III. GREAT SPEECHES ON GREAT ISSUES (part 3 of 3)

III. GREAT SPEECHES ON GREAT ISSUES (part 3 of 3)

Passing over what appears in my colleague’s speech as extracts from newspapers, to whose misstatements he has contributed a full share, I come now to notice his animadversions on the Riddleberger bill. If his criticisms were based on fact and a proper understanding of that measure, they would be unanswerable. He says that “the ‘Riddleberger bill’ has been substantially pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.” I ask him in what particular? Is it in this—that it does not recognize the interest that accrued during the war? If so, will my learned colleague inform me upon what principle of right he last summer sustained a measure which repudiated one-half of the interest that has accrued since the complete restoration of our State? Does he not know that that measure of forcible readjustment absolutely repudiated one-half of the accrued and unfunded interest, while the Riddleberger bill provides for paying it dollar for dollar? The difference is simply this: that since 1871 we have denied the right of the creditor to exact war interest and proposed to pay him all else in full. Our adversaries would and did fund that war interest and proposed to repudiate one-half of that which we are in honor and in law bound to pay.

Is it unconstitutional in that it pays but 3 per cent.? The only measure ever passed by the Virginia Assembly to pay as much as 4 per cent. and the only one under which one-third of our creditors have received a penny of interest, was introduced and patronized by Mr. Riddleberger. The first time that our Legislature ever voiced 3 per cent. was when they passed the brokers’ job, the pet scheme of my colleague, so ably re-enforced in his advocacy of it on this floor by distinguished gentlemen on the other side, the Legislature then themselves admitting and declaring in the preamble of their bill that this is all the State can pay for ten years “without destroying its industries;” and last winter every legislator of their party voted to run the 3 per cent. for the whole time.

Is it unconstitutional in that it does not exempt the bonds from taxation forever, as the brokers’ bill attempted to do, a feature peculiar to that measure for paying the debt of Virginia which my colleague advocates here? If so, I would respectfully refer my colleague to his State constitution, which says that all property shall be taxed equally and uniformly; that no one species of property shall be taxed higher than another, and that only such property as is used for religious, educational, and charitable purposes may be exempt from taxation. My learned colleague, who so unkindly characterized the patron of that bill as a county court lawyer, cites only Hartman vs. Greenhow as the case which holds this bill unconstitutional. That case decided no principle that this bill infringes. The Riddleberger bill imposes no tax upon bonds held either in or out of the State. It simply does not exempt any. By what authority, I would ask my colleague, can such a tax be made and collected? He must answer to the party which he undertakes to represent here for doing an unconstitutional act: to tax bonds of the State of Virginia held by a non-resident. The Riddleberger bill does not tax them. Whenever the General Assembly, carrying out the Riddleberger bill, shall endeavor to tax bonds held out of the State, it will be time for the Senator to renew the test in the Supreme Court of the United States and cite the precedent of Hartman vs. Greenhow.

Is it the much-discussed fourteenth section which is unconstitutional? If so I would remind my legal colleague that it is a verbatim copy of a statute passed by the State of Tennessee, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States, and not only held by that high tribunal to be constitutional but proper legislation for the protection and maintenance of government. Is it unconstitutional in what is called its force feature? If so it has precedent in the bill of ’71, which forbade the payment of any interest to a creditor who did not accept a reduction of one-third. It has precedent in the brokers’ bill, which provided tax certificates to compete at a reduced price with the receivable coupon, and both of these measures found a hustings advocate in my colleague.

But he would imply that our debt was ascertained at a certain sum in pursuance of the State Constitution, which he says was $29,667,304.76.

Mr. President, if there is any man in the party which my colleague represents who agrees with another member of that party in Virginia as to what the debt of that State is, we have yet to find the concurrence; it is with one leader this figure, with another leader another figure; by one report of their officers one sum, and then by another report of other officers a different sum. Grant that sum to be the true one; but let the Senator state that our constitution recognized no specific sum. It says there shall first be a settlement with West Virginia, which has not yet been had, and commands payment of what Virginia shall owe. That is the language, that is the instruction of the constitution of Virginia; that, after a settlement with West Virginia, covering one-third of old Virginia’s territory, shall have been arrived at by an adjustment of their relative proportions of the public debt, Virginia will provide for her share. Now I would like the Senators from West Virginia in this cry against readjusters as repudiators to tell the country what answer they have made to their obligation for one-third of the debt contracted by the old Commonwealth of Virginia. Will they tell the country where they have ever made a proposition to pay one stiver of their share of the public debt of that State to maintain the honor and the dignity of their own Commonwealth? Let them answer.

It was the party of my colleague, that repudiated the settlement of 1871 by the passage of the brokers’ bill in 1879, and in turn attempted to repudiate the latter by unanimously indorsing what is known as the “Ross Hamilton bill.” I suppose it would not suit my colleague to tell this audience who Ross Hamilton is. Yet, I beg Senators to take notice that the party of my colleague, after a winter spent in the vain effort to find a leader capable of devising means to overthrow the popular will, discovered such, as they supposed, in the person of Ross Hamilton, a colored republican member of the Legislature from the county of Mecklenburg, and blindly followed him to defeat. Hamilton’s bill, which was thus unanimously supported by my colleague’s party, not only in effect repealed their pet scheme, the brokers’ bill, but all other acts in respect to the public debt of Virginia.

I come now to perform a duty—the most unpleasant in one sense and the most agreeable in another. It is to repel the charge flippantly, I hope inconsiderately, made on this floor that we are repudiators and our proposed measure dishonorable. To the first I reply that my colleague’s party in eight years of administration of our State affairs paid 2 per cent. installments of interest on ten millions of our public debt just six times, or 12 per cent. in all; 6 times 8 would be 48 per cent. Instead of that they paid 12 per cent., and that is debt-paying!

Let this suffice. But when Senators apply the word dishonorable, they do not know either whom or what they characterize. Two things they have endeavored to demonstrate, and one is that I received a majority of the white conservative vote of both branches of the Virginia General Assembly. Proudly do I proclaim the truth of this. Every one of those who voted for me to come to this Chamber gave an unqualified vote for the Riddleberger bill. Are they dishonorable men? Scornfully do I repel the charge that any one of them is capable of dishonorable action.

Were it true, what a sad commentary it would be upon those honorable gentlemen whom it is said I am not representing here. Mr. President, my colleague comes from what we call in Virginia the great Southwest, a noble and prosperous section of Virginia. Fifteen white Conservative counties compose his congressional district, and though the ablest of the orators of my colleague’s party canvassed it thoroughly against me and the views set forth in this measure, but two delegates and no senator of the gentleman’s party came to the Legislature. To a man they supported the Riddleberger bill. Every senator and every delegate from my colleague’s own congressional district, save and except two delegates, supported me for the Senate and the Riddleberger bill as a measure for debt-paying. He would do well to spend a little more time with his constituents!

Whatever our differences on this question, it seems to me those people should have had a defender in him against such foul and slanderous accusations as have been made—that they are dishonorable men. O Shame! where is thy blush? Dishonorable in Virginia to beg the privilege of paying every dollar she borrowed—that is, her rightful share, instead of not only paying that but also the share of West Virginia—dishonorable to pay every dollar she borrowed, only abating the war interest! Dishonorable, too, in the opinion of the gentlemen who represent States on this floor and municipalities which have by arbitrary legislation reduced their indebtedness from $243,000,000 down to $84,000,000! Dishonorable in Virginia not only to assume her full share of her public obligations, as measured by her territory in this division of it, but offering to tax her people to an extent threatening the destruction of her industrial interests! Is that dishonorable in that people? If so, what have you to say of this tier of Southern States whose public indebtedness, whose plighted faith, whose sacred obligations—as sacred as are those of my State of Virginia—have been reduced from $243,000,000 by one or another method of repudiation, upon one or another excuse, down to $84,000,000, with a reduced interest rate upon the curtailed principal, and only proposing to pay interest in some cases at 2 per cent. and in others 3 and in others 4 on the reduced principal? Is it dishonorable in Virginia to assume $20,000,000 of the debt of the old State and then to tax her industries within the verge of endurance to pay on that sum the highest rate of interest? Let Senators who assail unjustly the conduct of Virginia in this respect put their own houses in order. I want, Mr. President, the Secretary to read from the International Review the measures of readjustment in the Southern States that Senators may know how fashionable readjustment had been in that section of this great country on which northern democrats rely in a presidential election.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Fluctuation of the Debts of twelve Southern States since the year 1842. ───────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬───────────── States. │ 1842. │ 1852. │ 1860. │ 1870. ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── West Virginia │ │ │ │ Virginia │ $6,994,307│ $13,573,355│ $31,779,062│ $47,390,839 North Carolina │ None.│ 977,000│ 9,699,000│ 29,900,045 South Carolina │ 5,691,234│ 3,144,931│ 4,046,540│ 7,665,909 Georgia │ 1,309,750│ 2,801,972│ 2,670,750│ 6,544,500 Florida │ 4,000,000│ 2,800│ 4,120,000│ 1,288,697 Alabama │ 15,400,060│ 8,500,000│ 6,700,000│ 8,478,018 Mississippi │ 7,000,000│ 7,271,707│ None.│ 1,796,230 Louisiana │ 23,985,000│ 11,492,566│ 4,561,109│ 25,021,734 Texas │ │ 5,725,671│ None.│ 508,641 Arkansas │ 2,676,000│ 1,506,562│ 3,092,624│ 3,459,557 Tennessee │ 3,198,166│ 3,776,856│ 20,896,606│ 38,539,802 Kentucky │ 3,085,500│ 5,726,307│ 5,479,244│ 3,892,480 ───────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────┼───────────── Totals │ 73,340,017│ 64,499,727│ 93,046,934│ 174,486,452 ───────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────

──────────────┬─────────────────────┬───────────┬────────────────────── States. │ Date after the war │ │ Amount of debt │ when debt reached │ 1880. │repudiated bet. period │ highest. │ │ wh. highest & June, │ │ │ 1880 ──────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────┼────────────────────── West Virginia │ │ No debt.│ Virginia │ $47,390,839│$29,345,226│ $18,045,613 North Carolina│ 29,900,045│ 3,629,511│ 26,270,534 South Carolina│ 24,782,906│ 7,175,454│ 17,607,452 Georgia │ 20,197,500│ 10,334,000│ 9,863,500 Florida │ 5,512,268│ 1,391,357│ 4,120,911 Alabama │ 31,952,000│ 11,613,670│ 20,338,830 Mississippi │ 3,226,847│ 379,485│ 2,847,362 Louisiana │ 40,416,734│ 12,635,810│ 27,780,924 Texas │ 5,782,887│ 5,782,887│ Arkansas │ 18,287,273│ 5,813,627│ 12,473,646 Tennessee │ 41,863,406│ 25,685,822│ 16,177,584 Kentucky │ 3,892,480│ 180,394│ 3,712,086 ──────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────┼────────────────────── Totals │ 273,205,185│113,967,243│ 159,237,942 ──────────────┴─────────────────────┴───────────┴──────────────────────

Mr. MAHONE. There is no mere readjustment there; I will not say it is repudiation. “Repudiation” is honorable, perhaps; “readjustment” dishonorable.

Oh, Virginia! It was for this you bared your bosom to soldier’s tread and horse’s hoof. It was for this you laid waste your fields. It was for this you displayed your noble virtues of fortitude and courage, your heroic suffering and sacrifice. It was for this you suffered the dismemberment of your territory and sent your sons to the field to return to the ruins where were once their homes. It was for this you so reluctantly abandoned your allegiance to a common country to be the last to make war and the last to surrender. O Ingratitude, thou basest and meanest of crimes!

And now, Mr. President, at the time of my election who constituted my opponents? Already, as you have been advised, another representing distinctly the Bourbon democracy of Virginia and the so-called democracy of this Chamber, another representing distinctly the republican party of Virginia—these were the candidates before the Legislature which elected me to this body. I received not only a majority of the so-called democratic readjusters but of the so-called republican readjusters. And now what were the efforts, known there if not here to gentlemen, to defeat me? Were not combinations sought to be made? It is known of all men there at the capital of my State, if not here, that every influence from whatsoever quarter it could be adduced, whether democratic or republican, was brought together at Richmond for the purpose by combination of defeating my election, of defeating the sovereign will of the people of that Commonwealth as expressed on the 4th of November, 1879.

There was a democracy which sought to secure the election of an orthodox, simon-pure, unadulterated republican, but of that kind called Bourbons in Virginia—a democracy which was not only willing but ready and anxious to send here in the place I have the honor to hold a republican whom they would otherwise profess to despise. What for? For the consideration well known there, that they might elect certain county judges and control the State offices, and by that means prevent the disclosures which have subsequently followed since the readjusters have gotten possession of the capitol. That democracy which like Cæsar’s wife would stand “above suspicion,” were ready to trade a seat in the United States Senate so that a few county judges might be preserved, that the offices in the capitol at Richmond might be retained in their control; I say in order, perhaps, that the disclosures which have followed the advent of the party I represent might have been longer concealed; moreover that control of the ballot-box in the State might continue where it had been; so certainly I believe; and all this by those who professed to represent the party which had declared in national convention for a full vote, a free ballot, and an honest count.

