Litchfield enquirer., 1880-03-18
Grant vs. Napoleon. "

eiAos 0iaut ever uaO unQeF nlS command lar ger military force than Napoleon. In 1872, says Allison, the Emperor took about $50 900 men into Russia. There were at the same time, about 3O0,000 men under arms in his forces in Spain. Add to these the French troops in garrison throughout tbe immense territory then controlled by Napoleon, and the | total must greatly exceed the number of Fed eral soldiers ever at one time commanded by Grant, When we compare the forces con- manded by these generals in single battles, the advantage is still with Napoleon. With | out mentioning the fearful battles fought by the Grand Army in its advance on Moscow, we need only to refer refer to Wagram, where Napoleon's force amounted to 160, 900 men, | and to Leipsic, where it was 175, 900 strong, to prove that in no single battle did Gen. Grant command as large an army as Napoleon led in some of the larger contests of his later ca- reer.
 In mere 'bigness," therefore, Napoleon's military enterprises largely exceed any of Gen. Grants In military genius we cannot can- didly, with all our natural pride in the great est of our American commanders, pretend to compare him with Napoleon. That great soldier, everything considered, stands clearly at the head of the generals of all time. Han nibal perhaps comes nearest him, although the historical record of the great Carthaginian's military career is too imperfect to admit of just comparison.
 Grants military genius seems much nearer to that of Wellington, to whose character one sees other points of resemblance in the reti- cent daring persistent commander who took Donelson and Vicksburgh, and conquered at Chattanooga and Appomattox.
 The decision of the Supreme Court is not always conclusive of the policy of legislation, but it is at least conclusive of it's constitution ality. The Democratic House still refuse, however, to appropriate money for the carry ing out of those election laws they have so long opposed. They excuse their stubborn ness from the fact that the judges of the Su- preme Court have divided on the political line in this matter, just as they did in the electoral commissions; but no reasonable man ought to expect judges to be above politics. Most of them have been sharp politicians in their day, and they seldom prove to be more than poli- ticians when political questions come before them for decision.
 No more fragrant instance of this has eyer occurred than in the Dred Scott matter, where the judges not only showed themselves parti- sans but extreme partisans. In fact, viewed as branch of American politics, the Supreme Court is that branch of the government least liable to change, since it's members hold life tenure of office. Great political revolutions show first in the House of Representatives. Their next objective point is usually the Pres- dency. Then comes the Senate; and, last of all the Supreme Court-a body of which nothing short of long party ascendancy can obtain control. It was originally organized as d court of Federalists and SO renamed long after Jeffersonian Democracy had swept over all the other branches of the government in succession. Republicanism found it Demo- cratic with one or two ''old Whig" excep- tions. Secession abandoned it, as it abandon
 
 many years, even if they carry the next presi- dency, before Democracy can obtain control of this most conservative branch of American government.
 Election expenses average higher in Great BHtain, than even in the Fourth Congression. al District of Connecticut. We see it estimat- ed that about ten million dollars will be spent at the coming election, or an average of over $15, 900 for each of the 65S members of the British parliament. As very little is expend- ed, however, for large proportion of these seats, it seems probable, from all we can learn, that $50, 900 is about fair price for sharp election fight, in Great Britain. In this coun- try, where politicians are as rule far less wealthy than Tn England, the price of an election, even in venal congressional district like the one we inhabit is considerably lower than that of British contested seat. As wealth increases, and as the people grow more and more open to influence, no doubt such honors will reach the price they now bring in | the old country. lu the meantime what is to
 
 people" when matters have come to such pass that no man can think of running for the State Senate in close district if worth less l than $50, 900; for Congress on less that $25O,- OOO or for U s. Senatorship on less than a | millioni
 HARPER's for April contains: Music and Musicians in England (with seven illustra- l tions) Some Pennsy ylvania Nooks (ten illus. ); La Villa Real de Santa Fe (3 illus. ) An Irish Fishing Village c illus.); Shipwrecked Gllus.) Luca della Robbia aud his School Qllus.) Before the Shrine, by Louise Chandler Moulton; The Swiss Rhine (10 illus. Home Studies ln Nature 1O illus The Old Mill; White Wings: A Watching Romance, by William Black (illus.); MT. Witherton's Ro- nance; A Farewell; Early History of Bible Illustration. by w. c. Prime (15 illus. ); An Easter Card; Navy of the United States; Mary Anerly, by K D. Blsckmore Madri. gals Editorial Articles.
 Harper Bros. New York, $4 year. See Enq. Clubbing Rates. .'
 There is one circumstance that has opened the eyes, even of the souudest protectlonist editors to the necessity of tariff revision. This IS the boom" in printing paper, which has gone up 50 per cent. recently, owing to an in- genlous construction of our tariff law, and to d combination of manufacturers. The pros. pect now is that sympathetic Congress will l come to our relief. ''' l The attitude of our President and Congress is anything but favorable to MT. Lesseps' pro- ject-on the contrary, it would seem to render it an impossibility. American interests all point to the Nicaraguan route-and that is likely to be the one finally adopted. European capitalists are not likely to invest money in project which is 80 evidently unpopular in the \ iao of