Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 July 1880 — HANCOCK IN 1878-7. [ARTICLE]

HANCOCK IN 1878-7.

Nothing Dishonorable or Treasonable in His Attitude. The Springfield (Mass.) Republican, a conservative Republican journal of wide influence, and a supporter of Garfield, reviews the charge of treason brought against Gen. Hancock by the reckless organs of the spoils party, and reaches the conclusion that Gen H. ’s attitude pending the electoral count w r as in every way honorable and consistent with his duty as a soldier. The Republican candidly says—and its words arc commended to every reader of this journal, Republican as well as Democrat : Gen. Hancock’s conduct during the electoral struggle of 1876-7 is going to be the battleground of his record. Nothing else derogatory to his reputation as an officer and citizen stands examination, or discloses any substance of evil. The data regarding his Course then have been placed before the public about as fully as they are likely to be. Hiram Atkins has told his story, as we have already printed, and as derived from Gen. “Baldy” Smith; Gen. Smith doesn’t deny it, and is apparently a little nottled that the‘story is out. Gen. Sherman declines to sav anything about it. Atkins says that Hancock made known his position to Sherman before the Electoral Commission was fixed upon as a mode of settlement, and that he simply informed Sherman that, if Congress sustained Tilden’s claim, ho should feel obliged to obey the orders of President Tilden. It is clear that the Republican claim that, as the New York Tribune says, “Gen. Hancock took it upon himself to decide that Mr. Tilden had been elected,” is all bosh. The Presidency was disputed, every intelligent citizen viewed the situation with anxiety, and Gen. Hancock, the citizen before he was a soldier, said frankly, on being asked his opinion by his superior officer, that if the authorities who certify to the election of a President differ, and Congress sustains one and the Executive another, ho should go with Congress. Perhaps he said that if the House (not Congress) sustained Tilden, he should also ; it is not improbable, the House being the body constitutionally authorized to choose a President in case of failure to elect. The charge amounts, then, to this, that Hancock, being a soldier of the nation, yet dared to have opinion upon a civil question on being asked and to say, in case controversy arose, in which direction ho should conceive constitutional authority to lie. We find nothing dishonorable or treasonable in that attitude. On the other hand, it is one of the tew presumptive evidences of Hancock’s capacity for civil administration, The American theory of Government does not require the soldier to be a machine of unthinking militarism. The American soldier is raised and trained amid the atmosphere of citizenship. While this fact lost us many officers from the regular army to the rebellion, it added devotion and intelligence to those who remained, and will always be the pride of American arms over those of Europe. Had Congress, or had the House, sustained the claim of Tilden to the Presidency, and the administration of Gen. Grant sustained the claim of Hayes, the grounds for a divided allegiance would have been so strong on both sides that it is vain to speculate upon the degreo of moral error involved in a declaration for one or the other of the two authorities. We were fortunately saved from such a catastrophe, and there is nothing to prove that Gen. Hancock was ever disloyal to the Government which was based upon that settlement. Gen. Hancock, referring to this matter himself this week at an interview reported in the Brooklyn Eagle , said : Whether 1 wrote a letter to Gen. Sherman on the subject of the electoral contest I shall not say, but my position in regard to that matter was well understood at the time, and has not changed since. lam of the opinion that Gen. Grant’s term as President ended at midnight March 3. After that I should have paid no more attention to him officially than I would to the man in the moon. The houses of Congress alone had power to count the electoral vote, and declare the result, and they were the constitutional authority. My position on this question cannot be open to misconstruction. Anything I may have written to Gen. Sherman or any one else concerning it is at the disposal of the public. lam not ashamed of my views regarding the electoral contest and still adhere to them.