Such were the considerations, such I say were the inducements which prompted that democracy to its efforts to send to this Chamber a republican beyond question since these many long and weary years. If that is the democracy that the gentlemen on that side love, I proclaim my inability to co-operate with them.

I supported neither of the candidates for Congress in my district, and emphatically declared that purpose on more than one public occasion, because one was a candidate of that party, the Bourbon reactionists, and the other a Bourbon republican with accommodating views on the debt question.

To obey the behests of the democratic caucus of this body, whose leadership on this floor, whose representative national authority—the one here and the other elsewhere—have championed the cause of the Bourbon-funder party in Virginia, would be an obsequious surrender of our State policy and self-condemnation of our independent action.

The desire of our people for cordial relations with all sections of a common country and the people of all the States of the Union, their devotion to popular education, their efforts for the free enjoyment of a priceless suffrage and an honest count of ballots, their determination to make Virginia, in the public belief, a desirable home for all men, wherever their birthplace, whatever their opinions, and to open her fields and her mines to enterprise and capital, and to stay the retrograde movement of years, so as to bring her back from the fifteenth in grade to her original position among the first in the sisterhood of States, forbid that my action here should be controlled or influenced by a caucus whose party has waged war upon my constituency and where party success is held paramount to what I conceive to be the interests of Virginia and the welfare of the whole country.

The readjusters of Virginia have no feeling of hostility, no words of unkindness for the colored man. His freedom has come, and whether by purpose or by accident, thank God, that among other issues which so long distracted our country and restrained its growth, was concluded, and I trust forever, by the results of the sanguinary struggle between the sections.

I have faith, and it is my earnest hope, that the march of an enlightened civilization and the progress of human freedom will proceed until God’s great family shall everywhere enjoy the products of their own labor and the blessings of civil, political, and religious liberty.

The colored man was loyal to Virginia in all the days of conflict and devastation which came of the heroic struggle in the war of sections that made her fields historic. By no act of his was either the clash of arms provoked or freedom secured. He did not solve his duty by consideration of self-interest.

Speech of Hon. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont,

(Author of the Tariff Bill of 1861), delivered in the Senate of the United Stales, December 8, 1881, on the Bill to Appoint a Tariff Commission.

The Senate, being as in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration the bill (S. No. 22) to provide for the appointment of a commission to investigate the question of the tariff and internal revenue laws—

Mr. MORRILL said: I have brought this subject to the early attention of the Senate because, if early legislative action on the tariff is to be had, obviously the measure proposed by Senator Eaton and passed at the last session of the Senate is a wise and indispensable preliminary, which cannot be started too soon. The essential information needed concerns important interests, vast in number and overspreading every nook and corner of our country; and when made available by the ingathering and collocation of all the related facts, will secure the earliest attention of Congress, as well as the trust and confidence of the country, and save the appropriate committees of both Houses weeks and months of irksome labor—possibly save them also from some blunders and from final defeat.

An enlargement of the free list, essential reductions and readjustments of rates, are to be fully considered, and some errors of conflicting codifications corrected.

If a general revision of the Bible seems to have been called for, it is hardly to be wondered at that some revision of our revenue laws should be invited. But changes in the framework of a law that has had more of stability than any other of its kind in our history, and from which an unexampled growth of varied industries has risen up, should be made with much circumspection, after deliberate consideration, by just and friendly hands, and not by ill-informed and reckless revolutionists. When our recent great army was disbanded, war taxes were also largely dismissed, and we have now, and certainly shall have hereafter, no unlimited margin for slashing experiments.

THE TARIFF OF 1861.

The tariff act of 1861, which, by a nickname given by baffled opponents as an echo to a name so humble as my own, it was perhaps hoped to render odious, was yet approved by a democratic President and gave to Mr. Buchanan a much needed opportunity to perform at last one official act approved by the people.

If I refer to this measure, it will not be egotistically nor to shirk responsibility, but only in defense of those who aided its passage—such as the never-to-be-forgotten Henry Winter Davis, Thad. Stevens, and, William A. Howard, and, let me add, the names of Fessenden and Crittenden—and, without the parliamentary skill of one (Mr. SHERMAN) now a member of this body, its success would not have been made certain.

And yet this so-called “Morrill tariff,” hooted at as a “Chinese wall” that was to shut out both commerce and revenue, notwithstanding amendments subsequently piled and patched upon it at every fresh demand during the war, but retaining its vertebræ and all of its specific characteristics, has been as a financial measure an unprecedented success in spite of its supposed patronymical incumbrance. Transforming ad valorem duties into specific, then averaging but 25 per cent. upon the invoice values, imposing much higher rates upon luxuries than upon necessaries, and introducing compound duties[86] upon woolens, justly compensatory for the duties on wool, it has secured all the revenue anticipated, or $198,159,676 in 1881 against $53,187,511 in 1860, and our total trade, exports and imports, in 1860, of $687,192,176, appears to have expanded in 1880 to $1,613,770,633, with a grand excess of exports in our favor of $167,683,912, and an excess in 1881 of $259,726,254, while it was $20,040,062 against us in 1860. A great reduction of the public debt has followed, and the interest charged has fallen from $143,781,591 in 1867 to about $60,500,000 at the present time.

If such a result is not a practical demonstration of healthy intrinsic merits, when both revenue and commerce increase in a much greater ratio than population, what is it? Our imports in the past two years have been further brilliantly embellished by $167,060,041 of gold and silver coin and bullion, while retaining in addition all of our own immense domestic productions; and it was this only which enabled us to resume and to maintain specie payments. Let the contrast of 1860 be also borne in mind, when the excess of our exports of gold and silver was $57,996,004.

As a protective measure this tariff, with all its increasing amendments, has proven more satisfactory to the people and to various industries of the country than any other on record. The jury of the country has so recorded its verdict. Agriculture has made immense strides forward. The recent exports of food products, though never larger, is not equal by twenty-fold to home consumption, and prices are every where more remunerative, agricultural products being higher and manufactures lower. Of wheat, corn, and oats there was produced 1,184,540,849 bushels in 1860, but in 1880 the crop had swelled to 2,622,200,039 bushels, or had much more than doubled. Since 1860 lands in many of the Western States have risen from 100 to 175 per cent. The production of rice, during the same time, rose from 11,000,000 pounds to 117,000,000. The fires of the tall chimneys have every where been lighted up; and while we made only 987,559 tons of pig iron in 1860, in 1880 we made 4,295,414 tons; and of railroad iron the increase was from 235,107 tons to 1,461,837 tons. In twenty years the production of salt rose from 12,717,200 bushels to 29,800,298 bushels. No previous crop of cotton equalled the 4,861,000 bales of 1860; but the crop of 1880 was larger, and that of 1881 is reported at 6,606,000 bales. The yield of cotton from 1865 to 1881 shows an increase over the fifteen years from 1845 to 1861 of 14,029,000 bales, or almost an average gain of a million bales a year.

The giant water-wheels have revolved more briskly, showing the manufacture of 1,797,000 bales of cotton in 1880 against only 979,000 bales in 1860, and this brought up the price of raw cotton to higher figures than in 1860. Thirteen States and one Territory produced cotton, but its manufacture spreads over thirty States and one Territory. The census of cotton manufacture shows:

────────────────────┬────────────┬──────────── │ 1860. │ 1880. ────────────────────┼────────────┼──────────── Capital invested │ $98,585,269│$207,781,868 Number of operatives│ 122,028│ 175,187 Wages paid │ $23,940,108│ $41,921,106 Value of productions│ 115,681,774│ 192,773,960 ────────────────────┴────────────┴────────────

It will be found that a larger amount of capital has been invested in cotton mills than in woolen, and that the increase of productions has been large and healthy, a very handsome proportion of which is to be credited to Southern States. Goods of many descriptions have also been cheapened in price. Standard prints or calicoes which sold in 1860 for nine and one-half cents per yard now sell for six and one-half cents.

The census returns of woolen manufactures show the following astonishing results:

───────────────────────────────┬───────────────┬─────────────── │Census of 1880.│Census of 1860. ───────────────────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────── Males employed │ 74,367│ 24,841 Females employed │ 65,261│ 16,519 Capital invested │ $155,454,105│ $30,862,654 Wages paid │ 47,115,614│ 9,808,254 Value raw material consumed │ 162,609,436│ 36,586,887 Value of annual product │ 265,684,796│ 61,895,217 Importations of woolens │ 33,613,897│ 37,876,945 Annual product’n of wool lbs│ 264,500,000│ 60,511,343 ───────────────────────────────┴───────────────┴───────────────

It thus appears, that while the number of hands employed is three times and a half larger than in 1860, the wages paid is about five times larger and the capital is five times greater. The annual productions have been more than quadrupled, and the aggregate importations have fallen off four millions. With these results in our front, protection on wool and woolens will be likely to withstand the hand-grenades of all free-trade besiegers.

In New England and some other States sheep husbandry has fallen off, and in some places it has been replaced by the dairy business; but in other States the wool-clip has largely increased, especially has the weight of the fleece increased. The number of sheep has increased about 80 per cent. and the weight of wool over 400 per cent. The discovery that the fine long merino wools, known as the American merino, are in fact the best of combing wools and now used in many styles of dress goods has added greatly to their demand and value. Many kinds of woolen goods can be had at a less price than twenty years ago. Cashmeres that then brought forty-six cents per yard brought only thirty-eight and one-fourth cents in 1880, and muslin de laines dropped from twenty cents to fifteen, showing that the tariff did not make them dearer, but that American competition caused a reduction of prices.

The length of our railroads has been trebled, rising from 31,185 miles in 1860 to 94,000 miles in 1881, and possibly to one-half of all in the world. For commercial purposes the wide area of our country has been compressed within narrow limits, and transportation in time and expense, from New York to Kansas, or from Chicago to Baltimore, is now less formidable than it was from Albany or Pittsburgh to Philadelphia prior to the era of railroads. The most distant States reach the same markets, and are no longer neighbors-in-law, but sister States. The cost of eastern or western bound freight is less than one-third of former rates. Workingmen, including every ship-load of emigrants, have found acceptable employment. Our aggregate wealth in 1860 was $19,089,156,289, but is estimated to have advanced in 1880 to over forty billions. Further examination will show that the United States are steadily increasing in wealth, and increasing, too, much more rapidly than free-trade England, notwithstanding all her early advantages of practical experience and her supremacy in accumulated capital. The increase of wealth in France is twice as rapid as in England, but in the United States it is more rapid than even in France.

These are monumental facts, and they can no more be blinked out of sight than the Alleghanies or the Rocky Mountains. They belong to our country, and sufficiently illustrate its progress and vindicate the tariff of 1861. If the facts cannot be denied, the argument remains irrefutable. If royal “cowboys” who attempted to whistle down American independence one hundred years ago ingloriously failed, so it may be hoped will fail royal trumpeters of free-trade who seem to take sides against the United States in all commercial contests for industrial independence.

Among the branches of manufactures absolutely waked into life by the tariff of 1861, and which then had no place above zero, may be named crockery and china ware. The number of white-ware factories is now fifty-three, with forty decorating establishments; and the products, amounting to several millions, are sold at prices 25 to 50 per cent. below the prevailing prices of twenty years ago. Clay and kaolin equal to the best in China have been found east, west, and south in such abundance as to promise a large extension of American enterprise, not only in the ordinary but in the highest branches of ceramic art. Steel may also here claim its birth. No more of all sorts than 11,838 tons were made in 1860, but 1,397,015 tons were made in 1880. Those who objected to a duty on steel have found they were biting something more than a file. Silks in 1860, hardly unwound from the cocoon, were creeping along with only a small showing of sewing-silk and a few trimmings, but now this industry rises to national importance, furnishing apt employment to many thousand women as well as to men; and the annual products, sharply competing with even the Bonnét silks of Lyons, amount to the round sum of $34,500,000. Notwithstanding the exceptionally heavy duties, I am assured that silk goods in general are sold for 25 per cent. less than they were twenty years ago.

Plate-glass is another notable manufacture, requiring great scientific and mechanical skill and large capital, whose origin bears date since the tariff of 1861. It is made in Missouri and in Indiana, and to a small extent in Kentucky and Massachusetts; but in Indiana it is made of the purest and best quality by an establishment which, after surmounting many perils, has now few equals in the magnitude or perfection of its productions, whether on this or the other side of the Atlantic, and richly merits not only the favor but the patronage of the Government itself. Copper is another industry upon which a specific duty was imposed in 1861, which has had a rapid growth, and now makes a large contribution to our mineral wealth. The amount produced in 1860 was less than one-fifth of the present production, and valued at $2,288,182; while in 1880 the production rose to the value of $8,849,961. The capital invested increased from $8,525,500 to $31,675,096. In 1860 the United States Mint paid from twenty-three and one-half to twenty-five cents per pound for copper; but has obtained it the present year under a protective tariff as low as seventeen cents. Like our mines of inexhaustible coal and iron, copper is found in many States, some of it superior to any in the world, and for special uses is constantly sought after by foreign governments.

