The Shasta courier., 1872-09-21

mated by him than by any other man who
! ever claimed to be statesman. bis states
manship has consisted for twenty-four years
in high-sounding phrases, in long-drawn-out
sentences, in paragraphs taken from books OF
an ancient character, as an instance OF which
we find in his speech pages on "nepotism y
taken almost bodily from biographical
dictionary of the Popes and rulers of Rome.
There is wherein his greatness consists. 1t
consists in paragraphing, in pla yiarism, in
defamation, and in egotism.
He has accomplished much in his own
estimation. He is writing a history. or some
one is for him, of himself. have been
reading it latterly. I find in it many of his
speeches If he were here now l would, as
one who has been his steadfast friend, beg of
him to exclude from that history of himself
this last speech It is a pleasant history to
| read so far as it has been written, but say
to him its pages will be marred by this
malignant phillippic against President Grant,
filled as it is with venom and gall from one
end to the other,
Let us compare the tanner President with
the magnifcently educated Senator from
Massachusetts,, who has accomplished so
much, and See how he will stand the COM
parison. The Senator from Massachusetts
has lived his life without putting upon the
records of his country a solitary act of his
own origination without amendment by
other men having more understanding than
7 himself in reference to men and things.
General Grant, the President of the United
States, a tanner from Galena, has done what? ?
He has written his history in deeds which
will live. So long as pens are dipped in ink,
so long as men read, and 50 long as history
| IL
something. 1t is valuable; it is not q history
of glittering generalities and defamation in
speeches, but it is a history of great deeds
and great things accomplished for his
country.
/ In 1861, soon after the breaking out of the
war, we found this President Of the United
States the commander of a small force on the
banks of the Mississippi river. On the banks
of the Potomac was large and well-organ-
lied army, and the sounds were heard
throughout the land of battle from day to
day. When the battle was over there was
but one thing that trembled along the wires,
and that was-the army of the United States
had again been defeated. Defeat upon de-
feat followed and never did you find your
armies successful until the fame of this little
man was heralded from one end of the land
to the other. Every battle that he engaged
in he won. was with him in his first battle
on the banks of the Mississippi river, the
battle of Belmont, and travelled through with
the Western armies in the Western campaign.
If you will allow me-and I refer to myself
only to show the facts within my knowl-
edge-I hesitate not to say that the man who
says he is ungenerous does not know him.
The man who says he is not man of ability
does not know him. The man who SAYS he
ever deprecated the character or reputation
of another does not know him. In all his
acts he was generous to fault with his COM
rades, and no report did he ever make in
which he did not give full credit to every
man in the army who had done his duty, as
can be testified to by every man who served
under him.
l have seen him time and again in the
hottest and thickest of the battle, sitting
coolly and calmly, without parting his lips
or lisping word, watching the different
maneuvers of the troops and the manage
ment on either side to see how the battle was
going. He was not a man of many words.
He gave his orders quietly, and saw that
they were executed.
He was brought to the Army of the Poto-
mac. He made a success; he won the battle
victory perched upon our banners; we sue
ceeded slavery was abolished, and our coun-
try saved. After four years passed the peo-
pie of the United States made him President.
He is now assaulted because of his ignorance,
because he was soldier, and charged with
having done nothing during his life to be
remembered. Look at his administration
and see if he shows no ability. How does it
compare with others? have not indorsed
everything he has done; nor do I believe
friend is required to indorse everything that
another does in order to be his friend; but
take his administration generally, 80 far as
the material part is concerned, and SO far as
that which does substantial good to the coun-
try, and I say it has been great success.
After submitting a tabular statement OF
the expenses of this administration, as COM
pared with preceding ones, the Senator con-
tinuedl:
Now, Mr.. President, desire to draw the
attention of the Senate but short time to
some of the specific charges that have been
made by the Senator from Massachusetts,.
He says the President is guilty of nepotism,
and, as said, several pages of his speech are
copied for the purpose of showing first the
origin of the word. 1t is necessary for
learned man when he discourses upon a word
to show its origin. We then find the origin
of the word "nepotism.' He shows that it
is of Italian origin, and then goes on through
the history of the Popes, the history of those
who once ruled Rome, to show how many
nephews and kinsfolks they appointed to
office. Then he comes down to Pretident
Grant, and he charger the President of the
United States with having usurped the
power of the presidential Office, and made it
a mere perquisite and appointed to office his
kinsfolk, and for that reason he ought not
to be recognized as suitable candidate for
President again.
Now want to put this question to the
country I admit that he has appointed
some of his relatives to Office; but I want the
Senator from Massachusetts, to point his finger
to the law that forbids that being done. If
it is not in violation of law, is there anything
that shows that it is in violation of good
morals? It seems to me for a man to take
care of his own household is not in violation
of good morals. 1t certainly is in violation
of no law and / believe we are told that
"he who provideth not for his own house
hold hath denied the faith and is worse than
an infdel." The Senator does not believe
there is anything like wit or genius or COM
mon sense in the President. l will repeat a
remark that heard that he had made once,
that perhapslha aroused the anger of the
Senator to some extent. A gentleman once
said to the President that the Senator from
Massachusetts, did not altogether believe the
Bible. The President quietly said that there
was reason for that, and that was that he
did not write it himself Laughter.
Now, if it is not any violation OF the law
to appoint your relatives to ofice-f 1t Is