with q |
great deal of interest by foreign nations as we'll
as by our own Some unreAecting persons |
imagine that the suit involves nothing |
more than the possession of the federal |
spoils for the next four years; but |
men of intelligence ara beginning to
understand that serious principle is involved
in the case and that upon the verdict may |
depend the safety of republican institutions
and the peace and prosperity of the country.
When the court was first opened at Cincin-
natl, and the customary ''Hear vel" of the
crier, thrice repeated, had secured silence and
attracted attention, the preliminary proceed
ings were Us usual somewhat formal, and the
statement of the plaintiff case scarcely pre-
pared the world for the excitement
and interest that have been develo-
ped as the trial has proceeded.
It is not unfrequently the policy of shrewd
counsel to make their Introductory addresses
tame and insipid and to keep the opening
statement of their cases far within the bounds
of the facts they expect to prove before the
jury retire and so at Cincinnati, while the
complaint against the defendant was fully set
forth aud the damages were fixed, the jury |
had yet to learn tho extent of the
evidence and the widespread conse-
quences dependent upon the action. At
Philadelphia the defendant put in his plea to
the plaintiffs declaration and demand, and
issue was fairly joined. But it was not until
the democratic party was made joint plaintiff
in the suit, by special order of the court at
Baltimore, that the trial may be said to have
fairly commenced.
| The witnesses in this remarkable case ara
principally taken from the politicians and the
party organs on both sides, and, as frequently
happens, the stories they tell are found to be
very contradictory. There is great deal OF
hard swearing both for the plaintiff and de-
PENDANT, and the testimony would puzzle the
most intelligent jury that could be empanelled
if they had nothing else to guide them to a
verdict. On the plaintiffs side the evidence
goes to prove the defendant guilty Of all man.
ner of offences and the plaintiff clearly en-
titled to the relief he claims while every
witness for the defence is prepared to make
oath that the plaintiff is as complete an i'm
poster as the claimant of the Tichborne
baronetcy is represented to be; that he
has no cause of action, and that the
trust he seeks to recover has been well
discharged by the defendant, and should
! be suffered to remain in his hands.
In addition to this conflicting testimony
mass of documentary evidence has been laid
before the Court, and more remains to be
offered. Included in the former are the plat
forms of the parties to the suit; but they are
so much alike that they may be accepted as a
set-oif one against the other without prejudice
or advantage to either side. Then there is the
notorious Ku Klux law which is put in to show
whether Congress or the President is respon-
sible for the military oppression Of the South
and the rule of the bayonet at the ballot box;
together with the election law, which forms
part of the proof against the Southern policy
of the administration. Numerous articles and
letters from the pen of the plaintiff are placed
before the jury by the defence, calculated to
show the plaintiffs former opinions and
admissions in regard to the rascality of
the democracy and the honesty of the
defendant but oil these are claimed to
be barred by the statute Of limitations. One
important paper offered by the plaintiff is
Greeley's admirable letter of acceptance of the
Baltimore nominations, in which the Cincin-
natl candidate SO modestly, frankly and ably
justifes his position and repels the assaults
that have been made on his consistency, show
ing that the honest champion of the emanci-
patton of the blacks could not fail to become
the advocate Of the full Acknowledgement
of all his white countrymen. Then, we have
yet to come the letter promised by Carl Schurz
in confirmation of his charge that friend of
the President who offered the Missouri Senator
the bride of unlimited federal patronage if he
would withdraw his opposition to the St Do
mingo job, had stated in writing that the offer
was made with the knowledge and approval of
the Presidents together with President Grants
evidence that the statement of his
friend is incorrect and that Senator
Schurz has been imposed upon. The long,
rambling story about bargain between the
plaintiff Horatio Seymour, Waldo Hutchins
and some obscure country politician, in rela-
ton to the Presidential nomination, will no
doubt be thrown out as stupid, unreliable rub
bish, having nothing whatever to do with the
case; and the testimony and reports in the
French arms affair, the Custom House
investigation and similar follies, will be served
in the same manner. Finally we are promised
a mass of electioneering documents more
formidable than the cart loads of papers laid
before the suffering Geneva Tribunals the
same being the contents of the three yellow
trunks purchased at q cost to the people of