for its accomplishment.' Shall I read the rest of the document? It
is somewhat of the same tenor. There are questions of money in it,
cash down, all of which must have been particularly agreeable to the
three confederates." At one stage of his bitter arraignment of the
Administration Mr. Sumner besought the Vice-President (Mr. Colfax) "as
a friend of General Grant to counsel him not to follow the examples
of Franklin Pierce, of James Buchanan, and of Andrew Johnson."

After the delivery of this speech General Grant and Senator Sumner
held no personal intercourse. Public opinion did not justify the
course of Mr. Sumner. It was regarded as an exhibition of temper
unworthy of his high position, and his speech was distinguished by
a tone not proper to be employed towards the President of the United
States. But he had not imputed, as General Grant assumed, any personal
corruption to him. On the contrary he considered the questionable
course of General Babcock to be without instruction. General Grant's
reference in his message to Mr. Sumner's angry arraignment, a part of
which is already quoted, closed with a mention of "acrimonious debates
in Congress" and "unjust aspersions elsewhere." "No man," said he,
"can hope to perform duties so delicate and responsible as appertain
to the Presidential office without sometimes incurring the hostility
of those who deem their opinions and wishes treated with insufficient
consideration." This was a direct personal reference to Mr. Sumner,
perfectly understood at that time. General Grant continued: "He who
undertakes to conduct the affairs of a great government as a faithful
public servant, if sustained by the approval of his own conscience,
may rely with confidence upon the candor and intelligence of a free
people, whose best interests he has striven to subserve, and can hear
with patience the censure of disappointed men."

No further attempt was made by the President to urge the acquisition
of San Domingo upon Congress. It was evident that neither the Senate
nor House could be induced to approve the scheme, and the
Administration was necessarily compelled to abandon it. But defeat
did not change General Grant's view of the question. He held to his
belief in its expediency and value with characteristic tenacity. In
his last annual message to Congress (December, 1876), nearly six
years after the controversy had closed, he recurred to the subject,
to record once more his a