Grant, when President, was accused of being pecuniarily benefited by
certain appointments, or acts, of his administration, while his
friends knew that he was so poor that he had been compelled to
announce his intention of abandoning the customary state dinners, each
one of which, he found, cost eight hundred dollars--a sum which he
could not afford to pay out of his salary. The increase of the
presidential salary from $25,000 to $50,000 a year enabled him, during
his second term, to save a little, although he cared no more about
money than about uniforms. At the end of his first term I know he had
nothing. Yet I found, when in Europe, that the impression was
widespread among the highest officials there that there was something
in the charge that General Grant had benefited pecuniarily by
appointments. We know in America how little weight to attach to these
charges, but it would have been well for those who made them so
recklessly to have considered what effect they would produce upon
public opinion in other lands.
The cause of democracy suffers more in Britain to-day from the
generally received opinion that American politics are corrupt, and
therefore that republicanism necessarily produces corruption, than
from any other one cause. Yet, speaking with some knowledge of
politics in both lands, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying
that for every ounce of corruption of public men in the new land of
republicanism there is one in the old land of monarchy, only the forms
of corruption differ.
Pages:
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155