Litchfield enquirer., 1872-06-06
MR. suMNER.s sPErcH.

~ ~~~A@0A A--NSS ~ s@S e AAAOAAoMO0S 1h4uIC, 4uu then charges the whole blame of the al- legged failure on the personal peculiarities of Gen. Grant himself. Viewebas work of oratorical art we think this one of the greatest, ifnot the greatest of Charles Summers speeches. It is most remarka- ble for the misleading appearance of can dor with which it under.states rather than over-states known facts, while its infer ences from those facts, the motives it imputes, and the suspicious it insinuates, are unfair and and exaggerated to degree inconsistent with anything like just criti- cism.
 | In attacking Gen. Grants civil career I MT. Sumner shrewdly comedies his merit as soldier. He compares him with Gus tavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Freder- ick the Great, and Wellington, all of whom he sets down as failing as conspic- uously in civil affairs as they were success full in military administration. MT. Car lyle would certainly take issue with MT. k AS0A2AOA 6O 1a4 <So II ICOCIlCA ID COuCcGu6O. Nevertheless no one will deny that militia " merit does not necessarily imply the qualities requisite in the president of a | free republic. We all understood that Gen. Grants military habits and his inex- perience in political affairs were serious ! objection to his original nomination; but we think the result has developed less weakness in these particulars than most had anticipated. Still the Presidents in- ! experiences in civil modes and his fanil- iarity with military modes of administra- tion have occasioned mistakes, in the ex- aggeration of which Mir. Sumner finds his chief advantage. At the outset Gen. Grant made the mistake of organizing his cabinet upon much the same principle that he would have organized his staff for military campaign; whereas the custom of the country requires president to call to his assistance the most prominent men of the party that elected him,-in other words, to form party rather than a per sonal administration. Gen. Grant was in- discreet enough, also, to include in his cabinet men from whom he had received presents, thus laying himself open to the charge that has so frequently been made against him of paying off his personal ob- legations at the country's expense. That the Ministers thus chosen have been cor rupt is not claimed; that they have been as competent as most officers holding sim liar positions under previous administra- tions is not very high praise, perhaps, but it is, we think, the fact. And, in justice to Gen. Grant, we must not forget that from the day of his election to the day of his inauguration there was g prolonged cry of warning from the press and from country against politicians. The great est error of his administration choice of cabinet from personal rather than from political friends-was an error for which the country is equally to blame with Gen. Grant.
 The charge of 'nepotism" so loudly made against Gen. Grant is one on which MT. Sumner lays great stress. It is mo- ticeable, however, that he devotes his at tention to the ''nepotism" of other people, rather than to the ''nepotism" of Grant. Indiscreet and objectionable as we consider the practice of the President in this mat. ter, the number and importance of offices he has given to relatives and connections have been grossly exaggerated.
 The charge that Gen. Grant is "quar. refer" is rather remarkable one for MT. Sumner to bring against him, and we be- lieve it to be entirely without foundation in fact. Those who have read MT. Sum ner's San Domingo speeches will agree with us that the quarrel between himself and the President was owing to his own overbearing conduct and to his own in. temperate and unjustifable language. This is the only really personal quarrel the President has had to oar knowledge with prominent Republicans. His othe, differences-with Messrs. Fenton, Schurz, and others-are Senatorial not presiden. tial quarrels. Undoubtedly he would have done we'll to avoid them, but he has only engaged in them as second, not as principal.
 We have not space to detail all the charges of minor importance made by MT. Sumner against the president, such | oc kba %hoo, of ,,,1ox,f,,1 ;r@o,eo,oror :., San Domingo, the nomination of NIT. Stewart as Secretary of the Treasury, and and of disrespect to the African race in the person of MT. Frederick Douglass. We think it natural that man like MT. Sumner should attach undue importance to such accusations as he himself origi. mated. No one but Mr. Sumner will be. ieve that the President had any criminal design in nominating man so eminently l qualified for the administration of the Treasury department as Mr. Stewart, ir ignorance of the law that disqualified hin for the position, Nor does any Republi can but MT. Sumner conceive that the Presidents interference with affairs il San Domingo and Hayti have been of SC aggravated nature as to make mucl stronger case for impeachment than tha against Andrew Johnson And it mus seem little strange to every one but MT Sumner that if MT. Douglass had beer treated with such gross disrespect by tn, } President he should so strenuously advo cate his. .renomination
 We readily concede the eminent abilit, and integrity of MT. Sumner; but every one familiar with his peculiarities-whicl are as marked as his ability also ac knowledge that he is utterly wanting il | that conlnass and candor ,rllich anahlos