Many American productions sustain the character they have won by being the best in the world. Our carpenters and joiners could not be hired to handle any other than American tools; and there are no foreign agricultural implements, from a spade to a reaper, that an American farmer would accept as a gift. There is no saddlery hardware nor house-furnishing, equal in quality and style to American. Watches and jewelry and the electric gold and silver plated ware of American workmanship as to quality have the foremost place in the marts of the world. The superiority of our staple cotton goods is indisputable, as is proven by the tribute of frequent counterfeits displayed abroad. The city of Philadelphia alone makes many better carpets and more in quantity than the whole of Great Britain. These are noble achievements, which should neither be obscured nor lost by the sinister handling and industrious vituperation of free-trade monographists.

The vast array of important and useful inventions recorded in our Patent Office, and in use the world over, shows that it is hardly arrogance for us to accept the compliment of Mr. Cobden and claim that the natural mechanical genius of average Americans will soon appear as much superior to that of Englishmen as was that of Englishmen one hundred years ago to that of the Dutch.

THE TARIFF SHIELDED US IN 1873.

If we had been under the banner of free trade in 1873, when the widespread financial storm struck our sails, what would have been our fate? Is it not apparent that our people would have been stranded on a lee shore, and that the general over-production and excess of unsold merchandise everywhere abroad would have come without hindrance, with the swiftness of the winds, to find a market here at any price? As it was the gloom and suffering here were very great, but American workingmen found some shelter in their home markets, and their recovery from the shock was much earlier assured than that of those who in addition to their own calamities had also to bear the pressure of the hard times of other nations.

In six years, ending June 30, 1881, our exports of merchandise exceeded imports by over $1,175,000,000—a large sum in itself, largely increasing our stock of gold, filling the pockets of the people with more than two hundred and fifty millions not found in the Treasury or banks, making the return to specie payments easy, and arresting the painful drain of interest so long paid abroad. It is also a very conclusive refutation of the wild free-trade chimeras that exports are dependent upon imports, and that comparatively high duties are invariably less productive of revenue than low duties. The pertinent question arises, Shall we not in the main hold fast to the blessings we have? As Americans we must reject free trade. To use some words of Burke upon another subject: “If it be a panacea we do not want it. We know the consequences of unnecessary physic. If it be a plague, it is such a plague that the precautions of the most severe quarantine ought to be established against it.”

FREE-TRADE PROSPERITY ON THE WANE.

It gives me no pleasure to notice retrograde steps in the prosperity of Great Britain; and, if some evidence of this sort is brought out, like that of the five thousand houses now marked “To let” in Sheffield and ten thousand in Birmingham, it will have no other purpose than to show that free trade has failed to secure the promised supremacy to English manufactures. The avowal of Mr. Gladstone that the additional penny to the income tax produces less revenue than formerly indicates a positive decrease of wealth; and the steady diminution of British exports since 1873, amounting in 1880 to one hundred and sixty million dollars, with a diminution in the total of exports and imports of two hundred and fifty million dollars, is more conclusive proof as well of British decadence as of the advancement of other nations.

COMMERCIAL PROTECTION.

The sum of our annual support bestowed upon the Navy, like that upon the Army, may be too close-fisted and disproportionate to our extended ocean boundaries, and to the value of American commerce afloat; yet whatever has been granted has been designed almost exclusively for the protection of our foreign commerce, and amounts in the aggregate to untold millions. Manufacturers do not complain that this is a needless and excessive favor to importers; and why, then, should importers object to some protection to a much larger amount of capital, and to far greater numbers embarked certainly in an equally laudable enterprise at home?

THE FREE-TRADE PROPAGANDISTS OF ENGLAND.

For the last thirty-five years England has been making extraordinary efforts, political, industrial, legislative, diplomatic, social, and literary, all combined, to persuade mankind to follow her example of reversing that policy of protection, supreme in her Augustan age, or from Queen Anne down throughout the Georgian era, and the policy maintained by Chatham, by the younger Pitt, and by Canning with an energy that created and sustained the most varied and extensive workshops of the world. Already mistress of the ocean and abounding in wealth, the sea-girt Island aspired to a world-wide monopoly of trade. Penetrated with this later free-trade ambition, and not infrequently accused of trying to make all England tributary to Manchester, and all the rest of the world tributary to England, the eloquent Mr. Bright, who grandly rejected any idea of a new nation in America, resorts even to the infelicitous language of passion when he denounces his opponents, as he does, by declaring that any looking toward protective legislation anywhere in the world is proof either of “congenital depravity or defect of judgment.” Let us be thankful it is no worse, for what would have happened if the wrathful Englishman had said “total depravity?”

The repeal of the corn laws was not for the benefit of foreign nations, but solely for the benefit of Englishmen.

FIRST. It was their belief that their skill and great capital gave them that superiority which would secure them against all competition except that arising from cheaper food.

SECOND. The cheaper-fed workmen of Germany, France, and America presented the only competition not to be resisted, and it had to be at once squarely met. Protection was abandoned, and abandoned possibly forever, but abandoned because the laboring British population had become too great and too hungry, with over a million and a half of paupers, when measured by the supply of home-grown food. Some of the little Benjamins must go to Egypt for corn. Starving men do little work, but occasionally do too much. The sole conditions to the continuance of the dense population and the grand scale of British manufactures in competition with modern nations appeared to be parsimony and privation, or lower-priced bread and lowest-priced labor. With these partially secured there came a season of temporary relief, but, unfortunately, with no increase of wages. It was barely success at the cost of an alliance with the discontent of underpaid workmen, with strikes and organized expatriation. Free trade, it is found, grinds labor to the bone, and forces it to fly, with muscles and machinery, to more inviting fields.

British agriculture, long depressed and chronically exposed to bad harvests, is now threatened with ruin by foreign competition, and British manufactures also seem almost as destitute of sunshine as their agriculture, though still owning a reluctant allegiance to the laws of the universe and to the exact science of the garrulous Bonamy Price. Lord Derby, in a late speech to the Lancashire farmers, recommended that some of the farmers should emigrate—five millions, I believe, he proposed—and those who might remain, said he, will then be able to farm on better terms.

True enough; but what a cold, sunless, and desperate remedy is that! If not Roman decimation, at least a sentence of banishment, crushing out the sweetest affections planted in human hearts, their love for their birthplaces, the homes of their fathers! But if these ill-fated men have barely supported life by the pittances daily earned, by what means, at whose cost, can they be transported to better and more welcome homes? The advice of Lord Derby is like that of the children of Marie Antoinette when the populace of Paris were clamoring for bread. Said the children: “Why don’t they buy cake?” Equally “child-like and bland” is Lord Derby. It would seem, when over 40 per cent. of their yearly imports must be of food, that the British Islands are too small for the foundations of the empire. The grand pyramid stands upon its apex reversed.

English statesmen have not forgotten the reservation of Sir Robert Peel, the author of the free-trade bill in 1846: “I reserve to myself,” said he, “distinctly and unequivocally the right of adapting my conduct to the exigencies of the moment and to the wants of the country;” and that is all protectionists ever claim to do.

Already Sir Stafford Northcote, the leader of the Tory opposition in the House of Commons, is on the fence, and only ventures to favor “universal free trade.” That is surely a horse of another color, not Wellington’s “Copenhagen,” but more like Sancho Panza’s “Dapple.”

The recent reaction or change in many organs of British opinion shows that this right of adaptation to the exigencies of the moment is neither surrendered nor obsolete. Let me cite an extract from an influential paper, called the Observer:

There is no obligation upon us to incur industrial martyrdom for the sake of propagating free-trade principles, even supposing their truth to be as self-evident as we fondly imagined. Moreover, to speak the honest truth, we are beginning to doubt how far the creed to which we pinned our faith is so self-evident as we originally conceived. If we can persuade other nations to follow our example, then free trade is unquestionably the best thing for England. It does not follow, however, that it is the best thing for us, if we are to be left the sole adherents of free trade in the midst of a community of nations devoted to protection.

The Observer does not say, as will be seen, that it is best for other nations, but only, if they will follow her example, “unquestionably the best thing for England;” and that will not be disputed.

Other nations, however, seem to prefer to profit by the earlier English example, displayed for seventy years after Smith’s Wealth of Nations appeared, and free trade, like the favorite English plum-pudding, is now called for by nobody but themselves, and is getting so cold as to be unpalatable even at home. Yet it is proposed by the amateur statesmen of our urban free-trade clubs, guiltless of any drop of perspiration in the paths of industry, to arrest American development by copying this foreign example, and thus bring our home labor and all of its rewards down to the European and Asiatic level. Nevertheless, I have faith that we shall abide in the track of the principles and politics which elevate and give character to American citizens, surrounding them with the daily presence and beauty of the useful arts, which so largely add to the power and dignity of any people in the great family of nations. To limit the industrial forces of an active, inventive, and ingenious people to agriculture alone, excluding manufactures and the mechanic arts, would be little better than in time of war to restrict an army to infantry alone, to the exclusion of cavalry and artillery. Great battles are not often so won.

A diversity of pursuits makes a great nation possible in peace, and greater in war. General competence, habits of self-reliance, and higher culture are thus more surely obtained. The improvement in one occupation is contagious, and spreads to all others. Philosophy, politics, and liberty all go up higher, and the happiness and dignity of mankind are promoted.

It is an axiom of British free-trade economy that for any branch of manufactures to rest on safe foundations it is indispensable that both the raw material and the skilled labor required should be indigenous. This seems to be a rule intended to fence out of the field all nations where either the raw material or the skilled labor called for is not native and abundant; but, if applied where the raw material is not indigenous, the British Islands would be stripped of a great share of their industry. Nor can any nation claim a class of men as born with a monopoly of skilled endowments; these, at any rate, are not “congenital,” and trades must be taught by long apprenticeships; but raw materials are usually planted by nature, and climate and soil fix and determine inflexible boundaries. Cotton is not indigenous in the British Islands, though their accomplished cotton manufactures have made it the leading article of commerce, leading their national policy. Hemp and silk, also, are the products of other lands. Having no timber or lumber good enough for ships, it is all brought, like their royal timber, from any place in the world but home. The steel used at Sheffield for cutlery is made from iron imported from Sweden and Norway; and no fine or merino wool consumed is of home growth. Not a little of the best machinery now alive in England had its birth on this side of the Atlantic, and must be credited to American genius.

The title of the British Islands to all the raw material, and to exclusive and hereditary mechanical skill among men, is widely contested, and the world will not fold its arms unresistingly to any such pretentious domination. The power of steam, though marvelously developed by English cleverness, is an auxiliary force belonging of right to the whole human race, as much as gravity or electricity, wherever its service may be called for, and its abode can no more be exclusively monopolized than that of the Promethean fire stolen from Heaven.

The first steam-engine is supposed to have been employed at Manchester in 1790, where there are now, it is stated, in daily use within a circuit of ten miles more than fifty thousand boilers, yielding a total force equal to the power of one million horses, and the combined steam-power of Great Britain is represented to be equal to the manual labor of twice the number of males living on the globe. We greatly admire the prodigious enterprise of Great Britain, and it would be strange if, with our immensely greater coal-fields, it should let Americans sleep.

THE THEORY.

Free trade, as a theory, unembarrassed by contact with practical affairs, and divorced from any idea of supplying other equal and legitimate sources of revenue for the support of governments, appears wonderfully simple and seductive. Tearing down custom-houses, as a knock-down argument, is held to be scientific, but it is not conclusive. Some schoolmen, innocent of earning even a coat or a pair of shoes by the sweat of the brow, and sage without experience, adopt the theory because it is an article of faith—saving without works—with a ready-made catechism in imported text-books, and requires no comprehensive investigation of the multiform and ever-varying facts and exigencies in national affairs; but when the theory comes to be practically applied alike to all times, places and conditions of men, it obviously becomes political quackery, as untenable and preposterous as it would be to insist upon clothing all mankind in garments of the same material, in summer or winter, and of equal cut and dimensions, whether for big men or little, on the Danube or on the Mississippi. But however free trade comes to America, it comes as a strait-jacket, and whether new or second-hand, it is equally a misfit and unacceptable.

The affairs of communities are subject to endless differences from age to age and year to year, and governments that do not recognize these differences are either stupid or tyrannical, and deserve to be superseded or overthrown. In 1816 the sound policy of England, as Lord Brougham declared, was to stifle “in the cradle those infant manufactures in the United States which the war had forced into existence.” In 1824 the policy, according to Huskisson, was “an extension of the principle of reducing duties just so far as was consistent with complete protection of British industry.” In 1846 duties upon most foreign manufactures had almost ceased to yield any revenue, and Sir Robert Peel was forced to listen to the cry for cheap bread, though he was teased almost to the fighting point by the fertile, bitter, and matchless sarcasms of Disraeli, who also said: “The time will come when the working classes of England will come to you on bended knees and pray you to undo your present legislation.”

