Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-07-14
General Hancock as a President Maker.

The story OF General Hanc0cks posltion
with reference TO the electoral contest in the
spring of 1877, which was told, with in
functions of secrecy, at Waterbury in April
has now gained national currency. Its
original form has been somewhat modified
| It is now explained that the letter claimed
to have been written to General Sheridan
was in fact written to General Sherman, and
that the letter was written during the con-
troversy in congress relative to the manner
of counting the electoral votes, and before
the creation of the electoral commission.
In this modified shape the story stands UNI
contradicted. General Hancock declines to
make any explanation. lie expresses the
opinion that General Grants term as presi-
dent ended at midnight of March Sd. After
that he would have paid no more atten-
ton to Grant, officially, than to the man
in the moon. The houses Of congress
alone had the power to count the electoral
vote. Anything he may have written Cen
eral Sherman or any one else concerning it
is at the disposal of the public. He is not
ashamed of his views regarding the electoral
contest, and still adheres to them. General
Sherman reminds the public, through a re-
porter, that General Hancock's official cor
respondence is on file in the war department.
His personal letters are private property
and the public have nothing to do with
them. General w. +. Smith maintains
that the story is strictly true, and that it
was told by him when they were talking
among themselves at the Waterbury meet
ing, but that he had not the slightest idea or
wish that it would be published. Thus
stands this "bit of secret history" at pres
ent. In its modified form it is somewhat
less damaging to General Hancock than as
originally published, but it changes his
offense in degree only, not in kind. As the
matter now stands, General Hancock ap
pears in the character of a military officer
of the government who assumed to decide
that Mr.. Tilden had been elected president
that congress, and not the vice-presdent, had
the power to count the electoral vote and de-
clare the result; and that, no matter what
sanction of precedent or of judicial decisions
might be given in support of the vice
presidents claim of his power to count the
votes and declare the result, as had been
done at every prior election of president,
if Mr.. Tilden took the oath of office, and if
he should receive any orders from Mr.. Tilden
as president of the United States after mid
night of March Sd, he should obey them. If
this tale is true, General Hancock seems to
have assumed a position in 1877 somewhat
analogous to that upon which southern army
officers acted when their states seeded in
lS61-the exaltation of his right to act in
accordance with his individual convictions
over his allegiance to the general govern
ment and his duty to obey orders coming to
him from his superiors through the regular
channel. Such a course has come to be
characterized by an opprobrious term, and
as long as this story is uncontradicted Cen
eral Hancock must lie under the imputation
not only of electing to pursue course which
has become infamous by its association with
Mexican revolutions, but also one which de-
stroys all the high-sounding claims to the
championship of the civil over the military
law which have been so ostentatiously made
in his behalf, and which have formed the
basis of pretentious claims to high qualities
of craftsmanship. He seems to have been
ready to violate both civil and military law
to have decided for himself, in opposition
to the civil authorities, who was elected
president, and to have told his superior
officer that if the man he deemed elected
should take the oath of office, he should dis
regard all orders from his military superiors.
In the light of this bit of secret history"
and the frequent assertions that "a Demo-
cratic congress will count the vote in this
election" and that their candidate, if elected,
"will take his seat" the nomination of a
soldier of such revolutionary tendencies as
General Hancock is painfully significant
If General Hancock's position is correctly
represented, the American people will so sum-
marily discard him as to COW into submits
sion these conspirators that work in secret