The perverse ingenuitrdií playea inextracting from the plain KnjrlisH meanings what never inhered therefn has ofton cxcited our wonder, if not iidmiration. Yrsterday's pxamples aie very striking. The editor of this journal was moved to discuss in Monday's issue the oall of a National ConYwtion by the BO-oalled Liberal Republicana of Missouri. Carofully abstainin-g trom proirhocy, he eltwidated tho movement thns iiiaiiguiated (o the best of his ability. Now Bee tho twist given to that artielo by the World : " We conclude from a remarkabln artiolo in yesterday's Tribune, cvidently from tho chief editor, that that journal despairs of defeating the noinination of General Grant. This conclusión does not inpngn the editor' jiolitical aagacity, for most good judges hold the nue opinión, liut ■wli y should the Tribune be in such baste to proclaim its intention to support Gen. Grant if ho should be tho Bepublican nomineo? Tho Tribune declaro that, in tho ovent of Graïit's nomination, it is uot goiug witb the bolters, but will support tho regular Kepublican ticket." Now wo had givon no warrant for this deduction. What we did ay was to this effect: If tho Presidential cünvass jubt ahcad should tako tho shape of a iight i'or freo trado against proteetion (and tliis is intimated in the Missouri progr&mme), tho Tr'üiunc would of courso bo found battling for protection. How can miy ono be qualified to writo for a metropolitan journal wbo did not know this without being oxpressly told it ? Tho Times distills fromourarticloaforosaid the following : "For Mr. Greoloy to makc imsstit;ments which are sure to bo exposod, for the purposo of frightiming the Administration into taking the 'running of thu Orant machine ' out of the hands of 'Conk ling & Co.,' with tho plain inferoncc that it must Vo givciii to Fenton, ( Jreeley & Co., is certainly not a diguified thing. But nt'ither is it an honorable thintr. Mr. Greeley has made no secret uf tho taotthat his vociferous complaints ubout the New York eustom-house were based on the failure to give the Fenton clique tho patronage they sought. Here is now B, vrry plain confession tliat :i similar grudgo sways his course on the Presidential nomjnation. It is not a pleiis.mt dght to 860 a man like Horace Greeloy putting up bis hard-earned influence to be bid for, with an intimation tha. a propositúm to givc the control of a politicnl 'machine' to :i corrupt Fenton crew would purchaso it." This misrepresentation impels us to sate the fnct that the Tribune, has novor yet favored the re-nomination of any President, will certaiuly not this year, and all the offices in tho Union cannot be so disoensed as to affect this detormination. The editor has nover favorcd the re-nomination oí' a President during liis 10 yeftra of manhood, and placed on record mure thau 30 years ago reasoasfor his adhesión to the one-temi principie, whicli seemed then, and still seem, to hini conclusivo. He has once supported a President for reelection, and may do so again ; for ho does not exalt the one-terni principie abevo every other consideration ; but lio not only believes in it himself, but has good rearan for his faith that ücn. Graiit gave his aasent to it less tlian four years ago. Ho is well assured that tho editoriiils in succossive issues of the Washington Ckronivle, wherein this principie wns forcibly commended, were imblished with his knowledge and tacit if not express approval. But we further object to the re-nomination of Gen. Grant that ho is manifestly a weak candidato, there being very maiiy Ropublicnns who will oppose hini if renominated. That it should bo so in tbis State, and in any othor whero. liis heavy hand has been laid upon ono " wing " of the party which elected him, is too plain to necd proof. There aro huridreds of active, prominent, influcntinl Republicana ■who havo been expelled from office by him, or his instrumente, and who cannot, in the nature of things, work for his roelection as they would work for ono who never treatcd them as enemies. Who doubts that it is so in other States ? Who believes thathe could carry Louisiana after the Galling gun performances of lust ummer, engineered in partby the brothcr-in-law who holds tho best Federal office in that State? We speak to sensible men, anddemand an intelligent judgment on the undoubted facts. Four or five years ago the Republicans carried Georgia by a majority of 8,000. That majority bas been squandcred by mereenary corrupt officials, homo of whoiu havo had tho decency to run away, and who have ruined the party's prospects alinost beyond redemption. But though there is but a skeleton of a party there is still a State Committce; and that comniitteo gots together, olects to Philiulelphia a delegation composed mainly of its members, and pledges them to Grant, " first, last and all the time " - well knowing that thcy can no more give to him an electoral vote from Georgia than they can make him Pope. Contrast this with necticut, where the Republicana meet in convontion, nomínate a State ticket and choose delegates to Philadelphia, taking care not to pledge them to Grant. Can you ask wliy ? They want to carry thcir State in April, and know that tho way to do it ia not to nominato Grant. Now look at tho case oi' Missouri. The St. Louis Democrat, having turned its coat niñee 1870, now bolittles tho Liberal movement, sa) ing it is ot no account, and the Timen 8COO68 it, of course. But tho men who led tliat roovemont to vietory wero Cari iSchurz, Gratz Brown, Grosvenor, etc, and not one of these is for Grant. On the contrary, they aro all dead against him. Thfi Times says thoy only led off 22,000 Republicana in 1870. We answer, they led off oiiough to carry the Ktate by over 40,000 majority. Perhapa enongh of these have come back to reverse that verdict, but we know that there aro thousands of them who would voto for anothor Repuluican candidato, but will notvote for Gen. Grant. And there is scarcoly a nearly-balanced State in the Union wherein Gen. Graut is uot a weakor candidato tlian almost any othor llopublican who can be nominated. Wo state facts wfill known to inteliipont politicians. We do not say that Gen. Grant will not, if nominatcd, bo elected ; we do not gay that wa shall not support him; we do say that his nomination rendorsdoubifulaËepubHoan triuraph which, with a new candidate publicly plcdged tg the One-Term principie, would be morally certain. And this is so palpable that intelligent, thoughtful Eepublicims, who C8tccni the causo inoro thun any man, aro bound to consider it.