The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-09-15
THE SCHOLAR IN POLITICS.

The failure to nominate Andrew ID.
White as the Republican standard bearer
in New York, will be the signal to the
Mugwumps to denounce the rejection of
the scholar in politics. There is deal of
nonsense uttered concerning the scholar
in politics. If the scholar have the
statesmanlike grip and quality he is de-
sirabe leader in politics, but the important
thing in politics is not that the leader
a practical statesman. He is none the
worse for being a scholar if his scholar
ship does not swallow up his statesman
ship SO completely that he becomes hyper
critical pessimist or sentimentalist in
politics rather than an inspiring
teacher and organizing, executive force.
There is no lack of example in
both American and European poll
tics of men who have been sound
scholars but very cheap statesmen; of men
who have, with small scholarship,
achieved the highest rank in statesman
ship, and of men who, like Gladstone,
have been sound scholars as well as Illus
trious statesmen. With the exception of
John Quincy Adams, none of our Presi-
dents were men of notable scholarship;
Garfield was clothed with it by the clergy
fter death, but his literary style reveals
at once that his scholarship was of the
most superficial academical sort.
None of our Vice Presidents were men
of severe scholastic training Or superior
scholarly requirements beyond what falls
to a college graduate of respectable rank
in his studies. OF our cabinet Off
GERS since Wsshington's day the
only men of whom it could be
said that they were scholars before they
entered politics, were Edward Everett and
George Bancroft, and of our Supreme
Court judges Judge Story was the only
man of conspicuous general scholarship.
OF the Speakers of the House Robert c.
Winthrop was the only man of scholarly
distinction and superiority. In Congress
Charles Sumner and Rufus Choate were
conspicuousiy scholars before they touched
politics. The list is not very long one.
Among men who were conspicuouslv emf
ncnt for anything rather than high gem
titi sttloltEsiilp WIZ w / AtriCk
Henry, Jackson, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant.
Clay. Wade. CoIfax, Banks, Wilson and
Randall Our largest number of able
statesmen have belonged To the class
of men who might be called per-
sons Of vast native intelligence
and solid general requirements rather
than very severe or profound scholarship.
TO this class belonged Jefferson, Franklin.
John Adams, Fisher Ames. Hamilton.
Jay, Gouverneur Morris, Madison, Rufus
King, Webster, Calhoun. De Witt Clinton.
Van Buren,, Seward. Chase. Corwin.
Ewing, Marcy, Silas Wright. Tilden, Thad
Stevens, Morton, Conkling. Andrew.
Blaine, Fessenden, Hamilton Fish and
John Sherman.
Men in whom scholarly tastes are de-
veloped have made excellent figures in
our politics. but men who have stepped
into politics from the life of a library and
the training and atmosphere of pro-
fesSorship do not rise very fast or very far
in politics; not for lack Of brains. but be-
cause their life pursuits have tended to
make them critics and doctrinaires
rather than sympathetic statesmen: they
know men and things not by sight and