The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1895-10-24

Arthur. Harrison ana Otner kepuDllcan
leaders are spoken Of with unstinted praise
for their high personal worth or states
nanship, but each is in guarded and
covert language shown in the less COM
mendable light of scheming politicians.
The criticism is almost invariably implied
rather than direct. but it stands out clear
ly in the work as whole.
Owing to the expectation that the work
would be in a measure sensational and the
anxiety felt in diplomatic circles over its
forthcoming. frequent effort has been made
to gain information regarding its contents
but the Associated Press is enabled to-day
to present for the first time resume Of
Mr.. sherman's autobiography. AS antfci-
pated. the feature Of the book is Its ex-
t1eme frankness. The style in which Mr..
Sherman has expressed himself shows the
statesman rather than the professional
boOkmaker.
The work is marked by clear-cut SEN
fences and blunt expressions of opinion,
and but little attempt at literary grace Is
ms de. The book is very evidently INTENDED
by the author as exposition Of the
financial policy of the Republican party,
which to a great extent is his own, and
about the extensive and elaborate history
Of American finances are woven anecdote
and personal "reminiscences. replete with
interest to every student of politics.
Garfield's Nomination.
Owing to the close association of Mr..
Sherman and James A. Garfield. the criti-
clsm Of the nomination Of the latter for
president of the United States Is perhaps
one of the most striking features of the
book. The author, while carefully avoid
Ing a direct charge Of treachery on the
part of the ex-president, very significantly
makes it plain that Mr.. Garfield was NOM
mated at a convention to which he had
gone as the trusted leader of the Sherman
forces. After showing by the publica ton
Of private letters. covering a period Of
years Of close political and personal asso-
citation, that Mr.. Garfield was in reality his
political protege, Mr.. Sherman gives In de-
tail the history of the national convention
of 1880. Following the account Of his own
struggle for the nomination. he says:
In time I became thoroughly advised of what
occurred at the Chicago convention and had he
Frequently afterwards / heard Incidents and de-
tails which occasioncl me great pain. and which
seemed to establish the want OF sincerity on the
that for some time before the, meeting of the
convention the nomination Of Gen. Garfield had
The sting felt by Garfed's detection in 1880 is
inadvsrtenly , shown ny sentiment expressed dur.
1892, where the senator remarks:
From later Developments became satisfied that
Harrison could not be elected; that Platt and Il
nominated. I therefore preferred the nomination
sf new m IT. such as William Mckinley but he
to my code Of honor. could net accept nomina.
ton eTen if rendered him.
Blaine and Sherman,
When it was remembered that Blaine was
also a candidate for the presidency before
the convention that nominated Garfield. the
significance Of the following explanation on
the part of Senator Sherman of why he
was not reappointed by President Garfield
as secretary Of the treasury is readily I'M
derstood:
In the latter part Of November, 1880, Gen. Car.
geld came to Washington and called upon Mr..
Blaine. who it WIS understood, was to be secre.
tarE or state Garfield came to my house directly
from Hlanc's and informed that he had ten
dered that office. to Blaine and that it was &C.
ceptcd. He, said that Blaine thought it would
not be polite to continue me as secretary Of the
treasury as 1T would be regarded as an unfriendly
met T promptly replied that I agreed with the
opinion Of Blaine, and was candidate for the
senate.
Again the author revcrts to the Chicago
convention in discussing the character OF
President Garfield. OF his personality and
eloquence he speaks in the highest terms
His will power. he says was not up to his
personal magnetism. He adds that his
opinion changed easily. In this connection
re says: "Whcn proposed to him to be 6
delegate at large to the Chicago conven
ton he no doubt meant in good faith tt
support my nomination."
Charges Corruption
Something Of the political scheming tina
again resulted in the defeat of the Ohio
statesman In the national convention y
1883 and brought about the nomination o
ex-President Harrison, can easily be reat
between the lines In that part Of the worl
devoted to this struggle In discussing tn,
result. Mr.. Sherman says that he becam,
satisfied that one delegate from New Yorl
controlled the entire delegation from tina
state. and between Saturday night, whei
the nomination seemed certain to 20 II
Sherman, and Monday morning, when tn
tide turned in favor Of Harrison, a corrup
bargain was made in the interests of tn
latter which secured him the support O
New York and gave him the nomina ton
Continuing, the author states in fairncs
to the ex-president: 'It is to the credi
of Gen. Harrison to say that If the repute,
bargain was made 1t was without his con
sent Mt the time"
On the eve Of another national campaign
In which cx-President Harrison is expecte
to figure prominently, Mr.. Sherman doe
not hesitate to state: that in 1892 he iii
rot consider Harrison strong candidate. #
Ills cold and abrupt manner he attributes his III
lo''nnrlty ut that time.
SrHce is dcroted by the author to Gccoun
&c Two important events Of each a1Ip nstTatior
In this connection Mr.. Sherman lays bare man
re omh't:ons that disturb the harmony OF tn
rarity In power OF Grants administration h
says 1t period of
Scandal and SANDER.
Perhaps the severest criticism OF Gen. Grant
craftsmanship is found in the following extrat
from Mr.. Sherman's work: ''During the entir