The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-01-21

RebblnS WELL Az ulm LueSo OpleuolASo
will doubtless prove very interesting
reading.
Third Term Question.
When General Grant wrote his letter,
substantially disavowing any purpose
or desire to become candidate under
third term nomination, we took it for
granted that he meant what he said. We
little thought that The blunt soldier had
made an unconditional surrender of HIM
self to that mean and malign system Of
political diplomacy whose cardinal prin-
ciple teaches that sJGe proper use of
language is to conceal thoughts" We ac-
cordingly took occasion to congratulate
the country upon the fact that this
vexed question was finally quieted. But
we were mistaken; and the country was
deceived by the guarded language of
that letter. The third term question is
no longer mere apparition, no longer a
political "spook;" but living, substan-
tial reality; veritable entity that the
country on the 14th of next June has got
to face.
In commenting upon this matter we
wish 1t distinctly understood that the
STAR is now, as il always has been, per.
feetly independent Of party, sect, or
creed. We freely commend whatever Is
commendable in the doings Of any party;
with equal freedom we condemn what
ever we deem mischievous or wrong In
the doings OF any party. This position
of perfect independence we cultivate
and maintain as being, in our opinion,
the most useful form Of journalism, and
as altogether the most satisfactory to
ourselves. But, independence must not
be understood as implying Indifference.
On the great questions that present is
sues of momentous import to the good of
the commonwealth, we hold ourselves at
perfect liberty.to present our views with
as much precision and positiveness as
any partisan paper can claim to do; but
with this significant difference, that,
while only one side is open to them,
both siAes are open to us.
From this independent standpoint,
therefore, we have no hesitation In re-
oording our unequiyocal condemnation
,of both the principle and the policy that
underliethi moyementtor the third term
nomination of Gen. Grant. In doing
this, however, we are every far from with
holding our due. measure of admiration
pf Gen. Grants great military achieve
:ments in his country's service; and we
gladly admit that the need of grateful
approval was due him for the gallant
services he had renderedin his country's
cause. And yet, granting all this, it
does not follow that the Presidency for
the third term, nor even for any term,
was The necessary reward Tor those
services, or for any other service that he
could ever render. For we hold that no
man, for whatsoever service man could
render, can claim the Presidency OF the
United States as his reward. Even
though he become in very deed the "Sav-
iorof his country" it does not follow that
he must therefore become his country's
President.
And, admitting that the Presidency
was, under the circumstances, asproper
and suitable testimonial of the Nations
grateful approval of General Grants
services at the head of it's armies, is ii
not quite sufficient that such testimonial
has been once conferred and once re-
,peated? Where is this to stop? If the
third term, or even one term, can be
claimed asa reward, what term can be
named as the limit or measure of that
reward? Shall the estimate of the value
.of bis services stand referred to the in
.cambent himseIfr II so, may he not fix
the Presidency for life as the appropri-
ate consideration? Nay, may he not
claim it as an heirloom to descend in
his family, as reward for ancestral
services? Just such things are done in
ftudal lands, where even royal rights
are conferred as a reward for ancestral
deeds Of high renown. All this may be
called absurd. 1t is 80. And yet it is
the exact absurdity to which this false
logic leads us. The argument founded
upon the principle that the Presidency
is, to be conferred upon any man as;
'sreward OF merit'' for past services, Ii
Therefore in itself an absurdity.
Dismissing this point, then, as involy
dng an absurd conclusion. can it b.
Justly claimed that third term nomina
tion should be conferred. upon Gen
stSrant by reason Of his superior ttnes
for the eficc OF President, above al
other mcn? In view OF the adminlstra
tive history Of the country for the pas
seven years, he must indeed DO "a Dol
man VINO woiild seriously affirm this Q
Gen. Grnns. We would not assert thai
IN the Executive sfice, Ger. Grant ha