Year: 1878

The letter which the Secretary of the
Treasury addressed yesterday to Washing
ton agent of the Associated Press is vindi-
cation of his fidelity to the Resumption law,
and so long as he is right and stanch on
this paramount question he should not De
held to very strict account for minor
errors. He weakens his position by his ap-
parent loss of temper toward one of our city
contemporaries, because in a public man
holding so high a station loss OF temper
is to some extent loss of dignity. A public
officer ought to be very tolerant OF criticism
by the press 1t is for his interest to know all
that can be said against his measures and
to be acquainted even with the perversions
Of which they are susceptible Ii the
animadversions are just they may save him
from persistence in error; if they are un-
candid or sophistical or malignant they can
do him no great harm with an intelligent
public.


We think the interview which Mr. Sher-
man consented to have published was
mistake. There was no necessity for
promulgating the views therein expressed,
and they were so liable to misconstruction
that he would have saved himself from
much annoyance by Withholding them.
The fact that he had just revoked
his silver order and that the Maine
election was construed as condem-
nation of his policy made it important
Of vacillation on tho main question. The





interview was 80 mistimed and, so calcu-
lated to raise doubts that he was inexcus-
able for consenting to its publication. He
should not have spoken at all unless he
could have said something which would
have strengthened public confidence in his
unflinching and immovable determination
to carry forward the resumption experiment
without faltering The interview was inter-
preted, and we think not unfairly inter-
preted, as o concession to the enemies OF
his policy. What necessity was there for
expressing his preference of greenbacks
to bank notes and his willingness
to see the former substituted for
the latter at some future timer He
would have done better to avoid all
such mischievous topics. He says that he
did not revise tho interview, but admits
that it was read to him and that he con-
sented to its publication He ought to have
foreseen the kind of comments it was calcu-
lated to elicit and have suppressed it alto
gether. It is always indiscreet for public
officer voluntarily to put himself into po-
sition which compels him to make explana-
tions. f'


We are sorry that his explanation is not
on one point more explicit He says:--
s'The attempt to construe what said about
nv duty as an executive officer to obey the
law into o doubt about the wisdom of the
Resumption act is simply folly. ! hope
the time will never come when an execu-
tive officer will not feel that his duty is to
obey tho law without respect to his opin-
ions" We ore sorry that instead of this he
did not say unequivocally that the Resump-
ton law has the approval Of his judg-
ment, and that he means to execute it as
we'll because he thinks it wise as because it
binds him as mere law. We are sorry, too,
to see him in this letter of explanation ex-
press the opinion that q man may be good
republican who disapproves Of his financial
policy. This ho does say, and say most
unnecessarily. of Mr.. Walker, to whom he
granted the interview. We have not lost
our confidence in Mr.. Sherman. and shall
continue to give him the same hearty sup
port that we have uniformly done hereto
fore in carrying out his policy of resump-
ton but we fear he is too much influenced
by his anxiety as q politician to save the re-
publican party in the West.