Omaha daily bee., 1888-04-27
Unnecessary Epiory.

thhCCTuFANJ h1ohVNgs
Senator Voorhees,, OF Indiana, occu-
pied the time Of the senate on Wednes-
day with eulogium of Mcclellan and
Hancock. The presidents tariff mes
sage was TO have been the subject of
the senator's remarks, but the day of
the stump speech is approaching, and
the senate chamber has recently af-
forded several examples of that style of
oratory, about equally divided between
the two parties. On the occasion IN
question Mr.. Voorhees, appears to have
devoted just enough attention to the
tariff TO enable him TO find title for
the speech, and to have then gone into
defense of the democratic party as the
friend of the soldier, proceeding thence
by easy course to defense of the mem-
ories of Mcclellan and Hancock. The
excuse for this was the alleged attack
upon the loyalty and patriotism OF these
distinguished soldiers by Senator In
gals, in q speech he made in the senate
some time ago.
1t would be waste of time to enter
upon extended argument by way of re-
futing the claim Of the Indiana senator
that the democratic party has been more
generous toward the soldiers OF the
union than has the republican party.
Such claim is so palpably and brazenly
absurd as to refute itself. Democratic
votes have certainly been recorded in
favor of pensions to union soldiers, and
there are few exceptional instances of
4 -, -. Al ....4 a.
evident sincerity in behalf
of pensions. But the world
knows that as a party the democracy has
never heartily favored the pension pol
icy as advocated and developed by the
republicans, and that every important
piece Of pension legislation which has
been enacted originated with republi-
cans. The record on this is so clear
that it is surprising a democratic sena-
tor of the character of Mr.. Voorhees,
would publicly set up a claim that i'm
piled anything different.
The really vital matter, however, in
the speech of the Indiana senator, as it
is to be presumed he regarded it, is his
defense OF the memories of Mcclellan
and Hancock. He had evidently de-
voted a great deal of care to this portion
Of his remarks. 1t was historical, Wig
orous, and in parts eloquent. The best
known names among the great soldiers
of the world were referred to for pur-
poses OF comparison, and in all cases
without detriment to the American gen.
erals. Mr.. Voorhees, felt good deal of
pride'in going on record in this matter
in the best possible light, and 1t must be
said that he acquitted himself credita-
bly,. But really to what purpose? No
greater injustice could be done the dead
soldiers than to imply, as their demo-
cratic defenders are doing, that their
character as loyal and patriotic men is
in danger. There is not the slightest
reason for any such presumption. Opin-
ions differ, and always will, regarding
their relative merits as generals. The
ardent admirers of Mcclellan especially
will always find many to disagree with
their estimate of his ability. Still
fewer question the pre- eminent
qualifications of Hancock as a COM
mander. But nobody whose opinion is
worthy Of consideration entertains the
smallest doubt that they were entirely
loyal and sincerely patriotic soldiers.
History has made up their record, and
it will stand for all time to attest their
character as able and gallant defenders
of the union.
We do not believe that record will
gain in value by any supplements that
may be made to it by democrats like
Mr.. Voorhees, and Mr.. Blackburn, and
their defense of the characters of Nc
Clellan and Hancock is not only unnet-
essary, because they are entirely safe,
but it is an indiscretion which no con-
sideration of possible political advan-
tage-the only conceivable motive
can justify.