The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-28
The Sumner Con trovo rsy.


Mr.. Pierce, the literary executor and biog-
rapher of the late Senator Sumner, pub
fishes long letter in vindication OF Mr.
Summers industry and veracity. We print
as much Of this letter as we can find space
for, although we are unable to see that
either the veracity or the industry of Mr.
Sumner were likely to be doubted by the
American public. Although General Grant
and Mr.. Fish have impugned his truthful
ness on one or, ut most, two occasions, the
Republic remembers that those were occa-
sions of difference resulting in bitter
personal quarrel, and everybody makes
allowance for the hasty things men
may say of each other in the heat
of passion. It is the rarest thing in the
world for people to be candid toward an ad-
versary in the excitement of o bitter contro-
versy. 1t would have been quite as well
for Mr.. Summers reputation if less notice
had been taken of General Grants plain
speaking in the Edinburgh interview. It
seems clear enough that General Grants
accusation of falsehood was not wanton
invention, and equally clear that he put
strained Interpretation on the facts which
he recited It seems to us that the simple,
manly statement of Mr.. George William
Curtis in his note to the HERALD dated
November IL is of more value than oil this
wordy controversy. Senator Summers state
ment to him, as he understood it at the
time, was certainly inconsistent with the
10 I,,k oho~ :c$, sn1 Cd
candor Mr.. Curtis thinks that he must have
misunderstood Mr.. Sumner and have re-
ceived false impression from his remarks.
It Is plain that Mr. Curtis communicated to
General Grant his own erroneous impress
sion of what Mr.. Sumner had said. Cen
eral Grant, accepting Mr.. Curtis version Of
what Mr.. Sumner had said as accurate, par
donably drew his own inference from the
inconsistency between the reported state
ment and the facts. In his note to the
HERALD Mr.. Curtis said
mentioned as evidence OF Mr. Summers peculiar
fitness the charmanship Of the Committee OF For
eign Affairs that ne had said to me that upon leaving
the committee he had lett a clean docket General
Grant replied that this untrue for tnerc were sew
treaties upon which Mr. sumner had not reported,
and he added that he would scnd me o list OF them.
Subsequently received from him the list which Mr..
Fish has recently published Was naturally sur
prised but never for did suppose that Mr.
Sumner meant 10 deceive me. My confidence In his
truthuness was not In the least disturbed Ny con-
vicon was then and 10 now that had misunderstood
what he intended 70 express by the phrase no used
This is q sufficient vindication of General
Grant from IN intention to defame the de-
ceased Senator. He had no reason to doubt
that Mr. Curtis correctly reported what Mr.
Sumner had said, and Mr.. Curtis himself
admits that the impression he received from
| Senator Sumner was inconsistent with the
facts. my impression was then, and is
| now, that had misunderstood what he in
tended to say" That misconception having
been communicated to General Grant as o
fact, and never afterward explained, we do
not see how he can be justly blamed for
| drawing his own inference.