Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-07-10
GRANT AND HANCOCK.

GRANT AND HANCOCk.
| Gen. Grant has written letter to the edi
tor of the Adoance, an alleged religious
paper printed in Chicago, contradicting the
report that he would support and vote for
Gen. Hancock. The report hardly needed
contradiction, for there we're few who gave
it credence when it was first started. Gen.
Grant is too much of partisan to 60 back
on the nominees made by his own party, no
matter how Objectionable they may be, and
furthermore to support Hancock rather than
Garfield would be regarded as an evidence
of soreheadedness on his part, over his own
defeat, and Grant does not crave notoriety
of that sort.
In the letter referred to Gen. Grant goes
out of his way to state what the whole coun-
try knows to be falsehood. He asserts that
he has great admiration for Gen. Hancock as
man and soldier, and will oppose him
only because of the record % the party that
has placed him in nomination. 1t is notori-
GUS that there have been no friendly COM
munications between these gentlemen for
more than ten years past by reason of the
contemptuous manner in which Grant over
looked the claims of Hancock, as the senior
major general in the army, to consideration
in the allotment of commands. Even if the
facts were not so well known, the records of
the war department. furnish all the testimony
necessary to prove the cavalier treatment of
Hancock by his nominal superior. On the
14th of April, 1870, Gen. Sherman wrote to
Gen. Hancock at st. Paul, in response to his
application to be assigned to the. command
of the department of the Missouri, as fol-
lows: 80"
have laid your dispatch from st. Louis be-
fore the President, who authorizes me to say
that your wishes and claims for the succession
of the command of the military division of the
Pacific, made vacant by Gen. Thomas death,
were fairly considered, and also your prefer
ence for the department OF the Missouri, in case
of change in its commander, were also known
to him, but he has ordered otherwise. The
President authorizes me to say to you that it
belongs to his Office to select the commanding
generals of DIVISIONS and departments, and
that the relations you choose to assume to-
wards him officially and privately absolve him
from regarding your personal preferences.
To this Gen. Hancock responded in manly
words to this effect: a.s95
intended by my dispatch to ask for di-
vision if the existing divisions were all contin-
ued; otherwise for the department of the Mis-
souri,, if changes made it practicable-not as q
favor, but as q claim to command to which /
thought my rank entitled me.-As the Presi-
dent leads me to believe that because I have
L;
command will not be regarded, noeISithstand-
ing my rank, l shall not again open this sub
ject, but will add in conclusion that think it
is an unfortunate precedent to establish that
military rank in time OF peace, especially in
the assignment of general officers to commands
of divisions and departments, shall not have
the consideration hitherto conceded to it.
Considerable correspondence ensued
which was concluded by Gen. Hancock in
peculiarly caustic letter, but which was en-
tirely respectful. After reviewing the con-
troversy from its beginning to its close he
wrote:
I have thus stated at length the grounds of
my complaint. and have, am sure, established
that 1 have suffered degradation of rank in
the matters of which complain. am told,
as before mentioned, that the President claims
iOH LIS AOlHC6 tnC kIiSue W ~. WudU uO 1ds
done to me, That he has the arbitrary
power cannot but admit, for have felt it.;
but do not believe that the exercise of such
power is conferred by existing laws, and if it
were allowed by law, maintain that it
should never be exercised except for valid pub
lie reasons. Ifsuch reasons are supposed to ex
list, certainly have never been informed of
them; and, as am loyal to my government
and country, and have, feel quite sure, dis
charged with fidelity my duties as q soldier for
nearly generation of the service, and was only
appointed a msjor-genera1 shortly before the
difference between Gen. Grant, general of
the army, and myself originated, I cannot be-
lieve that any such valid public reasons exist
why my rank should be 80 disregarded.
In view of this correspondence it must be
regarded as decidedly out of taste for Grant
to claim friendly personal relations with
Hancock. 1t is quite probable that Hancock
does not care for either the support or the
opposition of man who treated him with
such indignity. His support would do him
no good; his opposition can do him no
harm. It would be in better taste, however,
for him to keep silence until he is asked for
an expression of opinion.