Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-23
GENERAL GRANT ON SENATORIAL coUR-
TESY.


failed to recognize the doctrine of Sena-
torial courtesy, concerning which Conkling
has had so much to say of late. General
Grant says that he did not appoint Sim
mons Collector of the Port of Boston in
opposition to the wishes of the Senator'S
from Massachusetts. He admits that one
Of the Senators, namely, Charles Sumner,
was vehemently opposed to the appoint
ment, and in regard to the other, Bout
well, he says that he neither urged nor
''opposed the appointment. The General
adds "If Boutwell, had at any time asked
sine to Withdraw the nomination of Sim
mons, | would have acceded to his re.
"quest." Now it is certain that if Bout
well did not oppose the appointment OF
Simmons conformity with Sumner, the
country was thoroughly deceived on that
point. 1t is further certain-and this fact is
scarcely capable of being harmonized with
General Grants present statement-th that
the Committee on Commerce, of which
Boutwell, was Chairman, reported against
the nomination Of Simmons. This would
seem to be sufficient evidence of Bout
wells position on the question, but it ap-
pears he did not formally ask President
Grant not to appoint Simmons, and that
therefore, though officially he was CON-
mitted against the appointment, the Presi-
dent did not regard him as being hostile
to it. This must be what General Grant
means, il he means anything, and it is I'M
fortunately impossible to accept it as
vindication of his position on the question
of Senatorial courtesy.
The history of the Simmons case is too
recent to have been forgotten. Simmons
was brought forward by Ben Butler, who
was then laying the ropes for his guberna-
torial canvass. He thought that the Fed
eral patronage would be valuable aid to
him, and so he undertook to put Simmons,
who was one of his henchmen, into the
Collectorship. The appointment was no.
toriously and almost universally distasteful
to the people of Boston. Every Massa-
chusetts Congressman, save Butler him.
self, was opposed to it. Sumner fought
it resolutely from the first. Boutwell,, as
Chairman of the Senate COMMITTEES on Com
merce, reported against it. Petitions from
all parts of the State were received pro-
testing against it. The Boston Chamber
Of Commerce held meeting and denounced
it. But despite this formidable and re-
spectacle opposition President Grant made
the appointment. He says now that Sum-
ner had "put himself outside the pale of
Senatorial courtesy" by his abuse of the
Administration. The fact is that Sumner
was not capable of mixing with the
base crowd of sycophants, timeservers
and ofiice-hunters that surrounded and
controlled the Administration. The fact
that Butler had the ear Of the President
was Of itself a sufficient explanation of
the ostracism of Sumner. The latter
could not accept the Presidents San Do
mingo scheme, and hence he was put "out- |
side the pale" But if ever there was
case in which an Administration ignored |
" Senatorial courtesy" this was one.
1t must be remembered, further, that in
this case Senatorial courtesy was ignored
in order to put in office man whose unfit
ness was alleged by almost all who knew
him, whereas, in the case of Robertson, no
claim of his unftness has ever been made
But this is not the only interesting point
il the analogy. At the time of the SIM
mons appointment Mr.. Conkling was ore
of the pillars Of the Administration He
was fully aware of the deep hostility CT
Sumner to the appointment, yet he then
thought SO little about Senatorial courte, v
that he helped Butler to force through the |
obnoxious appointment, and, as nobody
doubted then, for the express purpose of
humiliating and insulting the Massachu- |
sits Senator. This is very opposite IL
lustration of the truth that circumstance |
alter cases, but it would be mistake 10
suPpoSS t4as VIC ohaiVSJ WAS AltIS Tx Ii
superficial. Mr.. Conkling at that time ex-
erted himself to help an unfit man to
Office, and in open defiance of the wishes
OF the Senators from the State concerned
In the present case he has exerted himself
to oppose the appointment of man whose
fitness has been universally Acknowledged,
and against whom he had nothing but
personal prejudice to sllege. 1t will be
perceived, therefore, that Mr.. Conkling
was equally wrong in both cases, and
equally inconsistent.
General Grants attempt to vindicate his
own consistency in the Simmons case is
not success. Though using a wide lati- |
tude of expression in recounting the his
tory of the case, he certainly fails to show
that the Massachusetts Senators, or either |
of them, favored the appointment. He is
on the other hand obliged to admit that
there was a strong movement against it, |
aud that eventually he was compelled to |
yield TO the popular sentiment, and remove |
Simmons. But the fact that he did this !
at the request of Dawes and lIoar does not
af c the other fact that he made the APP
pointment in the teeth OF the opposition of
Sumner AID Boutwell, and all the Massa-
chusstts Congressional delegation except
ing Butler. The Simmons case was one of |
the scandals of General Grants admins
tration, and it is a curious proof of his
stolid Indifference to public opinion that
he should now think it becoming to come
forward and attempt to justify it. 1t was
moreover in all respects so different case
from that of Robertson that the only ef- |
feet of recalling it can be to demonstrate
the contrast between the administration of
General Grant which well nigh destroyed !
the Republican party, and the more de-
cent methods at present pursued by Presi-