The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1872-06-25
TiltOB Tcstffies that
EisVln bs. Stapson Told sHinl The
Same Thing About Grant that
EEC Told Charles Summer.
[From the Golden Age.l !

From the Golden Age.
The solemn testimony which Mr.
Sumner SO eloqucutly adduces from the
dying lips Of Edwin NJ Stanton-"l
know Grant better than any other man
can know him, mi he cannot gorern This
counhV"-was an "upen secret" in the
possession of other persons besides Mr..
Sumner Before Mr. Stanton WAS strick-
en- so low as to he on his dying couch,
HE MADE A SIMILAR STATEMENT TO OUR
SELVES. INDEED, IN LARGE MEASURE, THE
CRITICISMS WHICH FORMERLY THE lNDE-
PENDENT LATTERLY THE GOLDEN AGE
PUT FORTH AGAINST THE CIVIL UNFrTNEsS
OF PRESIDENT GRANT FOR HIS HIGH STA
TIoN WERE THE PRODUCT OF A CONVICTION
INSPIRED WITHIN Us BY THE STRONG
WORDS AND WARM FEELING WITH WHICH
Mr.. STANTON OCCASIONALLY AND SADLY
EXPRESSED HIMSELF ON THIS SUBJECT.
WHEN IN CONFIDENTIAL INTERCOURSE WITH
FAMILIAR FRIENl.s. We are glad that
Mr.. Sumner has taken off the injunc
tion Of privacy which we have hitherto
considered as resting on Mr. Stanton's
opinion. The late Secretary Of War
(in our judgmcnt) was the ablest ad-
ministrative officer who ever sat in an
American Cabinet, and to him, more
than to any military commander in the
field, does the country owe its victory
over tue rebellion, His prophetic sa-
gacity concerning President Grant has
been so painfully verified by subsequent
events, that we beg our countrymen to
give heed to the warning which thus
comes to them as from the tomb.
From the Montgomery Daily Advertiser
TIE nomination of Horace Greeley
may have been startling and all that. 1t
was so to us. But why not support on
the same platform ene honest and com
petent Republican as soon as any other 7
If We 90 back beyond the events OF
twelve months, it would be impossible
for Mr.. VOORHEES, to find any ground
for wishing to see Judge Davis Presi
dent of the United Stares! Mr. Greeley
is as thoroughly pronounced a Refor-
mer as Judge Davis.
We Low agree to support Greeley as
we would have supported Judge Davis
had he received the nomination, not be
cause we did not differ with either ot
these persons ten years ago, or two
years ago, but because the duties ant
interests of true patriotism have brough
us together at last on common basis
of action in struggle for the Liberties
Of the country.
The true question is not what was Mr.
Greeley's opinion ten, or even two years
ago, but what are his opinions now OIL
vital questions Had Mr.. Adams beer
nominated the same conditions woult
have supervened precisely. Had Judg'
Davis been nominated the problem mus
necessarily have been solved in the SAM
manner How would it have been s i
J we'd in each case? 1t coald only havi
been determined in one way. First BY
the same identical platform in which TIN
past personality of the candidate woui,
have been absorbed and lost; and, sec
ond, by the letter of the candidate ac
ceptiDg the nomination and declaring
concurrence with the resolutions of til
Convention. Neither Mr.. Adams no
Judge Davis could possibly have writ
ten more thorough letter of acceptanc
and platform Identification than MI
Greeley has done.