Year: 1877

Senator Hoar has just published an essay
or eulogy on the character OF the late
Charles Sumner in the form of review OF
Mr.. Pierce's biography of that statesman.
We should have taken no public notice OF
Mr.. Hoars essay if he had not ventured TO
call in question the we'll known interview
with cx-President Grant, printed few
months since in the HERALD. We think it
gratuitous piece Of effrontery for MIR. Hoar
to express doubts as to the genuineness OF
that interview at this late day, seeing that
neither General Grant himself nor any OF
his friends for him, have complained that
he was inaccurately reported or that the con-
versation was not intended for publication.


On the critical event in the public life OF


Mr.. Sumner, which was the disagreement
between himself and the administration OF
President Grant, in which nearly all OF the
republican party in the Senate sympathized
and acted with the administration, If their
vote on the craftsmanship Of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs be t1st Mr.. Hoar sheds
no light. he refers to it, nevertheless, dis
tinctly and unequivocally, and besides ques-
tioning whether ex-President Grant im-
parted to the HERALD tho opinions respect
ing Sumner and Motley whichwe published
in the letter from Scotland, he even inti-
mates that if tho ex-Pres:dcnt did impart
such opinions to our correspondent
they were not intended for publ
cation. These are the words OF MIR.
-"The judgment we have expressed OF
Mr.. Sumner is we believe. with near ap-
proach to unanimity, now the concurrent
Judgment of the American people, without
distinction of party or section.


There is but one man, SO far as we know,
whose biography will be worth writing or
worth reading six months after he is dead,
who has been supposed to dissent from the
general feeling Of affection and respect en-
tertained by the American people for the
memory of Charles Sumner. We have had
so often Of late years to learn by experience
to distrust assertions that we see very con-
fidently made in print, that we are not
ready to believe that President Grant made
the statements which have been attributed
to him in what purports to be report Of
recent interview; still less that he made
them with the expectation that they would
be made public. If they should turn out
to have been truly reported we would make
no comment on them here"


Mr.. Hoar is not always felicitous in
style, and the last sentence which we
quote does not, probably on that account,
express what he must have intended to
say, which possibly was that even if salts
fed of the verify of the report of the inter-
view he would not deal with it in the paper
then in preparation. But for the future pa
pers OF Mr.. Hoar we now assure him Of the
fact that the report referred to is verify
that it was intended for publication, and
that the intent grew largely out of
the especially savage criticisms Of the
ex-President, made in London and
New York by the friends of Sumner
and Motley, who availed themselves
therefor of the event of the death of the
latter. Our report of this interview called
forth lecture by Wendell Phillips, report
of an interview in Boston with Mr.. Fish by
the Eceni,,g Transcript of that city. letter
to the last named journal by Mr.. Pierce
asking Mr.. Fish to specify the treaties which
Mr. Sumner neglected. Immediately after
the prompt reply of Mr.. Fish the veil of
secrecy was withdrawn in the Senate just
far enough to disclose that President Grant,
Mr.. Fish and Mr.. Conkling were in error
respecting the date OF report of the nine
treaties from the committee; but the veil was
not Withdrawn far enough to disclose
whether Mr.. Sumner ever called up the
treaties for action in secret session or left
the nine new born infants to perish as waits
on the doorstep Of the inner chamber of the
Senate till discovered and nursed by Mr.
Cameron. That is critical point of the
inquiry into the animus Of Mr.. Sumner
toward the public business, next after the
larger inquiry why, in 1871, there were
only nine votes in the Senate, and the nine
nearly all democratic votes, in favor of
continuing Mr.. Sumner at the head of the
Foreign Affairs Committee. Why was he
thus condemned in the republican Senate
On that question Mr. Hoar sheds no light,
and that is the one on which the country
seeks for light. Was the reason assigned in
debate by tho chairman of the republican
caucus committee, Senator Howe, the true
reason, or was it only diplomatic mask to
conceal the truth for the moment? The
fact stands recorded that nearly every
republican Senator condemned Mr.. Sum-
ner by his vote. When will Mr. Hoar OF
some other friend of Sumner adequately
deal with that bristling record?


An Undecided Question.