Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1874-12-10
THE SENATORSHIP.
Letter from Senator Howe-A Candid Presen.
talon of the Con ideratious Bearing ON the
question the Objections 10 senator Car
penter's Re-elcctioa Ably reviewed.

| WASHINGTON, ID. c., Nov %, 1874.
l-My Dear Sir: | ought, perhaps, to
have acknowledged your kind favor of
the 9th ult before this time. But at
that date, and up to election. | was
busy with the canvass. After the
election | was busy with my prepare
tons for this place, where arrived on
Wednesday evening last.
Let me thank you for your offer to
serve me in reference to the senatori
al question nov pending in Wisconsin.
But at the same time | must assure
you there is but one way in which you
can serve me in that matter. The on
| ly interest / have in the matter is to
have nim elected who will do the most
to ma nIain the Republican suprema.
cy in the state. Do you know who
that man is? My own judgment is
not SO clear as | wish it was. But
since you profess some confidence in
my Judgment upon political matter
and the election is over, will tell you
candldly what | think of the problem.
| assume from all | hear that the
choice Of the Legislature will fall up
on Mr.. Carpenter or Mr.. Washburn.
Both are deservedly distinguished
the latter for the solidity of his coun-
sells, the former for the brilIiancy of
his advocacy. Ii both were private
citizens offering for the Senate now
for the first time, the choice of the
party would probably be determined
by It's judgment as to whether it need
ed most help to frame new policy or
help to defend policy already agreed
upon. But such is not the status of
the candidates. On the contrary, Mr..
Carpenter is now Senator. He is just
now ending his first term. His friends
claim that according to political usage,
a second term is due him, unless he
has forfeited it by misconduct during
his first term. And in his case the
question is, has he forfeited the place?
But Gen. Washburn, although now a
private citizen, has been often in the
public service. Three times before
| the war he was sent to Congress. He
mas Encouragement during the war.
Twice he was sent to Congress. Twice
| he was sent to Congress since the war.
Three years ago he was made cover
nor, and one year ago he was renom
mated without show Of opposition.
There is no pretense that he has for
teited anything. No one denies he
would make an eminent Senator. In
fact, one seems to be on trial, while
the other is not. To elect Washburn
is to say that Carpenters guilty. To
elect Carpenter does not say that
Washburn is guilty, but only that Car
penter is not guilty. But is Carpen-
ter guilty? GuIty OF what: Not Of
that vague, nebulocs, f4cculent, tur-
gid fog of reproach under which some
opposition newspapers have tried to
bury him for few years past. He is
already acquitted of that. He is &C
quilted of that by the Senate, which
made him its presiding officer. He is
acquitted of that by the crowds of our
tellow-citlzens who have gathered to
hear him speak in the name OF Repub
llcanism during the past autumn. He
is acquitted of that by every decent
man or woman who admits him to
their parlor or who bows to him on
the street. He must be acquitted of
that by every man who is not willing
to expose his character to the remorse-
less corrosion of that subtle, but spu-
my Islander against which the most
exa ted character is helpless.
But more specific charges have been
urged against Mr.. Carpenter charges
which affect not his personal but his
representative character Only two,
| think, have really prejudiced him in
public estimation. One is that he
su ported the "Poland gag-law''; the
other, that Le supported the salary
grab law"
The first charge rests upon an utter
misconception OF the law. 1t has no
more relation TO the freedom of the
press than has any other chapter in
the criminal code. Whoever will read
the act will sec that And | venture
to predict that no man who is a can
didate for the Senate next winter will
agree to vote for the repeal Of that
act. One who should do so would
vote to repeal the penalties against
counterfeiting, to get votes.
The other charge is more serious
and better sustained. Senator Car
penter did vote Tor an increase of SAL
aries, and the law was made retroact-
i've. think he made grave mistake.
But think it was only mistake, and
not crime. | do not believe he in
tended a wrong. He acted openly, in
the presence of people who could
punish, as he well knew, if they did
not approve his act. don't believe
he meant to DEFY them, because when
he found the people did not approve
his action, he reversed it What was
the mistake Of the act of 1878? Either
it was retroactive, or that it fixed the
salary loo high, or both. For myself,
am we'll persuaded no such law should
be retroactive. But the fact remains
that every such law had been retro
active, and, so far as / know. no pre-.
vious law had been objected to upon
that ground. It will hardly do to ex
ecute a man for an act which has the
authority of numerous presidents and
has been sanctioned by universal
| consent.
Perhaps, also, the salary was too
high. That is question upon each
side of which much has been and
much more may be said. Ineyer want
to discuss such a"question | venture
to observe it was not so much too high
that voting for it affords conclusive
evidence OF moral oblquity. The law
has long accorded to judges and cab
met officers higher salaries, and not
one OF them works so many hours in
year as a leading member of Con-
gress. think the law was mistake,