At this moment important changes of public opinion seem to be going on abroad, and the ponderous octavos of Malthus, Ricardo, McCulloch, and Mill may have some repose. What may have been found expedient yesterday may be fraught with mischief to-day, and he that has no distrust of an inflexible free-trade hobby will turn out to be, unwittingly perhaps, as has been well said, “a friend of every other country but his own,” and find at last that he has rejected the solid school of experience only to get astride of an imported catch-word, vainly imagining he is bottomed on a scientific and universal principle. Daniel Webster declared, “I give up what is called the science of political economy. There is no such science. There are no rules on these subjects so fixed and invariable that their aggregate constitutes a science.”

PRACTICE VERSUS THEORY.

But English free trade does not mean free trade in such articles as the poor require and must have, like tea and coffee, nor in tobacco, wines and spirituous liquors. These articles they reserve for merciless exactions, all specific, yielding a hundred millions of revenue, and at three times the rate we levy on spirits and more than five times the rate we levy on tobacco! This is the sly part of the entertainment to which we are invited by free-traders.

In 1880 Great Britain, upon tobacco and cigars, mainly from the United States, valued at $6,586,520, collected $43,955,670 duties, or nearly two-thirds as much as we collect from our entire importations of merchandise from Great Britain.

After all, is it not rather conspicuous hypocrisy for England to disclaim all protection, so long as she imposes twenty-nine cents per pound more upon manufactured tobacco than upon unmanufactured, and double the rate upon manufactured cocoa of that upon the raw? American locomotives are supposed to have great merit, and the foreign demand for them is not unknown, but the use of any save English locomotives upon English railroads is prohibited. Is there any higher protection than prohibition? And have not her sugar refiners lived upon the difference of the rates imposed upon raw and refined sugars? On this side of the Atlantic such legislation would be called protection.

WHAT THEY MEAN.

One of the cardinal principles of British free-traders is, “Buy where you can buy cheapest, and sell where you can sell dearest,” and that is precisely what they mean. They expect to buy of us cheapest and sell to us dearest. It is the only logical outcome of the whole policy. We are to be the victims of sharpers, whether we sell or buy. One-half of this resounding phrase, “buy where you can buy cheapest,” often appears to touch the pocket nerve of those who, having nothing to sell, derive their income from capital, or from a fixed salary, and they forget that their capital or their salary might have been much smaller had it not been for the greater prosperity and compensation which protection has given to labor and to all business enterprises. Some part of this class are accustomed to make periodical journeys through foreign lands, and as they often bring home more or less of esthetic rarities, they feel aggrieved that such expensive luxuries, which, if cheap and common, would have had no attractions for them, often happen to be among the very tidbits upon which it is the fitting policy of a republican form of government to levy revenue. The tax falls upon those able to pay. No country on the globe sends out so many foreign travelers with a spendable surplus, as the United States, or that scatter their money more generously, not to say extravagantly. English reciprocity in pleasure travel, however, like their often proposed commercial reciprocity, is comparatively jug-handled. They come singly; we go in droves and caravans.

AMERICA VINDICATED BY THOSE WHO COME TO STAY.

But if foreign countries send comparatively an unequal number of visitors tending to reimburse the abounding expenditures of Americans abroad, they do send us a far more numerous if not valuable company who come to stay, bringing both fortunes and affections, and adding, as they have added within the past two years, over a million and a quarter of brave hearts and willing hands to the productive forces of the country. Their tracks are all one way. None go back and none come here as drones, for such stay away to absorb honey already stored; but the “tenth legions,” so to say, of all the conscripted armies of Europe, in health and fit for any service, are rushing to our shore on the “waves of the Atlantic, three thousand miles long,” as volunteers for life. Were we to drop protection this western exodus would cease and the emigrants now here would be relegated to the same scale of wages from which they so anxiously attempted to escape.

These facts are pregnant arguments annually reproduced, upholding the American policy of protection, and show that those who expect to earn their living—tempted, it is true, by the highest rewards, and tempted by free schools for their children—know where to find the largest opportunities for the comforts of life, for happiness and intellectual progress; and know also that America is not and never intends to be a transatlantic Ireland nor an agricultural back lot of Europe.

COMMERCIAL RULES NOT A SCIENCE.

We have some worthy literary professors of free trade and some hacks who know their master’s crib “of quick conception and easy delivery,” as John Randolph would have described them, who, having determined that the sun shall hereafter rise in the west, assume for their doctrines, like their English masters, the basis of absolute science, which they insist shall be everywhere accepted, regardless of all conditions, wants, or circumstances, as the latest revelation of economic truth; but free trade fails, shamefully fails, to stand the admitted tests of an exact science, as its results must ever be both an inconsistent quantity and incapable of prediction. It yields to the condition of nations and of the seasons, to war, to time, and constantly yields to facts. The blackboard compels universal assent to mathematics, and the laboratory offers the same service to chemistry; but any test or analysis of free trade yields nothing but polemical vagaries, and it may appropriately be consigned to the witches’ cauldron with—

Eye of newt, and toe of frog, Wool of bat, and tongue of dog.

· · · · ·

Mingle, mingle, mingle, You that mingle may.

Queerly enough some of the parties referred to, denounce the tariff men as but “half-educated,” while, perhaps, properly demanding themselves exclusive copyright protection for all of their own literary productions, whether ephemeral or abiding. It is right, they seem to think, to protect brains—and of these they claim the monopoly—but monstrous to protect muscles; right to protect the pen, but not the hoe nor the hammer.

Free trade would almost seem to be an aristocratic disease from which workingmen are exempt, and those that catch it are as proud of it as they would be of the gout—another aristocratic distinction.

It might be more modest for these “nebulous professors” of political economy to agree among themselves how to define and locate the leading idea of their “dismal science” whether in the value in exchange or value in use, in profits of capital or wages, whether in the desire for wealth or aversion to labor, or in the creation, accumulation, distribution and consumption of wealth, and whether rent is the recompense for the work of nature or the consequence of a monopoly of property, before they ask a doubting world to accept the flickering and much disputed theory of free trade as an infallible truth about which they have themselves never ceased to wrangle. The weight of nations against it is as forty to one. It may be safe to say that when sea-serpents, mermaids, and centaurs find a place in natural history, free trade will obtain recognition as a science; but till then it must go uncrowned, wearing no august title, and be content with the thick-and-thin championship of the “Cobden Club.”

THE BRITISH POLICY EVERYWHERE REJECTED.

All of the principal British colonies from the rising to the setting of the sun—India alone possibly excepted—are in open and successful revolt against the application of the free-trade tyranny of their mother country, and European States not only refuse to copy the loudly-heralded example, but they are retreating from it as though it were charged with dynamite. Even the London Times, the great “thunderer” of public opinion in Great Britain, does not refrain from giving a stunning blow to free trade when it indicates that it has proved a blunder, and reminds the world that it predicted it would so prove at the start. The ceremony of free trade, with only one party responding solitary and alone, turns out as dull and disconsolate as that of a wedding without a bride. The honeymoon of buying cheap and selling dear appears indefinitely postponed.

There does not seem to be any party coming to rescue England from her isolated predicament. Bismarck, while aiming to take care of the interests of his own country, as do all ministers, on this question perhaps represents the attitude of the greater part of the far-sighted statesmen of Europe, and he, in one of his recent parliamentary speeches, declared:

Without being a passionate protectionist, I am as a financier, however, a passionate imposer of duties, from the conviction that the taxes, the duties levied at the frontier, are almost exclusively borne by the foreigner, especially for manufactured articles, and that they have always an advantageous, retrospective, protectionist action.

Practically the nations of continental Europe acquiesce in this opinion, and are a unit in their flat refusal of British free trade. They prefer the example of America. Before self-confident men pronounce the whole world of tariff men, at home and abroad, “half-educated or half-witted,” they would do well to see to it that the stupidity is not nearer home, or that they have not themselves cut adrift from the logic of their own brains, only to be wofully imposed upon by free-trade quackery, which treats man as a mere fact, no more important than any other fact, and ranks labor only as a commodity to be bought and sold in the cheapest or dearest markets.

So long as statesmen are expected to study the prosperity and advancement of the people for whose government and guidance they are made responsible, so long free-trade theories must be postponed to that Utopian era when the health, strength and skill, capital and labor of the whole human race shall be reduced or elevated to an entire equality, and when each individual shall dwell in an equal climate, upon an equal soil, freely pasture his herds and flocks where he pleases, and love his neighbor better than himself.

OUR FARMERS.

The test of profitable farming is the state of the account at the end of the year. Under free trade the evidence multiplies that the English farmer comes to the end of the year with no surplus, often in debt, bare and discontented. Their laborers rarely know the luxury of meat, not over sixteen ounces per week,[87] and never expect to own a rood of the soil.

But under the protective policy the American farmer holds and cultivates his own land, has a surplus at the end of the year for permanent investments or improvements, and educates and brings up his sons and daughters with the advantages and comforts of good society. There are more American houses with carpets than in any other country of the world. I believe it will not be disputed that the down-trodden tillers of the soil in Great Britain are not well fed; that they are coarsely underclad, and that for lack of common-school culture they would hardly be regarded as fit associates here for Americans who drive their teams afield, or for the young men who start in life as laborers upon farms. The claim that free trade is the true policy of the American farmer would seem to be, therefore, a very courageous falsehood.

It is an unfortunate tendency of the age that nearly one-half of the population of the globe is concentrated in cities, often badly governed, and sharply exposed to extravagance, pauperism, immorality, and all the crimes and vices which overtake mankind reared in hot-beds. I would neither undervalue the men of brilliant parts, nor blot out the material splendor of cities, but regret to see the rural districts depopulated for their unhealthy aggrandizement. Free trade builds up a few of these custom-house cities, where gain from foreign trade is the chief object sought, where mechanics, greater in numbers than any other class, often hang their heads, though Crœsus rolls in Pactolian wealth, and Shylock wins his pound of flesh; but protection assembles artisans and skilled workmen in tidy villages and towns, details many squadrons of industry to other and distant localities, puts idle and playful waterfalls at work, opens, builds up, and illumines, as with an electric light, the whole interior of the country; and the farmer of Texas or of New England, of Iowa or of Wisconsin, is benefited by such reinforcements of consumers, whether they are by his side or across the river, at Atlanta or South Bend, at Paterson or at Providence. The farmers own and occupy more than nineteen-twentieths of our whole territory, and their interest is in harmony with the even-handed growth and prosperity of the whole country.

There is not a State whose interests would not be jeopardized by free trade, and I should like to dwell upon the salient facts as to Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Alabama, Illinois, and many other States, but I shall only refer to one. The State of Texas, surpassing empires in its vast domains, doubling its population within a decade, and expending over twenty million dollars within a year in the construction of additional railroads, with a promised expenditure within the next fifteen months of over twenty-seven millions more, has sent to market as raw material the past year 12,262,052 pounds of hides, 20,671,639 pounds of wool, and 1,260,247 bales of cotton. Her mineral resources, though known to be immense, are as yet untouched. Her bullocks, in countless herds on their way to market, annually crowd and crop the prairies from Denver to Chicago. But now possessed of a liberal system of railroads, how long will the dashing spirit of the Lone Star State—where precious memories still survive of Austin, of Houston, of Rusk, and of Schleicher—be content to send off unmanufactured her immense bulk of precious raw materials, which should be doubled in value at home, and by the same process largely multiply her population? With half as many in number now as had the original thirteen, and soon to pass our largest States, wanting indefinite quantities of future manufactures at home, Texas should also prepare to supply the opening trade with Mexico, in all of its magnitude and variety, and far more worthy of ambition than in the golden days of Montezuma.

No State can run and maintain railroads unless the way-stations, active and growing settlements and towns, are numerous enough to offer a large, constant, and increasing support. The through business of long lines of railroads is of great importance to the termini, and gives the roads some prestige, but the prosperity and dividends mainly accrue from the local business of thrifty towns on the line of the roads. It is these, especially manufacturing towns, which make freight both ways, to and from, that free trade must ever fail to do, and while through freights, owing to inevitable competition, pay little or no profit, the local freights sustain the roads, and are and must be the basis of their chief future value. Without this efficient local support, cheap and rapid long transportation would be wholly impracticable.

The Southern States, in the production of cotton, have possibly already reached the maximum quantity that can be cultivated with greatest profit, unless the demand of the world expands. A short crop now often brings producers a larger sum than a full crop. The amount of the surplus sent abroad determines the price of the whole crop. Production appears likely soon to outrun the demand. Texas alone has latent power to overstock the world. Is it not time, therefore, to curtail the crop, or to stop any large increase of it, while sure to obtain as much or more for it, and to turn unfruitful capital and labor into other and more profitable channels of industry? The untrodden fields, where capital and labor wait to be organized for the development of Southern manufactures and mining, offer unrivaled temptations to leaders among men in search of legitimate wealth.

