Year: 1879




| --r3-j


1t is announced from Washington thai


a bill has been drawn to be introduced


in Congress as soon as that body con


venes, creating the Office of captain


general of the army" and giving it tc


Gen. Grant for life. It is proposed tc


fix the salary at $4,000 per annum. I,


is stated that the Democrats as we'll as


the Republicans are in favor of passing
the bill, and that it will go through by a
bipartisan vote. This matter has been
under consideration for some time, bu,
we could hardly believe that it was. any.
thing more than joke, or rumor orig.


mating with the gossip mongers at the
capitol. It seems, however, to be well
matured plan, and will probably be put
through Congress under suspension OF
the rules very early in the session; at
least it appears that the effort will be
made. We regard this as one of the
most villainous propositions brought be-
fore Congress since the organization of
this government. 1t is contrary to every
principle of justice and good govern
ment; and, if it becomes law, will fur
nish good ground for the most serious
apprehension lest the worst predictions
made about free institutions by the lov-
ers of royalty will prove true. 1t is not
proposed to create this new Office for the
public good, nor to increase the eft1cien-
cy of the military service, but the design
is to give Gen. Grant a sinecure worth
$4,000 year, to be paid out of the ma
tional treasury. The nature of the prop
osition savors Of old world royalty, and
comedies principle never before admit
ted on the soil of the United States. The
creation of an expensive Office, of little
or no utility or use, for the special bene-
fit of one man, no matter how deserving
that man may be, is no less reprehensi-
bic when done by Congress than if done
by the legislature of State. Such a
proposition in legislature would he de-
nounced as pernicious in the extreme.


Gen. Grants past military services do
not require any such recognition. In a
recent speech of John Hay, at soldiers
and sailors reunion, the following very
sound sentiments were expressed:


"Like thousands of others, I went where
was sent, and did what I was ordered, with
out gaining any fame or glory, without un-
dergoing any especial privation, -and without
establishing any claim upon the consideration
or gratitude Of my fellow citizens; ard when
was mustered out of the army I regarded
the nation as acquitted of any debt toward
me henceforth and forever. In fact the bal
ance was largely on the other side. Now, the
case Of those who suffered wounds and priva-
tions in the service is, of course wholly differ
ent. Before the men who have lost limbs IN
the battle field, who carry rebel lead in their
bodies, whose health has been broken in rebel
prisons, take off my hat and bow my head.
The nation can never do too much for those
men who have done and suffered so much for
u.s."


Mr.. Hays view is correct. The men
who served during the war, but who
made no sacrifices, endured no priva-
tions, and suffered no loss, certainly can
not have nearly as great claim upon
the gratitude of the country as those who
did endure these things. No one denies
the eminent military services of Gen.
Grant, but he is one of the men upon
whom the events of the war conferred
with unsparing hand personal honors
and private fortune, without requiring
any sacrifice to be made; in fact he is by
far the most conspicuous example. At
the beginning of the war Grant was poor
and obscure, and his efforts in the race
of life, if measured by the wealth and
honors that he then enjoyed, had not
been successful. He had, up to that
time, been more conspicuous for his fail
ures than for his successes; and he has
been amply rewarded for the military
services that he afterwards rendered. :.


History furnishes very few examples
where men have gained more by the vi
cissitudes of war. The war of the rebel
lion found Grant far down toward the
bottom notch of obscurity and poverty
and it placed him high up on the pima
Gle of fame, and very materially i'm
proved his condition as to material pos
sessions. Upon what ground, then, the
people owe him $4,000 year for life,
or any other sum, is more than we can
conceive. But it is not question of
money; itisa question of principle. The
government can pay him the salary pro-
posed without embarrassing the national
finances, but the people can not afford to
thus place the seal of approval on a prin-
ciple the only congenial home of which
is in monarchical governments. This
hero worship that lies at the bottom of
the extraordinary attention paid to Gen.
Grant, and which now seeks to uncon-
stitutionally create title of nobility for
him, with $4,000 year thrown in, is
dangerous to free institutions at the best,
and a thousand fold more SO when it re-
ceives the endorsement of Congress and
is placed in the statute book. Our fore
fathers saw the danger of this, and wisely
provided in the constitution that no title
Of nobility should be conferred. But
how much does it lack of comforting a
title of nobility when a new military
office is created, which no one claims is
required for the improvement of the
military service, for the especial benefit
of one man for life Carl Schurz is re-
ported to have said a good thing that
bears on this reprehensible hero worship.
He was asked if he was going to meet
Gen. Grant, and he said, "No;' if Gen.
Grant wants to see me, he, can come
where I am" Carl Schurz doubtless
regards himself as just good man as
Gen. Grant is, and we respect him for it;
for any man who is willing to be little in
his own eyes and reverently touch the
hand Of greatness, ought to live in
country where he could enjoy to his
hearts content the luxury of being spit
upon. 1t is generally understood that
this movement is strongly supported by
an important branch of both political
parties for the purpose Of putting Gen.
Grant out of the way as candidate for
the presideney-the Republicans be-
cause Grant is supposed to be in the way
of some of their leaders, who aspire to
the presidential char; the Democrats be-
cause they fear he could not be defeated
if he receives the nomination. But po-
litical expediency is no excuse for the