The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-24

|
convey the impression that it was an inco-
herent outpouring of personal egotism and OF
vituperaton against President Grant, whereas
it was, in fact, strong, pertinent argument,
too difuse, no doubt but bearing as closely
on the question as any speech that has been
delivered in this debate, and great deal more
so than most of them. We can recall no
topic or line of illustration which was not
strictly relevant, except the improperly of
receiving gifts by public officers. All his
other points came in naturally, and several OF
them had not been made before in the course
of the discussion. The party journals COM
plain that so much of the speech is devoted
to criticism Ct the President. We wish the
cavaliers would tell us why this was out of place
when the very question before the Senate was
the proposed passage of resolution indoors
ing the Presidents course in Louisiana. This
| question has but two sides-whether The
! President shall be Endorsed shall not be
indorsed; and the discussion necessarily in
wolves eulogy, or, at least, apology. by the adj
vocates of the resolution, and condemnation
| of the course of the President by its oppo-
nents The conduct of the President was the
very subject under debate, and it is prepos-
ferrous to complain of Senator Johnson for
combining his remarks to The question. And
yet he is criticised in tone as if he had wan
dered from the business before the Senate and
launched forth into irrelevant invectives
against the President on en- occasion to which
they were not related.
Neither is it true that the speech is made up
of violent invective and personal abuse. On
the contrary although Mr.. Johnson's language
is explicit, it was strictly parliamentary and
decorous. The most devoted supporter
of President Grant on the floor, il he
had kept watch for that purpose, could
not have found an occasion for calling
Mr. Johnson to order. He was vigorous and
earnest, for that is part of his character;
but his hard hitting did not consist in vulgar
language and coarse epithets, but in the force
Of his we'll aimed arguments 1t is unjust
and absurd to represent this as low, ill-toned
speech. Its language bears, indeed, no marks
Of careful preparation and has something Of the
crudeness incident to extemporaneous speak
ing, and, being transmitted at once by tele-
graph without revision, fairness requires that
it should be judged by the force and per-
tlnence of its reasoning since its language,
however unscholarly, nowhere offends against
parliamentary propriety.
Another partisan animadversion on this
really good speech is its alleged egotistical
recitals of parts Of Mr.. Johnson's personal
and official history. This charge has de-
ceptive color of plausibility, but no substan-
tial foundation. 1t is true that Mr.. Johnson
supports his argument by two references to
his own administration, but we should pity
the intellect of any man who would venture to
say that they are not pertinent to the question
before the Senate They are, in truth, the
most pertinent illustrations that could have
been selected by any speaker. Where else,
indeed, can General Grant look Tor prece-
dents in this class of difficulties but in the
administration of his immediate predecessor?
The reconstruction question and the collat-
eral questions connected with it first came
into the foreground of our politics in the
beginning of President Johnsons admins
tration. When President Grant was elevated
to the head of the government there was no
have recourse for guidance in dealing with
the Southern States, because Johnson was the
first Chief Magistrate called to deal response
bly, with this kind of difficulties. If Mr.
Johnson buttressed his argument with prece-
dents at all he was compelled to take them
from his own administration, the only part of
our history where they could be found. The
was reason for their introduction, if they
tended to throw light on the question. They
are really the most valuable contribution
which has been made in this debate to
discussion which is so stale in
most of its aspects. The reason why
other speakers have not referred to them
is obvious. They make against the republi-
can side, and the democratic debaters avoided
them from an unmanly fear that citing An
drew Johnson as an authority would in some
way commit them to his unpopular admins
tration. 1t was, therefore, entirely proper for
Mr.. Johnson to call attention to them him
self if they really elucidate the subject and
charge of egotism on this account is a shallow
fippancy unworthy of serious journalism.
The two cases which Mr.. Johnson cites
from his own administration are truly in
structive. The Tennessee case. in 1866,
bears a close resemblance to the Louisiana
case at the beginning of this year. General
Thomas-then in command at Nashville
applied to General Grant at Washington for
military assistance 20 enable the Union men
of Tennessee to organize the State Legisla-
ture The despatch came through the War
Department to the President, and Mr.. John
son directed instructions to be sent to Gen
eral Thomas forbidding him to interfere.
1.-The administration of the laws" he tele-
praphed, ''and the preservation of the