The same facts are almost equally applicable to general agriculture, but more particularly to the great grain-growing regions of the West. A great harvest frequently tends to render the labor of the whole year almost profitless, whenever foreign countries are blessed with comparatively an equal abundance. The export of corn last year in October was 8,535,067 bushels, valued at $4,604,840, but the export of only 4,974,661 bushels this year brings $3,605,813. An equal difference appears in the increased value of exports of flour. A much larger share of crops must be consumed nearer home, if any sure and regular market is to be permanently secured. The foreign demand, fitful and uncertain as it is, rarely exceeds one-twentieth of even the present home requirements, and the losses from long transportation, incident to products of great bulk, can never be successfully avoided except by an adequate home demand.

Farmers do not look for a market for grain among farmers, but solely among non-producing consumers, and these it is greatly to their interest to multiply rather than to diminish by forcing them to join in producing or doubling crops for which there may be an insufficient demand. Every ship-load of wheat sent abroad tends to bring down foreign prices; and such far-off markets should be sought only when the surplus at home is excessive or when foreign prices are extraordinarily remunerative.

The wheat regions of the West, superb as they undoubtedly are, it is to be feared, have too little staying character to be prodigally squandered, and their natural fertility noticeably vanishes in the rear unless retained by costly fertilizers almost as rapidly as new fields open in front. Some of the Middle States as well as the New England, though seeking fertilizers far and near, already look to the West for much of their corn and bread; and there is written all over Eastern fields, as Western visitors may read, the old epitaph, “As we are now so you may be.” It will take time for this threatened decadence, but not long in the life of nations. The wheat crop runs away from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, and sinks in other localities as it looms up in Minnesota, Nebraska, and Dakota. Six years of cropping in California, it is said, reduces the yield per acre nearly one-half.

There was in 1880 devoted to wheat culture over thirty-five million acres, or nearly double the acreage of 1875. In twenty-five years a hundred million people will more than overtake any present or prospective surplus, and we may yet need all of our present magnificent wheat fields to give bread to our own people. Certainly we need not be in haste to slaughter and utterly exhaust the native fertility of our fields on the cheap terms now presented.

England, with all her faults, is great, but unfortunately has not room to support her greatness, and must have cheap food and be able to offer better wages or part with great numbers of her people. I most sincerely hope her statesmen—and she is never without those of eminence—will prove equal to their great trust and to any crisis; but we cannot surrender the welfare of our Republic to any foreign empire. Free trade may or may not be England’s necessity. Certainly it is not our necessity; and it has not reached, and never will reach, the altitude of a science. An impost on corn there, it is clear, would now produce an exodus of her laboring population that would soon leave the banner of Victoria waving over a second-rate power.

Among the nations of the world the high position of the United States was never more universally and cordially admitted. Our rights are everywhere promptly conceded, and we ask nothing more. It is an age of industry, and we can only succeed by doing our best. Our citizens under a protective tariff are exceptionally prosperous and happy, and not strangers to noble deeds nor to private virtues. A popular government based on universal suffrage will be best and most certainly perpetuated by the elevation of laboring men through the more liberal rewards of diversified employments, which give scope to all grades of genius and intelligence and tend to secure to posterity the blessings of universal education and the better hope of personal independence.

Speech of Hon. J. D. Cameron, of Penna.

On the Reduction of Revenue as Affecting the Tariff. Delivered in the United States Senate January 16, 1882.

Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania. I move to take up the resolution submitted by me in relation to internal-revenue taxes.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution submitted by Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania, December 6, 1881:

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate it is expedient to reduce the revenue of the Government by abolishing all existing internal revenue taxes except those imposed upon high wines and distilled spirits.

Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, the surplus revenue of this Government applicable to the payment of the public debt for the year ending June 30, 1881, was $100,069,404.98.

The inference from these figures must be that if such surplus receipts are applied to the reduction of the debt it will be paid within ten or twelve years. The question then is: Should the people continue to be taxed as heavily as they now are to pay it off within so short a period? Is it wise or prudent?

No one will deny the wisdom of the legislators who inaugurated the system of reducing the debt, or the patriotism of the people who have endured a heavy load of taxation to pay the interest and reduce the principal of such indebtedness. Both have been causes of wonder to the world, and have shown the strength, honesty, and prudence attainable under a republican form of government in matters where it was thought to be weak. It is acknowledged that the course thus pursued by Congress, and supported by the people, has had several good results. The exercise of the power of the Government and the cheerful submission to the enacting nature of the laws by the people has had an undoubted tendency to elevate and strengthen the moral tone of the nation, giving the people more confidence in each other, and compelling the approval of the world. It has reduced the principal sum of our national indebtedness until it is entirely within the ready control of the financial ability of the people either to pay off or to pay the interest thereon. It has established the credit of the country, and brought it up from a position where the 6 per cent. gold bonds of the United States before the war would not command par to a present premium of 17 per cent, on a 4 per cent. bond, and to the ready exchange of called 6 per cent. bonds into new ones bearing 3½ per cent. interest. It has demonstrated the ability of the country not only to carry on a most expensive internal war, but to pay off its cost in a time unknown to any other people; and further, that the ability of the country to furnish men and material of war and to meet increased financial demands is cumulative. The burden carried by this country from 1861 to the present day has been much greater than it would be if laid upon this nation and people from 1881 to 1900.

The burden, therefore, of the present debt would fall but lightly on the country if the payment thereof should be for a time delayed, or the rate at which it has been paid be decreased. It thus becomes a question of prudence with the Government whether they will continue the burden upon the people, or relieve them of part of it.

The burdens of general taxation borne by the people are very onerous. They have not only the General Government to sustain, on which devolves the expenses of legislation, of the Federal judiciary, of the representatives of our country in all the principal governments and cities of the world, of the management of such of our internal affairs and conveniences as belong to Congress, the keeping up of our Army and Navy, the erection of public buildings, the improvement of the rivers and harbors, and many other items that require large annual expenditures. With the increase of population and the filling up of our unoccupied lands almost all these annual outlays and expenses will tend to increase in place of decreasing, and all such expenditures must be in some way met by the people of the country. They have also to sustain their State governments with the expenses and outlays incident to them, their legislatures, judiciaries, penitentiaries, places of reform, hospitals, and all means of aiding the afflicted, to sustain the common schools, to pay the cost of such improvements of rivers, of canals, of railways, or of roads as the States may undertake. They have also the heavy cost to meet of city governments, of county, town and borough governments; they must pay the inferior Legislatures, erect buildings, provide water, police, jails, poor-houses, and build roads and take care of them.

On the liberality of the people the country depends for the building of charitable institutions, universities, colleges, private schools of high grade, and every variety of relief to the poor and the afflicted. In addition to these burdens almost all the States, most of the large cities, and many of the counties and towns in the States still labor under the burdens of indebtedness incurred during the war to sustain the General Government, which indebtedness, incurred on the then value of paper currency, has now to be paid in gold. They have not had the means at command to pay off much of such indebtedness like the General Government, nor to refund it at a lower rate of interest. The superior credit of the General Government has been made partially at the expense of the local governments. I have stated these facts that Senators might keep in mind that the question should not be considered as merely one of our ability to reduce our indebtedness by paying off annually one hundred millions of dollars and by continuing our present laws for raising revenues, as if it were but a small matter for the people to do, but it should be considered in connection with the total burden of taxation imposed by the revenue laws of the General Government, as well as by those of the State and the subordinate governments within their bounds.

There is, therefore, a strong argument to be found in these facts of the other burdens of taxation borne by the people in favor of reducing the amount of revenue applicable to the payment of the public debt when it can be done without injury to the credit of the Government and without risking in the least the ability of the Government either to pay such indebtedness as it matures or to interfere with the ability of the Government to fully provide for the wants of the country as they may be developed. A complete statement of the percentage of taxation borne by each male citizen of the United States over twenty-one years of age in the various ways stated would astound the Senate and the country. There is probably no country in the world where the taxation direct and indirect is so heavy, and only a people situated and circumstanced as the American people are could prosper under such a burden. If no other reason could be advanced in favor of a reduction of the amount of moneys derived from our internal-revenue laws than this one of reducing the burdens of the people, it would be amply sufficient, in my judgment, to warrant the proposed reduction. Yet I will say frankly that I have another object in wishing to have the internal revenue reduced, and I hope before long that every vestige of that system will cease to exist. That object is to prevent any material change being made in the tariff upon imports as it now exists, for upon its existence depends the prosperity, the happiness, the improvement, the education of the laboring people of the country, although I do not object to a careful revision of it by a competent commission.

I want to say a word here about the arrears of pension act. This act never should be repealed, and in my judgment it never will or can be. It has lately been held up to contempt by that class of people who twenty years ago were engaged in exhorting these same pensioners to go to the front, and who now object to rewarding them; but their opinion is not shared by the people at large; in fact, no more essentially just law was ever placed upon the statute book. Its effect is simply and solely to prevent the Government from pleading the statute of limitation against its former defenders. It did not increase the rate of pensions in any way whatever, but merely said that a man entitled to a pension for physical injury received in Government service should not be debarred from receiving it because he was late in making his application. To the payment of these pensions every sentiment of honesty and gratitude should hold us firmly committed.

My friend the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] is very honest, is generally very astute, and has great capacity as a leader. My personal friendship makes me desire his success, and as an individual I want him to be the recipient of all the honors his party can bestow upon him, but I am very sure that he is now opposing a measure that is intended to promote the welfare of and is in accord with the wishes of the people of the country. He is leading his party astray, he is holding it back, he is tying it to the carcass of free trade.

Politically I am glad that he is; on his own account I regret it. He is opposing the principle of protection, and, in my judgment, no man can do that and retain the support of the people. No party can to-day proclaim the doctrine of “a tariff for revenue only” and survive. Opposition to an earnest prosecution of the war for the suppression of the rebellion failed to destroy the Democratic party because of the recruits it received from the South, but opposition to the doctrine of protection to American productions, hostility to the elevation of American labor, no party in this enlightened day can advocate and live. I am astonished that the Democratic party does not learn by experience. The “tariff-for-a-revenue-only” plank in the Cincinnati platform lost it Indiana, lost it New York, and in 1884 it will lose it one-half of the Southern States.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour has expired. Is it the pleasure of the Senate that unanimous consent be given to the Senator from Pennsylvania to proceed with his remarks?

Mr. BECK. I move that unanimous consent be granted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection, and the morning hour will be continued until the Senator from Pennsylvania closes his remarks.

Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania. The great question of protection to American labor will be the question which will obliterate old dissensions and unite the States in one common brotherhood. The Democratic party has made its last great fight. It will struggle hard, and in its death throes will, with the aid of a few unsuccessful and disappointed Republicans, possibly have temporary local successes, but death has marked it for its victim, die it will, and on its tomb will be inscribed, “Died because of opposition to the education, the elevation, the advancement of the people.”

The historic policy of this country has been to raise its revenues mainly from duties on imports and from the sale of the public lands. There are many reasons in favor of this policy. It is more just and equal in its burdens on the States and on the people; it is less inquisitorial, less expensive, less liable to corruption; it is free from many vexed questions which our experience of twenty years in collecting internal revenue has developed. The internal revenue brings the General Government in contact with the people in almost every thing they eat, wear, or use. The collection of revenue by duties on imports is so indirect as to remove much of the harshness felt when the citizen comes in direct contact with the iron grip of the law compelling him to affix a stamp to what he makes or uses. No one will question the fact that the collection of internal duties unfavorably affected the general morals of the nation.

The internal revenue laws were adopted by the Government as a war measure, as an extraordinary and unusual means of raising money for an emergency, and it is proper and in accordance with public opinion that with the end of the emergency such policy should cease. I cannot but think that every Senator will agree with me that the end of the emergency has been reached. The emergency embraced not only the time of the expenditures, but their continuation until the debt incurred during the emergency was so reduced as to be readily managed, if not exclusively by the ordinary revenues of the Government, yet with a greatly reduced system of internal revenues and for a limited time. But in determining wherein such reduction shall be made, two great interests of the country are to be considered:

First, the system of duties on foreign goods, wares, &c.

Second, our national banking system.

It has been proposed to meet this question of reduction by lowering the rates of duty, and thus to continue in this country indefinitely the use of direct and indirect taxation, supposing that such reduction would require the prolonged continuation of internal taxation.

The first effect of this would be to increase the revenues, as lower duties would lead for awhile to increased importations; but ultimately these increased importations would destroy our manufactures and impoverish the people to the point of inability to buy largely abroad, and when that point would be reached, we should have no other source of revenue than internal taxes upon an impoverished people. At first we should have more revenue than we need, but in the end much less.

