Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-06-04

Mr.. Logan followed. he again de-
nOaReed Mr.. Sum ner's attack as slanderous
and malignant and without just foundation.
The argument of Sumner that Grant, haE-
ing been educated as military mar, could
not be successful civilian. was an argument
that no one was fit to be legislator or an
executive officer of the Government unless
he had been educated expressly for that
purpose, like Sumner himself That doc
trine might do for Massachusetts, but Gen.
Grants old soldiers and the common peo-
pie ofthe country would not appreciate it.
Senator Sumner bad been before the coun-
try as a statesman, and what had he ac-
complished compared with what Grant had
done? AIr. Logan thought it was correct to
say that the statute book bore fewer meas
ures originated by Sumner than By any
other man claiming to be statesman. The
fact was, that his craftsmanship and great
ness consisted in
Understanding Phrases
long drawn out and sentences and quota
lions from old books. His history and
achievements were glittering generalities,
while the Tanner of Galena had written
bis history in blood, and it would be read
as long as men read anything. Mr.. Sum-
ner had charged the President with
Helping His Relations
as if it were crime. The fact was, he
(Logan) was responsible for some Of the
appointments charged upon President
Grant and the President himself had ap-
pointed only a few of his relations. His
father had been appointed Postmaster by
President johnson, and when Grant be-
came President and his aged father totter-
ing nthe verge Of the grave asked 70 be
allowed to retain an Office that gave him
support in his old age, what man with
palpitating heart IN his bosom, could resist
such an appeal, except perhaps the Senator
from Massachusetts. Then there was a
brother-in-law of Mrs. Grant in an import
ant Office in New Orleans, but be it was re-
ported was to resign? The charge that the
President had
...-....- Paid for Gifts
with appointments to Office was bssely
false. It was true that the President had
accepted few gifts, but was it wrong for
man who had done such great things for
his country to accept gifts from his CRATE
full countrymen? The charge Of
MuddIing
our foreign relations was unfounded. There
was no muddle with Spain, or Russia, or
Cuba and If there was any with England
the Senator from Massachusetts, was prima-
rily responsible for it. The statement of
Sumner that
Secretary Stanton.
had told him that Grant could not govern
this country was false and he IOgan)
could prove it so. Sumner had stated fur
ther that when he asked Mr.. Stanton why
ifhe dis rusted Grant he had spoken in favor
of his election, the latter replied that ne
had spoken in favor of the Republican
party but had not mentioned Grants name.
Mr.. Logan here read extracts from Stan
ton's speeches in the campaign Of 1865,
made at Cleveland, at Philadelphia, and in
New York, in which he repeatedly eulo-
eized Grant by name. saying that the safety
of the country was Dire to Grant, that it
was an honor to vote for Grant, that the
mistakes and mism2r iagement charged on
the Republican party were no reproach to
Grant, because he was in the field when
they were made, if made at all; and that
the large attendance at a meeting be was
ADDRESSING signified that the people had given
Judgment in favor of Ulysses S. Grant.
Mr.. Conkling then read long extract
from a speech made by Mr.. Stanton at
SteubenYille, on the 25th of Sept, 1868, In
which he mentioned Grants name repeat
edly, and said of him: "His capacity and
integrity for civil administration were equal
" manifest in the vast territory i'll which
he operated"
The Senate took a recess until $50.