The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-05

sanctifed by this Cincinnati coalition? As an
independent journal, caring nothing for any
party, we support Grant for these reasons.
He has kept the peace; he has given protec-
ton to men Of all colo-s in the South he has
solved the painful and shameful Indian ques-
ton; he has given us an economical adj
ministratiOn, and has been implacable with
rogues in office; he made treaty with
England and means to hold England
to it; he has strengthened the ma
tional credit and has contributed in every
way to the prosperity of the country. He has
borne himself with simplicity, dignity and
honor in his station-a quiet, unpretending
gentleman, as every President should be.
Behind this he has made name In our history
second only to Washington as a soldier-a
name known to all the world. We say
to the coalition, What better can you give
us? Have you any name2 Is there any
living American name more illustrious than
that Of Grant. What are your principles
You cannot give us free trade, for Mr.. Greeley
must be secured nor protection, or you will
offend Mr. Trumbull. What can you give us
as a platform? That Grant has received
presents, that he has appointed relatives to
office, that he smokes cigars and is fond of
horses. This is really the whole anti
Grant platform, excepting Mr. Greeley's
theory that there should be one
term for the Presidency-a theory
he has been advocating for forty years. Why
does not Mr.. Greeley bring up his old asso-
citation theories which he advocated thirty
years ago and upon which we could have an
original and Ineligible canvass? We say, in
reply to the one-term principle, that it has no
place in this campaign; that it is advanced
simply as an intrigue, and that many who
would be apt to support it upon fair dis
cussion say they cannot agree that
Grant should be treated differently
from six Presidents of the United
States when he has done as well as any Of
them. To advance the one term principle
now as an argument against Grant is to aid
in destroying it. AS to the other principles"
they are little more than corner grocery
scandals. Grant received presents as a
general, as Mcclellan received them, as
Wellington and Marlborough did in
the height of their glory. Has he
received present In the White
House, and has it not cost him his
salary to live? If he has appointed relatives
to office we may criticse his taste in doing so;
but have his opponents never had relatives in
office? And, in making this charge, do they
not remember the admonition of Christ as to
fondness for horses, no one ever made that
crime in Washington or Jackson, and there are
few manlier tastes among gentlemen in Eng
land or America.
As we touch this coalition and the fabric of
an anti-Grant party which 1t has reared it
crumbles. We see nothing sound in it. 1t is
a party without q leader or principle We
see vanity, ambition, spite, disappointment.
Office hunger, jealousy, impatien5c-the
grosser dregs of partisansb'p, with three
or four names hanging outside, which
we are called upon to worship
because they are names. Let us be excused
from that idolatry. We mean to be fair and
Just to these coalition republicans, to show
them all respect and kindness, but we must
see before we believe. Give us a living rea-
son for opposing Grant and we shall consider
it. As it now is, provided he does not make
some fatal blunder, we see no better way of
serving the country than to aid in his election;
and so, as q candidate, we continue to take
him against the field