This statement of the effect of lower duties may at first seem anomalous and questionable, but that such would be the result is proven by the effect on the revenues of the country of the reduction in duties in the tariff of 1846 below that of 1842. This will be evident from the Treasury statistics of the years 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, &c., which will show for the latter years a large increase of revenues. A reduction of duties which would affect the ability of our manufacturers to compete with foreign makers would cause a large importation of goods, with two objects: first, to find a market, the effect of which would be to keep the mills of England and other countries fully employed; and, second, a repetition of the custom of English manufacturers to put goods on our markets at low and losing prices for the purpose of crippling and breaking down our operators. And the increase of out national revenues would continue until our fires were stopped, our mills and mines closed, our laborers starved, and our capital and skill, the work of many years, lost. This time would be marked, by a renewal of our vassalage to England. Then the tables would be turned, our revenues would fall off with our inability to purchase, our taxation would continue and become very onerous, and in place of a strong, reliant, and self-supporting people, exercising a healthful influence over the nations of the world, we would be owned and be the servants of Europe, tilling the ground for the benefit of its people; our laborers would be brought down to a level with the pauper labor of Europe.

Our form of government will not permit the employment of ignorant pauper labor. It is a government of the people, and to have it continue to grow and prosper the people must be paid such wages as will enable them to be educated sufficiently to realize and appreciate the benefits of its free institutions; and knowing these benefits, they will maintain them. If, on the other hand, it is desirable that the revenues from duties should be decreased, and thereby retain both kinds of taxation, the direct and the indirect, the best possible way to do this would be to largely increase the duties on imported goods, which would for a time decrease the imports, thereby decreasing the amount of duties received. This tendency would last until, through this policy, the wealth and purchasing power of the country would so largely increase that the revenues would again increase, both by reason of decreased cost in foreign countries and because of the purchase by us of articles of special beauty, skill, and luxury. It may be said (and however paradoxical it may appear, the assertion is proven by the history of the tariff) that while the immediate tendency with free-trade duties is to increase imports and revenues, the ultimate result of such low duties is to decrease the imports and revenues, due to the decreasing ability of the country to purchase. The immediate tendency of protective tariffs is to decrease imports and revenues, but the final result is to increase the imports and duties, arising from the greater ability of the country to purchase. But my intention is not to discuss at this time the question of a tariff, but to show the effect of a change in the duties on imports upon the revenues of the country.

I clearly recognize that while the public mind is decidedly in favor of encouraging home manufacturers by levying what are called protective duties, yet the people are opposed to placing those duties so high that they become prohibitory and making thereby an exclusive market for our manufacturers at home. It seems very clear to my mind, in view of these statements as to the result of decreasing or increasing the duties on our imports, that no reduction of revenue is practicable by changes in our tariff.

The second great interest of the people, which will very shortly be directly affected by the large and increasing surplus revenues of the country, is the system of national banks, and this through the decrease of the public indebtedness by the application of the annual surplus to its payment. The large annual reduction of the public debt will very shortly begin to affect the confidence of the public in the continuation of the system. It will increase public anxieties and excite their fears as to a substitution of any other system for this that has proven so acceptable and so valuable to the country. If the national banking system is to be worked out of existence, it will inevitably cause serious financial trouble.

Financial difficulties among a people like those of this country, however ill-based or slight, are always attended by disastrous consequences, because in times of prosperity the energies and hopefulness of the people are stretched to the utmost limits, and the shock of financial trouble has the effect of an almost total paralysis on the business of the country. It is certainly the part of statesmanship to avoid such a calamity whenever it is possible.

I unhesitatingly declare and believe that the value of our system of national banks is so great in the benefits the country derives therefrom and the dangers and losses its continuance will avoid that it were better to continue in existence an indebtedness equal to the wants of the banks which the country may from time to time require until some equally conservative plan may be offered that will enable us to dispense with the system.

It is also important in this connection for Senators to bear in mind that the increasing business of the country will annually require increased banking facilities, and consequently increased bonds as the basis on which they can be organized; and it should not be overlooked that a possible determination by Congress to pay off by retiring or by funding the greenbacks will create a great hiatus in the circulating medium of the country, which can only be replaced by additional national-bank notes based upon an equivalent amount of public indebtedness.

In view of the statements I have made, I cannot but conclude that the wisest and most prudent course for Congress is to leave the question of changes in the tariff laws to be adjusted as they may from time to time require, and to make whatever reduction of the income of the Government that may be found desirable by reducing the changes in the internal-revenue laws.

The national revenue laws as they now are may be greatly and profitably changed. They are very burdensome to a heavily-taxed people, and such burdens should be relieved wherever it is possible. This can now be done with safety by providing that so much of the public debt may be paid off from time to time as may not be required to sustain the system of national banks.

I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Finance.

The motion was agreed to.

Extracts from Speech of Hon. Thomas H. Benton,

_On Proposed Amendments of the Constitution in relation to the election of President and Vice-President, Delivered in the U. S. Senate Chamber, A. D. 1824_.

He said:—The evil of a want of uniformity in the choice of Presidential electors, is not limited to its disfiguring effect upon the face of our government, but goes to endanger the rights of the people, by permitting sudden alterations on the eve of an election, and to annihilate the rights of the small States, by enabling the large ones to combine, and to throw all their votes into the scale of a particular candidate. These obvious evils make it certain that any uniform rule would be preferable to the present state of things. But, in fixing on one, it is the duty of statesmen to select that which is calculated to give to every portion of the Union its due share in the choice of a chief magistrate, and to every individual citizen a fair opportunity of voting according to his will. This would be effected by adopting the District System. It would divide every State into districts equal to the whole number of votes to be given, and the people of each district would be governed by its own majority, and not by a majority existing in some remote part of the State. This would be agreeable to the rights of individuals: for in entering into society, and submitting to be bound by the decision of the majority, each individual retained the right of voting for himself wherever it was practicable, and of being governed by a majority of the vicinage, and not by majorities brought from remote sections to overwhelm him with their accumulated numbers. It would be agreeable to the interests of all parts of the States; for each State may have different interests in different parts; one part may be agricultural, another manufacturing, another commercial; and it would be unjust that the strongest should govern, or that two should combine and sacrifice the third. The district system would be agreeable to the intention of our present constitution, which, in giving to each elector a separate vote, instead of giving to each State a consolidated vote, composed of all its electoral suffrages, clearly intended that each mass of persons entitled to one elector, should have the right of giving one vote, according to their own sense of their own interest.

The general ticket system now existing in ten States, was the offspring of policy, and not of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those States, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State. It would be easy to prove this by referring to facts of historical notoriety. It contributes to give power and consequence to the leaders who manage the elections, but it is a departure from the intention of the constitution; violates the rights of the minorities, and is attended with many other evils.

The intention of the constitution is violated because it was the intention of that instrument to give to each mass of persons, entitled to one elector, the power of giving an electoral vote to any candidate they preferred. The rights of minorities are violated, because a majority of one will carry the vote of the whole State. The principle is the same, whether the elector is chosen by general ticket, or by legislative ballot; a majority of one, in either case, carries the vote of the whole State. In New York, thirty-six electors are chosen; nineteen is a majority, and the candidate receiving this majority is fairly entitled to receive nineteen votes; but he counts in reality thirty-six: because the minority of seventeen are added to the majority. These seventeen votes belong to seventeen masses of people, of 40,000 souls each, in all 680,000 people, whose votes are seized upon, taken away, and presented to whom the majority pleases. Extend the calculation to the seventeen States now choosing electors by general ticket or legislative ballot, and it will show that three millions of souls, a population equal to that which carried us through the Revolution, may have their votes taken from them in the same way. To lose their votes is the fate of all minorities, and it is theirs only to submit; but this is not a case of votes lost, but of votes taken away, added to those of the majority, and given to a person to whom the minority was opposed.

He said, this objection (to the direct vote of the people) had a weight in the year 1787, to which it is not entitled in the year 1824. Our government was then young, schools and colleges were scarce, political science was then confined to few, and the means of diffusing intelligence were both inadequate and uncertain. The experiment of a popular government was just beginning; the people had been just released from subjection to an hereditary king, and were not yet practiced in the art of choosing a temporary chief for themselves. But thirty-six years have reversed this picture; thirty-six years, which have produced so many wonderful changes in America, have accomplished the work of many centuries upon the intelligence of its inhabitants. Within that period, schools, colleges, and universities have multiplied to an amazing extent. The means of diffusing intelligence have been wonderfully augmented by the establishment of six hundred newspapers, and upwards of five thousand post-offices. The whole course of an American’s life, civil, social, and religious, has become one continued scene of intellectual and of moral improvement. Once in every week, more than eleven thousand men, eminent for learning and for piety, perform the double duty of amending the hearts, and enlightening the understandings, of more than eleven thousand congregations of people. Under the benign influence of a free government, both our public institutions and private pursuits, our juries, elections, courts of justice, the liberal professions, and the mechanical arts, have each become a school of political science and of mental improvement. The federal legislature, in the annual message of the President, in reports of heads of departments, and committees of Congress, and speeches of members, pours forth a flood of intelligence which carries its waves to the remotest confines of the republic. In the different States, twenty-four State executives and State legislatures, are annually repeating the same process within a more limited sphere. The habit of universal travelling, and the practice of universal interchange of thought, are continually circulating the intelligence of the country, and augmenting its mass. The face of our country itself, its vast extent, its grand and varied features, contribute to expand the human intellect and magnify its power. Less than half a century of the enjoyment of liberty has given practical evidence of the great moral truth, that under a free government, the power of the intellect is the only power which rules the affairs of men; and virtue and intelligence the only durable passports to honor and preferment. The conviction of this great truth has created an universal taste for learning and for reading, and has convinced every parent that the endowments of the mind and the virtues of the heart, are the only imperishable, the only inestimable riches which he can leave to his posterity.

This objection (the danger of tumults and violence at the elections) is taken from the history of the ancient republics; and the tumultuary elections of Rome and Greece. But the justness of the example is denied. There is nothing in the laws of physiology which admits a parallel between the sanguinary Roman, the volatile Greek, and the phlegmatic American. There is nothing in the state of the respective countries, or in the manner of voting, which makes one an example for the other. The Romans voted in a mass, at a single voting place, even when the qualified voters amounted to millions of persons.

They came to the polls armed, and divided into classes, and voted, not by heads, but by centuries.

In the Grecian republics all the voters were brought together in a great city, and decided the contest in one great struggle.

In such assemblages, both the inducement to violence, and the means of committing it, were prepared by the government itself. In the United States all this is different. The voters are assembled in small bodies, at innumerable voting places, distributed over a vast extent of country. They come to the polls without arms, without odious instructions, without any temptation to violence, and with every inducement to harmony.

If heated during the day of election, they cool off upon returning to their homes, and resuming their ordinary occupations.

But let us admit the truth of the objection. Let us admit that the American people would be as tumultuary at this presidential election as were the citizens of the ancient republics at the election of their chief magistrates. What then? Are we thence to infer the inferiority of the officers thus elected, and the consequent degradation of the countries over which they presided? I answer no. So far from it, that I assert the superiority of these officers over all others ever obtained for the same countries, either by hereditary succession, or the most select mode of election. I affirm those periods of history to be the most glorious in arms, the most renowned in arts, the most celebrated in letters, the most useful in practice, and the most happy in the condition of the people, in which the whole body of the citizens voted direct for the chief officer of their country. Take the history of that commonwealth which yet shines as the leading star in the firmament of nations. Of the twenty-five centuries that the Roman state has existed, to what period do we look for the generals and statesmen, the poets and orators, the philosophers and historians, the sculptors, painters and architects, whose immortal works have fixed upon their country the admiring eyes of all succeeding ages? Is it to the reign of the seven first kings?—to the reigns of the emperors, proclaimed by the prætorian bands?—to the reigns of the Sovereign Pontiffs, chosen by a select body of electors in a conclave of most holy cardinals? No.—We look to none of these, but to that short interval of four centuries and a half which lies between the expulsion of the Tarquins, and the re-establishment of monarchy in the person of Octavius Cæsar. It is to this short period, during which the consuls, tribunes, and prætors, were annually elected by a direct vote of the people, to which we look ourselves, and to which we direct the infant minds of our children, for all the works and monuments of Roman greatness; for roads, bridges, and aqueducts, constructed; for victories gained, nations vanquished, commerce extended, treasure imported, libraries founded, learning encouraged, the arts flourishing, the city embellished, and the kings of the earth humbly suing to be admitted into the friendship, and taken under the protection of the Roman people. It was of this magnificent period that Cicero spoke, when he proclaimed the people of Rome to be the masters of kings, and the conquerors and commanders of all the nations of the earth. And, what is wonderful, during this whole period, in a succession of four hundred and fifty annual elections, the people never once prepared a citizen to the consulship who did not carry the prosperity and glory of the Republic to a point beyond that at which he had found it.

