Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-04-30

There is no good reason known to US why
President Grant should require more than
he. The probability Is that large amount
ofthe excess disappeared as steailhgs, sIme
where, before ever il or its value reached
the President's mansion. The accusations
implied in the above statement oughs 70
be fairly met, and the responsibility LOT
whatever is wrong IN the case shouAd pe
placed where it belongs.n
The comparison cited by the Chronacte
and Times was made by General John +.
Farnsworth, who was elected to Congress
as Republican, by Republican voters ana
is a Republican to-day. But if he were
not-if be were Gan opposition member
of Congress too bitterly partisan TO oe in-
plicitly relied on" the official documents
would show whether he had been guilty Of
Misrepresentation His comparison has
not yet been shown to be erroneous in any
particular, and it is fail, to presume that II
cannot be, or it would have been before
now. 1t is one of those damaging expo
sures of extravaganza which Republic
cans cannot ignore or weaken by at
tributing it to partisan bitterness.
fhe damned spot will not out
at their bidding. 1t is good
to hear a Republican speak out so
plainly as Gen. Fsrnsworth speaks in de-
nunciation of the greedy corruption OF Con
gress and the President, in the matter OF
the ''back pay" and the increased salary.
The Illinois member talks out like man.
He does not hesitate to connect the Presi-
dent personally with the shameful "back
pay" performance of the Congressman, and
stigmatize the act as Gan act of mutual
bribery"-the Congressman to take the
back pay, and larger pay hereafter, and
the President to take the extra pay for bis
second term-a difference of 500, 0O0to him.
Gen. Fsrnsworth has too secure name and
position to be afraid to speak the truth. He
knows whereof he affirms, when he says of
the passage of the infamous bill, that "with-
out the favor and cooperation of the Pres
ident, Congress itself would not have adop-
ted it." 1t is also true, as Gen. Farnsworth
asserts, tina; Congress would not have con-
sented to increase the President's salary by
ITSELF That proposition was sunmarily
negatived. Only by san act of MUTUAL
BRIBERY" in which Gen. U. S. Grant,
President of the United States, was party
on one side, and Gen. Ben. Butler and his
followers were parties on thesOther side
was this nefarious transaction carried out.
1t is refreshing confession to come from
so strsight-laced Republican journal as
the Chronicle and Times, that there has
been stealing somewhere between the
Treasury Department and the White
House. Of course this stealing must have
been done, if at all, by Republican
officials. The Chronicle and Times
appears to know the char
acter of the men its party puts into Office.
But that hasty judgment will not relieve
Grant. There was no stealing there. The
fact stands out in bold relief that it requires
more than three times as much to support
Grant in the White House, with gold at
II ;, as it did to support Mr.. Lincoln,
when gold commanded over 200. By the
"act of mutual bribery" Grant pockets
100000 extra salary, and has the benefit of
appropriations amounting to more than
three times those granted to Lincoln, who,
like all bis predecessors, stuck close to his
official duties, while Grant goes of for
months at a time to seaside re-
sorts, and leaves the Government to take
care of itself. Grant was not content with
the largely increased appropriations made
for his benefit, but entered into ring, ''an
act Of mutual bribery" by which he Sc
cured an addition of 100000 to his salary.
The Hartford Times cites historical fact
which is opposite to Grants case. The
Duke of Marlborough rendered Eng
land marked service on the battle field. But
his disgusting avarice, taking some such
shape as this attributed to Grants act by
General Farnsworth, gradually converted
public admiration for his military services
into popular loathiDg for bis avarice and
DnaoDnecs