Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1875-06-17
Harper's Weekly.
The Presidents Letter.

ways feel for the man who has render.
ed it services so illustrious. The chief
regret which accompanis it is that il
was not written BEFORE for that it is
written all shows that some statement
was felt to be necessary. Had it been
written earlier, the implied censure OF
such resolution as that of the Penn.
sylvania Convention would have been
avoided, and the doubt which has been
so serious an iujury to the party would
have been dispelled. The President
explains his long silence by saying that
he thought it beneath his dignity to
define his position in answer to a hos.
tile summons, but that the Pennsylva-
mia Convention having considered the
question, he deems it not improper to
speak. But if the action of an author
itative and representative body was all
that was needed to persuade him to
speak, the New Hampshire Conven-
ton last January made as emphatic a
declaration as that of Pennsylvania in
May, and the Convention ofSouth Car
olina considered the question last au-
tumn.
The real reason of his silence, wheth-
er he was conscious of it or not, is
probably found in the sentence of his
letter in which he says, 81 have been
or,r;oad tbof co roonu copSibIa ,>or.one
in the Republican party should permit
their enemy to force upon them and
and their party an issue which cannot
add strength to the party, no matter
how met" He was silent because it
was, in lis opinion, the demand of the
enemy, and he did not choose to speak
at their summons. The feeling was ma
tural but not wise, because in politics
it is essential to deal with facts, and the
fact was that the party was seriously
injured by the Presidents silence, and
was at last compelled to speak when
speech necessarily seemed to reflect
upon him. To say that no Republican
ought to have been disturbed by the
Presidents silence, and that everybo-
dy should have taken it for granted
that he was indisposed to re-nomina-
tion, is merely to say that everybody
should have disregarded the most sig
nificant signs, and have totally miscon-
ccived the power Of patronage. The
feeling which the President reproves
produced the action of the Pennsylva-
MIA Convention, and that, in turn, oc-
casioned his letter. But if the feeling
had not existed, if the Convention mad
been silent and the letter had been un-
written, the future of the party would
have been very much darker than it is.
In concluding his letter the President
says that he is not and never has been
a candidate for denomination, and that
he would not accept it if it were Offer
ed him, except under circumstances
which would make it an imperative
duty, but which, he says, are not likely
to arise. He thus virtually withdraws
his name from further consideration,
and in a manner which will commend
him anew to the regard of his country
men. The attempt to represent his
letter as inconclusive or unwilling is
hopeless. There is nothing more alb
surd than the portrayal of Gen. Grant
as dark, designing man, nourishing a
deadly ambition, and resolved to over
throw our liberties. Nothing is more
conspicuous in him than his simple pa
triotism. He is honestly faithful to his
sense of official duty; and however we
may have differed as to the wisdom of
any course he has pursued, or however
freely we may have criticised his con-
duct, we have pever felt or ihtimated
the least distrust of his honest and pa
triotic purpose. There can be no doubt
of the entire sincerity of his remark in
this letter; "The idea that any man
could elect himself President, or even
renominate himself, is preposterous. 1t
is reflection upon the intelligence and
patriotism of the people to suppose
such thing possible. Any man can
destroy his chances for the Office, but
no one can force an election, nor even
a nomination" We think that in this
remark he fails to appreciate the enor-
nous and insiduous power of patron
age and of machine politics. but we
certainly do not suppose that it is the
mask Of any foul purpose of coercing
the popular will.
The treatment of the letter by the
Democratic and opposition press is ma
tural and very explicable. Their chief
capital has been denunciation of what
they call Grantism, the Identification
Of the party with the personal fortunes
and ambition of the President. By
one stroke of his pen he now confounds
this assumption, and while he puts an
end to Grantism, commends Grant to
higher favor. This is very great SER
vice, for it presents to the country the
simple issue, without any reservations,
between the spirit, tendency, and prob
abilities of kepublran or Democratic
ascendancy. We shall hear much, of
course,of Grants Presidential favorites,
and Grants candidates, and of the con-
tinuance of the Grant policy; that this
candidate is Grant under another name,
and that that is Grants worst adviser.
Indeed, Gen. Grant having withdrawn
himself honestly from the canvass, we
shall still be told that we cannot es-
cape him, and that despite himself and
despite the Republican party, he is
still the party, and the party is him.
While this folly continues no Repub-