It is the same with the Grecian Republics. Thirty centuries have elapsed since they were founded; yet it is to an ephemeral period of one hundred and fifty years only the period of popular elections which intervened between the dispersing of a cloud of petty tyrants, and the coming of a great one in the person of Philip, King of Macedon, that we are to look for that galaxy of names which shed so much lustre upon their country, and in which we are to find the first cause of that intense sympathy which now burns in our bosoms at the name of Greece.

These short and brilliant periods exhibit the great triumph of popular elections; often tumultuary, often stained with blood, but always ending gloriously for the country.

Then the right of suffrage was enjoyed; the sovereignty of the people was no fiction. Then a sublime spectacle was seen, when the Roman citizen advanced to the polls and proclaimed: “I vote for Cato to be consul;” the Athenian, “I vote for Aristides to be Archon;” the Hebran, “I vote for Pelopidas to be Bœotrach;” the Lacedemonian, “I vote for Leonidas to be first of the Ephori,” and why not an American citizen the same? Why may he not go up to the poll and proclaim, “I vote for Thomas Jefferson to be President of the United States?” Why is he compelled to put his vote in the hands of another, and to incur all the hazards of an irresponsible agency, when he himself could immediately give his own vote for his own chosen candidate, without the slightest assistance from agents or managers?

But I have other objections to these intermediate electors. They are the peculiar and favorite institution of aristocratic republics, and elective monarchies. I refer the Senate to the late republics of Venice and Genoa; of France, and her litter; to the Kingdom of Poland; the empire of Germany, and the Pontificate of Rome. On the contrary, a direct vote by the people is the peculiar and favorite institution of democratic republics; as we have just seen in the governments of Rome, Athens, Thebes, and Sparta; to which may be added the principal cities of the Amphyctionic and Achaian leagues, and the renowned republic of Carthage when the rival of Rome.

I have now answered the objections which were brought forward in the year ’78. I ask for no judgment upon their validity of that day, but I affirm them to be without force or reason in the year 1824.

TIME and EXPERIENCE have so decided. Yes, time and experience, the only infallible tests of good or bad institutions, have now shown that the continuance of the electoral system will be both useless and dangerous to the liberties of the people, and that the only effectual mode of preserving our government from the corruptions which have undermined the liberties of so many nations, is, to confide the election of our chief magistrates to those who are farthest removed from the influence of his patronage; that is to say, to the whole body of American citizens.

The electors are not independent; they have no superior intelligence; they are not left to their own judgment in the choice of a President; they are not above the control of the people; on the contrary, every elector is pledged, before he is chosen, to give his vote according to the will of those who choose him.

He is nothing but an agent, tied down to the execution of a precise trust. Every reason which induced the convention to institute electors has failed. They are no longer of any use, and may be dangerous to the liberties of the people. They are not useful, because they have no power over their own vote, and because the people can vote for a President as easily as they can vote for an elector. They are dangerous to the liberties of the people, because, in the first place, they introduce extraneous considerations into the election of President; and in the second place, they may sell the vote which is intrusted to their keeping. They introduce extraneous considerations, by bringing their own character and their own exertions into the presidential canvass. Every one sees this. Candidates for electors are now selected, not for the reasons mentioned in the Federalist, but for their devotion to a particular party, for their manners, and their talent at electioneering. The elector may betray the liberties of the people, by selling his vote. The operation is easy, because he votes by ballot; detection is impossible, because he does not sign his vote; the restraint is nothing but his own conscience, for there is no legal punishment for this breach of trust. If a swindler defrauds you out of a few dollars of property or money, he is whipped and pilloried, and rendered infamous in the eye of the law; but, if an elector should defraud 40,000 people of their vote, there is no remedy but to abuse him in newspapers, where the best men in the country may be abused, as Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot.

Every reason for instituting electors has failed, and every consideration of prudence requires them to be discontinued. They are nothing but agents, in a case which requires no agent; and no prudent man would, or ought, to employ an agent to take care of his money, his property, or his liberty, when he is equally capable to take care of them himself.

But, if the plan of the constitution had not failed—if we were now deriving from electors all the advantages expected from their institution—I, for one, would still be in favor of getting rid of them.

I should esteem the incorruptibility of the people, their disinterested desire to get the best man for President, to be more than a counterpoise to all the advantages which might be derived from the superior intelligence of a more enlightened, but smaller, and therefore, more corruptible body. I should be opposed to the intervention of electors, because the double process of electing a man to elect a man, would paralyze the spirit of the people, and destroy the life of the election itself. Doubtless this machinery was introduced into our constitution for the purpose of softening the action of the democratic element; but it also softens the interest of the people in the result of the election itself. It places them at too great a distance from their first servant. It interposes a body of men between the people and the object of their choice, and gives a false direction to the gratitude of the President elected. He feels himself indebted to the electors who collected the votes of the people, and not to the people, who gave their votes to the electors.

It enables a few men to govern many, and, in time, it will transfer the whole power of the election into the hands of a few, leaving to the people the humble occupation of confirming what has been done by superior authority.

IN MEMORIAM.

Hon. James G. Blaine’s Oration on President Garfield.

THE GRAND MORAL OF HIS CAREER.

An Elaborate, Polished and Scholarly Tribute by an Accomplished Orator, in the Hall of the House of Representatives, on Monday, Feb. 27, 1882.

At ten o’clock the doors of the House of Representatives were opened to holders of tickets for the memorial services, and in less than half an hour the galleries were filled, a large majority of the spectators being ladies, mostly in black. There were no signs of mourning in the hall, even the full-length portrait of the late President, James Abram Garfield, painted by E. F. Andrews, of Washington, being undraped. The three front rows of desks had been replaced by chairs to accommodate the invited guests, and the Marine Band was stationed in the lobby, back of the Speaker’s desk.

Among the distinguished guests first to arrive were George Bancroft, W. W. Corcoran, Cyrus Field and Admiral Worden, who took seats directly in front of the clerk’s desk. Among the guests who occupied seats upon the floor were General Schenck, Governor Hoyt, of Pennsylvania; Foster, of Ohio; Porter, of Indiana; Hamilton, of Maryland, and Bigelow, of Connecticut, and Adjutant-General Harmine, of Connecticut.

At 11.30 Generals Sherman, Sheridan, Hancock, Howard and Meigs, and Admirals Ammen and Rodgers entered at the north door of the chamber and were assigned seats to the left of the Speaker’s desk, and a few moments later the members of the Diplomatic Corps, in full regalia, were ushered in, headed by the Hawaiian Minister, as dean of the Corps. The Supreme Court of the District, headed by Marshal Henry, arrived next. Mrs. Blaine occupied a front seat in the gallery reserved for friends of the President. At twelve o’clock the House was called to order by Speaker Keifer, and prayer was offered by the Chaplain. The Speaker then announced that the House was assembled and ready to perform its part in the memorial services, and the resolutions to that effect were read by Clerk McPherson. At 12.10 the Senate was announced, and that body, headed by its officers, entered and took their assigned seats. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, in their robes of office, came next, and were followed by President Arthur and his Cabinet. The President took the front seat on the right of the Presiding Officer’s chair, next to that occupied by Cyrus W. Field.

Senator Sherman and Representative McKinley (Ohio) occupied seats at the desk on the right and left of the orator of the day. Mr. West, the British Minister, was the only member of the Diplomatic Corps who did not wear the court uniform.

A delegation of gentlemen from the Society of the Army of the Cumberland acted as ushers at the main entrance to the Rotunda and in the various corridors leading to the galleries.

At 12.30 the orator of the day was announced, and after a short prayer by the Chaplain of the House, F. D. Power, president Davis said: “This day is dedicated by Congress for memorial services of the late President of the United States, James A. Garfield. I present to you the Hon. James G. Blaine, who has been fitly chosen as the orator for this historical occasion.”

Mr. Blaine then rose, and standing at the clerk’s desk, immediately in front of the two presiding officers, proceeded, with impressiveness of manner and clearness of tone, to deliver his eulogy from manuscript, as follows:

Mr. Blaine’s Oration.

Mr. President: For the second time in this generation the great departments of the Government of the United States are assembled in the Hall of Representatives to do honor to the memory of a murdered President. Lincoln fell at the close of a mighty struggle in which the passions of men had been deeply stirred. The tragical termination of his great life added but another to the lengthened succession of horrors which had marked so many lintels with the blood of the first born. Garfield was slain in a day of peace, when brother had been reconciled to brother, and when anger and hate had been banished from the land. “Whoever shall hereafter draw the portrait of murder, if he will show it as it has been exhibited where such example was last to have been looked for, let him not give it the grim visage of Moloch, the brow knitted by revenge, the face black with settled hate. Let him draw, rather, a decorous smooth-faced, bloodless demon; not so much an example of human nature in its depravity and in its paroxysms of crime, as an infernal being, a fiend in the ordinary display and development of his character.”

GARFIELD’S ANCESTORS.

From the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth till the uprising against Charles First, about twenty thousand emigrants came from old England to New England. As they came in pursuit of intellectual freedom and ecclesiastical independence rather than for worldly honor and profit, the emigration naturally ceased when the contest for religious liberty began in earnest at home. The man who struck his most effective blow for freedom of conscience by sailing for the colonies in 1620 would have been accounted a deserter to leave after 1640. The opportunity had then come on the soil of England for that great contest which established the authority of Parliament, gave religious freedom to the people, sent Charles to the block, and committed to the hands of Oliver Cromwell the Supreme Executive authority of England. The English emigration was never renewed, and from these twenty thousand men with a small emigration from Scotland and from France are descended the vast numbers who have New England blood in their veins.

In 1685 the revocation of the edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. scattered to other countries four hundred thousand Protestants, who were among the most intelligent and enterprising of French subjects—merchants of capital, skilled manufacturers, and handicraftsmen superior at the time to all others in Europe. A considerable number of these Huguenot French came to America; a few landed in New England and became honorably prominent in its history. Their names have in large part become anglicised, or have disappeared, but their blood is traceable in many of the most reputable families, and their fame is perpetuated in honorable memorials and useful institutions.

From these two sources, the English-Puritan and the French-Huguenot, came the late President—his father, Abram Garfield, being descended from the one, and his mother, Eliza Ballou, from the other.

It was good stock on both sides—none better, none braver, none truer. There was in it an inheritance of courage, of manliness, of imperishable love of liberty, of undying adherence to principle. Garfield was proud of his blood; and, with as much satisfaction as if he were a British nobleman reading his stately ancestral record in Burke’s Peerage, he spoke of himself as ninth in descent from those who would not endure the oppression of the Stuarts, and seventh in descent from the brave French Protestants who refused to submit to tyranny even from the Grand Monarque.

General Garfield delighted to dwell on these traits, and during his only visit to England, he busied himself in discovering every trace of his forefathers in parish registries and on ancient army rolls. Sitting with a friend in the gallery of the House of Commons one night after a long day’s labor in this field of research, he said with evident elation that in every war in which for three centuries patriots of English blood had struck sturdy blows for constitutional government and human liberty, his family had been represented. They were at Marston Moor, at Naseby and at Preston; they were at Bunker Hill, at Saratoga, and at Monmouth, and in his own person had battled for the same great cause in the war which preserved the Union of the States.

Losing his father before he was two years old, the early life of Garfield was one of privation, but its poverty has been made indelicately and unjustly prominent. Thousands of readers have imagined him as the ragged, starving child, whose reality too often greets the eye in the squalid sections of our large cities. General Garfield’s infancy and youth had none of their destitution, none of their pitiful features appealing to the tender heart and to the open hand of charity. He was a poor boy in the same sense in which Henry Clay was a poor boy; in which Andrew Jackson was a poor boy; in which Daniel Webster was a poor boy; in the sense in which a large majority of the eminent men of America in all generations have been poor boys. Before a great multitude of men, in a public speech, Mr. Webster bore this testimony:

HIS EARLY DAYS.

“It did not happen to me to be born in a log cabin, but my elder brothers and sisters were born in a log cabin raised amid the snow drifts of New Hampshire, at a period so early that when the smoke rose first from its rude chimney and curled over the frozen hills there was no similar evidence of a white man’s habitation between it and the settlements on the rivers of Canada. Its remains still exist. I make to it an annual visit. I carry my children to it to teach them the hardships endured by the generations which have gone before them. I love to dwell on the tender recollections, the kindred ties, the early affections and the touching narratives and incidents which mingle with all I know of this primitive family abode.”

With the requisite change of scene the same words would aptly portray the early days of Garfield. The poverty of the frontier, where all are engaged in a common struggle and where a common sympathy and hearty co-operation lighten the burdens of each, is a very different poverty, different in kind, different in influence and effect from that conscious and humiliating indigence which is every day forced to contrast itself with neighboring wealth on which it feels a sense of grinding dependence. The poverty of the frontier is indeed no poverty. It is but the beginning of wealth, and has the boundless possibilities of the future always opening before it. No man ever grew up in the agricultural regions of the West, where a house-raising, or even a corn-husking, is a matter of common interest and helpfulness, with any other feeling than that of broad-minded, generous independence. This honorable independence marked the youth of Garfield as it marks the youth of millions of the best blood and brain now training for the future citizenship and future government of the republic. Garfield was born heir to land, to the title of freeholder which has been the patent and passport of self-respect with the Anglo-Saxon race ever since Hengist and Horsa landed on the shores of England. His adventure on the canal—an alternative between that and the deck of a Lake Erie schooner—was a farmer boy’s device for earning money, just as the New England lad begins a possibly great career by sailing before the mast on a coasting vessel or on a merchantman bound to the farther India or to the China Seas.

