Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-10-23
GRANT AND JOHNSON.

The statement of Mr.. Chauncey nj.
Depew concerning the relations of Gen
eral Grant and President johnson, and
how johnson at first wanted to hang all
who had been in arms against the Union
and how Grant was against it, has sue
ceeded in creating furore. Mr.. Depew's
statement is vouched for by some, and by
some it is denied and doubted. AS has
been suggested by some newspapers, why
was not all of this brought out at the time
of the impeachment of Johnson?
Colonel Fred Grant essays to give an
explanation of this matter, and his ex-
PLANTATION is about as clear as mud. A
special to the Tribune says:
1t had been asked, he said, by the Herald,
why this action of General Grant had not
been brought up at the Impeachment trial?
He said he knew of no reason definitely, but
he did know that the General was very much
opposed to the impeachment proceedings,
and that his father had told him that one
great difficulty that occupied the minds of
the thoughtful men at that time, was as to
who was to take Johnson's place, if he were
impeached.
The worry of thoughtful men as to who
would take Johnson's place if he were
impeached is rich, in fact altogether too
rich for most men. At the time the at
tempt was made to impeach Johnson the
great majority of the party in power were
never very much troubled as to who
should succeed a man whom they desired
to remove. Why did not the thoughtful
men think of this before the attempt to
impeach Johnson was made?
Colonel Grant further said:
He knew of no documents in existence
that were absolutely eorroborative of the
facts of the conversation that Depew had
there were some public men yet living, who
were contemporaneous with the period re-
ferred to, and who were made acquainted
privately with the action of johnson.
1t is strange that only yesterday Col.
Grant did not know of any documents
in existence that were absolutely corrob-
orative of the facts of the conversation
that Depew had with his father" when
only last Tuesday he wrote Mr.. Depew as
follows:
My DEAR Mr.. DEpEw: am in receipt of
your letter and thank you for your response
to my request. have read your account
with great interest. It is substantially cor
rect, and have been able to verify the facts
from documents, letters and personal recol-
lectlOnS. Very truly yoI1rS
F. D. GRANT.
In this letter he plainly and without
hesitation says: ''I have been able to
verify the facts from documents, letters
and personal recollections. These &C
counts don't agree, and it will be very
hard task to make them do SO. The man
who knows all about it now is said to be
General Sherman, and he declines to
answer" In his Memoirs he was out
spoken enough, and he did not mince his
words about men or matters. ALI will
readily recall his words about Joe Hooker
and Lookout Mountain. Whether the
force of public clamor will succeed in
making General Sherman speak, time
alone can tell. Had he the volubility of
his brother John!
But the end of this controversy about
Grant and johnson is not yet. The
Louisville Coarier-Journal will publish
General Grants testimony before the
House Judiciary Committee on July Z,
1867, and then the public may judge
whether or not Johnson was such a
traitor and scoundrel as Mr.. Depew
paints him in relating his conversation
with General Grant. In his testimony
before the. House Committee General
Grant no doubt told all he knew. General
Grants frame and greatness cannot be
added to by trying to belittle President
Johnson.