Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-06-01
GARFIELD AND GRANT.
General Grant.always had very pecul

soldiers, whom it was his duty to protect
in spirit of comradeship, even when they
were misbehaving themselves. His famous
remark about standing by them when they
were "under fire" was a revelation of his
utter want of appreciation OF the functions
and duties of civil magistrate. Since he
went out of Office he has naturally followed
the same line of thought and action, and
his friends have done their best to exag-
gerate his singular doctrines. Grantism
has developed a quasi-military terminology
of its own. Its supporters call themselves
'stalwarts." At Chicago they gloried In
the fixity and persistence of their organiza-
ton and discipline. They called them
selves proudly "the Grant column" They
represer ted themselves as resisting repeated
assaults from the enemy. They strove in
every way to impart martial and there
fore wholly anomalous and inappropriate
aspect to the situation. And when Grant
was beaten, his principal followers, who OF
course were spoken of as his "lieatenants,"
withdrew in naughty and resentful sullen-
ness and it became a question whether
they would take any part in the subse.
quent campaign. Eventually they con-
scented to do so, but throughout they acted
far more as though they were military
leaders commanding independent forces
than as members of homogeneous politi-
cal organization.
Even when they consented to enter the
field, however, they evidently held that
they were laying General Garfield under
special obligations. They were in fact to
be rewarded for doing their duty. Their
leader was somehow not as other poll
ticians, but was to be treated as possible
General Monk, or Cromwell, or Bona
parte. And after the election of General
Garfield it now seems that General Grant
supposed him to be only put in the White
House as sort of warning pan. The
astonishing letter which General Grant has
been imprudent enough to publish shows to
what an extent this feeling was carried.
The public are there made to realize that
Grant thought Garfield to be little more
than deputy to him that he held him.
self entitled to ask for all kinds of offices
for his friends; that the services he and
his 1906 had rendered in the campaign
were to be repaid at the discretion of these
mercenaries, in short. As the New York
| Tribune observes: General Grant, in
"the closing paragraph of his letter, says
unblushingly that he not only expected
"his personal friends to be kept in office,
"but he thought one of them ought to be
supported at the Governments expense
''until he could finish a life of General
"Grant upon which he was engaged The
''whole tenor of the letter is that General
"Grant and his friends and supporters
"have mortgage upon the Government
&c for support and comfort as long as they
"ive." There is no possibility of escap.
ing the many direct evidences of this con.
dition OF mind on the part of the GRANTEES.
The same peculiar ideas crop out in
Conkling's recent course, and in Grants
attitude towards Conkling. He has from
the beginning shown himself precisely the
kind of resentment which would be natural
if Conkling was one of his military sub
ordinates, and if some unauthorized person
had proceeded to countermand his orders
to this lieutenant. Conkling himself has
acted as though he too had an inalienable
right to the disposal of all the New York
Offices, and when this was refused him he
has, as it were, flung up his commission.
4 In short it has been made apparent that
General Garfield could not have met the
views and demands Of this psuedo- military
faction without surrendering his constitu-
tional rights and violating his constitutional
duties. He could not yield to Grant and
Conkling and their supporters without be-
traYing the American people. He found
no room in the constitutional theory of
government for any such functions as Cen
/ SIIl vi hlL anu LIS lIlSIlUS SSSDlSU W NlIO-
gate to themselves. It was absolutely
necessary that they should be made to un-
derstand that they possessed no arbitrary
claims upon the Government, and that they
could not be allowed to dictate to it.
General Grant has made grave blunder
in throwing himself as he has done into
this quarrel. He has given emphasis to a
suspicion long latent in the minds of
thoughtful observers, to the effect that he
cares very little about constitutional doc.
trines, but very much about having his own
way. The extent to which his ideas have
communicated themselves to his friends,
and the extent to which these friends have
already sought to change the character Of
American politics by the infusion of the
military principle, may well serve as
warning to the country For all this shows
how easy it is to form a party which could
by very gradual process drift entirely out
of constitutional limits, if once the idea of
granting special privileges to any citizen of
the republic is sanctioned OF permitted.
General Garfield is now striving for far
more than appears on the surface. He
is striving for the rehabilitation of the
purely civil theory of government. To
succeed in this he must force the "s.al-
warts " to abandon their military and au-
tocratic tendencies. He must make them
understand that they are no more than any
other citizen before the law. He must
break down the system of Satrapies,
which made such alarming progress under
General Grant. He must put the
bosses under the heel of constitutional
authority, and teach venal politicians
that there is after all no prosperity to be
found in Grantism and all that the term
implies. This is formidable task, but
the President ought to have the full SYM
pathy and support of the people in under
taking it.
GREEK AND OTHER BRIGANDAGE
Some English journals have recently
been investigating the subject OF Greek