No manly man feels anything of shame in looking back to early struggles with adverse circumstances, and no man feels a worthier pride than when he has conquered the obstacles to his progress. But no one of noble mould desires to be looked upon as having occupied a menial position, as having been repressed by a feeling of inferiority, or as having suffered the evils of poverty until relief was found at the hand of charity. General Garfield’s youth presented no hardships which family love and family energy did not overcome, subjected him to no privations which he did not cheerfully accept, and left no memories save those which were recalled with delight, and transmitted with profit and with pride.

Garfield’s early opportunities for securing an education were extremely limited, and yet were sufficient to develop in him an intense desire to learn. He could read at three years of age, and each winter he had the advantage of the district school. He read all the books to be found within the circle of his acquaintance; some of them he got by heart. While yet in childhood he was a constant student of the Bible, and became familiar with its literature. The dignity and earnestness of his speech in his maturer life gave evidence of this early training. At eighteen years of age he was able to teach school, and thenceforward his ambition was to obtain a college education. To this end he bent all his efforts, working in the harvest field, at the carpenter’s bench, and, in the winter season, teaching the common schools of the neighborhood. While thus laboriously occupied he found time to prosecute his studies and was so successful that at twenty-two years of age he was able to enter the junior class at Williams College, then under the presidency of the venerable and honored Mark Hopkins, who, in the fullness of his powers, survives the eminent pupil to whom he was of inestimable service.

The history of Garfield’s life to this period presents no novel features. He had undoubtedly shown perseverance, self-reliance, self-sacrifice, and ambition—qualities which, be it said for the honor of our country, are everywhere to be found among the young men of America. But from his graduation at Williams onward, to the hour of his tragical death, Garfield’s career was eminent and exceptional. Slowly working through his educational period, receiving his diploma when twenty-four years of age, he seemed at one bound to spring into conspicuous and brilliant success. Within six years he was successively president of a college, State Senator of Ohio, Major General of the Army of the United States and Representative-elect to the National Congress. A combination of honors so varied, so elevated, within a period so brief and to a man so young, is without precedent or parallel in the history of the country.

IN THE ARMY.

Garfield’s army life was begun with no other military knowledge than such as he had hastily gained from books in the few months preceding his march to the field. Stepping from civil life to the head of a regiment, the first order he received when ready to cross the Ohio was to assume command of a brigade, and to operate as an independent force in Eastern Kentucky. His immediate duty was to check the advance of Humphrey Marshall, who was marching down the Big Sandy with the intention of occupying in connection with other Confederate forces the entire territory of Kentucky, and of precipitating the State into secession. This was at the close of the year 1861. Seldom, if ever, has a young college professor been thrown into a more embarrassing and discouraging position. He knew just enough of military science, as he expressed it himself, to measure the extent of his ignorance, and with a handful of men he was marching, in rough winter weather, into a strange country, among a hostile population to confront a largely superior force under the command of a distinguished graduate of West Point, who had seen active and important service in two preceding wars.

The result of the campaign is matter of history. The skill, the endurance, the extraordinary energy shown by Garfield, the courage imparted to his men, raw and untried as himself, the measures he adopted to increase his force and to create in the enemy’s mind exaggerated estimates of his numbers, bore perfect fruit in the routing of Marshall, the capture of his camp, the dispersion of his force, and the emancipation of an important territory from the control of the rebellion. Coming at the close of a long series of disasters to the Union arms, Garfield’s victory had an unusual and extraneous importance, and in the popular judgment elevated the young commander to the rank of a military hero. With less than two thousand men in his entire command, with a mobilized force of only eleven hundred, without cannon, he had met an army of five thousand and defeated them—driving Marshall’s forces successively from two strongholds of their own selection, fortified with abundant artillery. Major-General Buell, commanding the Department of the Ohio, an experienced and able soldier of the regular army, published an order of thanks and congratulation on the brilliant result of the Big Sandy campaign which would have turned the head of a less cool and sensible man than Garfield. Buell declared that his services had called into action the highest qualities of a soldier, and President Lincoln supplemented these words of praise by the more substantial reward of a brigadier-general’s commission, to bear date from the day of his decisive victory over Marshall.

The subsequent military career of Garfield fully sustained its brilliant beginning. With his new commission he was assigned to the command of a brigade in the Army of the Ohio, and took part in the second and decisive day’s fight in the great battle of Shiloh. The remainder of the year 1862 was not especially eventful to Garfield, as it was not to the armies with which he was serving. His practical sense was called into exercise in completing the task, assigned him by General Buell, of reconstructing bridges and re-establishing lines of railway communication for the army. His occupation in this useful but not brilliant field was varied by service on courts-martial of importance, in which department of duty he won a valuable reputation, attracting the notice and securing the approval of the able and eminent Judge-Advocate-General of the Army. That of itself was a warrant to honorable fame; for among the great men who in those trying days gave themselves, with entire devotion, to the service of their country, one who brought to that service the ripest learning, the most fervid eloquence, the most varied attainments, who labored with modesty and shunned applause, who in the day of triumph sat reserved and silent and grateful—as Francis Deak in the hour of Hungary’s deliverance—was Joseph Holt, of Kentucky, who in his honorable retirement enjoys the respect and veneration of all who love the Union of the States.

Early in 1863 Garfield was assigned to the highly important and responsible post of chief of staff to General Rosecrans, then at the head of the Army of the Cumberland. Perhaps in a great military campaign no subordinate officer requires sounder judgment and quicker knowledge of men than the chief of staff to the commanding general. An indiscreet man in such a position can sow more discord, breed more jealousy and disseminate more strife than any other officer in the entire organization. When General Garfield assumed his new duties he found various troubles already well developed and seriously affecting the value and efficiency of the Army of Cumberland. The energy, the impartiality and the tact with which he sought to allay these dissensions, and to discharge the duties of his new and trying position, will always remain one of the most striking proofs of his great versatility. His military duties closed on the memorable field of Chickamauga, a field which however disastrous to the Union arms gave to him the occasion of winning imperishable laurels. The very rare distinction was accorded him of great promotion for his bravery on a field that was lost. President Lincoln appointed him a Major-General in the Army of the United States for gallant and meritorious conduct in the battle of Chickamauga.

The Army of the Cumberland was reorganized under the command of General Thomas, who promptly offered Garfield one of its divisions. He was extremely desirous to accept the position, but was embarrassed by the fact that he had, a year before, been elected to Congress, and the time when he must take his seat was drawing near. He preferred to remain in the military service, and had within his own breast the largest confidence of success in the wider field which his new rank opened to him. Balancing the arguments on the one side and the other, anxious to determine what was for the best, desirous above all things to do his patriotic duty, he was decisively influenced by the advice of President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton, both of whom assured him that he could at that time, be of especial value in the House of Representatives. He resigned his commission of Major-General on the 5th day of December, 1863, and took his seat in the House of Representatives on the 7th. He had served two years and four months in the army, and had just completed his thirty-second year.

IN CONGRESS.

The Thirty-eighth Congress is pre-eminently entitled in history to the designation of the War Congress. It was elected while the war was flagrant, and every member was chosen upon the issues involved in the continuance of the struggle. The Thirty-seventh Congress had, indeed, legislated to a large extent on war measures but it was chosen before any one believed that secession of the States would be actually attempted. The magnitude of the work which fell upon its successor was unprecedented, both in respect to the vast sums of money raised for the support of the Army and Navy, and of the new and extraordinary powers of legislation which it was forced to exercise. Only twenty-four States were represented, and one hundred and eighty-two members were upon its roll. Among these were many distinguished party leaders on both sides, veterans in the public service, with established reputations for ability, and with that skill which comes only from parliamentary experience. Into this assemblage of men Garfield entered without special preparation, and it might almost be said unexpectedly. The question of taking command of a division of troops under General Thomas, or taking his seat in Congress was kept open till the last moment so late, indeed, that the resignation of his military commission and his appearance in the House were almost contemporaneous. He wore the uniform of a Major-General of the United States Army on Saturday, and on Monday in civilian’s dress, he answered to the roll call as a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio.

He was especially fortunate in the constituency which elected him. Descended almost entirely from New England stock, the men of the Ashtabula district were intensely radical on all questions relating to human rights. Well educated, thrifty, thoroughly intelligent in affairs, acutely discerning of character, not quick to bestow confidence, and slow to withdraw it, they were at once the most helpful and most exacting of supporters. Their tenacious trust in men in whom they have once confided is illustrated by the unparalleled fact that Elisha Whittlesey, Joshua R. Giddings, and James A. Garfield represented the district for fifty-four years.

There is no test of a man’s ability in any department of public life more severe than service in the House of Representatives; there is no place where so little deference is paid to reputation previously acquired or to eminence won outside; no place where so little consideration is shown for the feelings or failures of beginners. What a man gains in the House he gains by sheer force of his own character, and if he loses and falls back he must expect no mercy and will receive no sympathy. It is a field in which the survival of the strongest is the recognized rule and where no pretense can deceive and no glamour can mislead. The real man is discovered, his worth is impartially weighed, his rank is irreversibly decreed.

With possibly a single exception Garfield was the youngest member in the House when he entered, and was but seven years from his college graduation. But he had not been in his seat sixty days before his ability was recognized and his place conceded. He stepped to the front with the confidence of one who belonged there. The House was crowded with strong men of both parties; nineteen of them have since been transferred to the Senate, and many of them have served with distinction in the gubernatorial chairs of their respective States, and on foreign missions of great consequence; but among them all none grew so rapidly none so firmly as Garfield. As is said by Trevelyan of his parliamentary hero, Garfield succeeded “because all the world in concert could not have kept him in the background, and because when once in the front he played his part with a prompt intrepidity and a commanding ease that were but the outward symptoms of the immense reserves of energy, on which it was in his power to draw.” Indeed the apparently reserved force which Garfield possessed was one of his great characteristics. He never did so well but that it seemed he could easily have done better. He never expended so much strength but that he seemed to be holding additional power at call. This is one of the happiest and rarest distinctions of an effective debater, and often counts for as much in persuading an assembly as the eloquent and elaborate argument.

The great measure of Garfield’s fame was filled by his service in the House of Representatives. His military life, illustrated by honorable performance, and rich in promise, was, as he himself felt, prematurely terminated, and necessarily incomplete. Speculation as to what he might have done in a field, where the great prizes are so few, cannot be profitable. It is sufficient to say that as a soldier he did his duty bravely; he did it intelligently; he won an enviable fame, and he retired from the service without blot or breath against him. As a lawyer, though admirably equipped for the profession, he can scarcely be said to have entered on its practice. The few efforts he made at the bar were distinguished by the same high order of talent which he exhibited on every field where he was put to the test, and if a man may be accepted as a competent judge of his own capacities and adaptations, the law was the profession to which Garfield should have devoted himself. But fate ordained otherwise, and his reputation in history will rest largely upon his service in the House of Representatives. That service was exceptionally long. He was nine times consecutively chosen to the House, an honor enjoyed by not more than six other Representatives of the more than five thousand who have been elected from the organization of the government to this hour.

ORATOR AND DEBATER.

As a parliamentary orator, as a debater on an issue squarely joined, where the position had been chosen and the ground laid out, Garfield must be assigned a very high rank. More, perhaps, than any man with whom he was associated in public life, he gave careful and systematic study to public questions, and he came to every discussion in which he took part with elaborate and complete preparation. He was a steady and indefatigable worker. Those that imagine that talent or genius can supply the place or achieve the results of labor will find no encouragement in Garfield’s life. In preliminary work he was apt, rapid and skillful. He possessed in a high degree the power of readily absorbing ideas and facts, and, like Dr. Johnson, had the art of getting from a book all that was of value in it by a reading apparently so quick and cursory that it seemed like a mere glance at the table of contents. He was a pre-eminently fair and candid man in debate, took no petty advantage, stooped to no unworthy methods, avoided personal allusions, rarely appealed to prejudice, did not seek to inflame passion. He had a quicker eye for the strong point of his adversary than for his weak point, and on his own side he so marshaled his weighty arguments as to make his hearers forget any possible lack in the complete strength of his position. He had a habit of stating his opponent’s side with such amplitude of fairness and such liberality of concession that his followers often complained that he was giving his cases away. But never in his prolonged participation in the proceedings of the House did he give his case away, or fail in the judgment of competent and impartial listeners to gain the mastery.

These characteristics, which marked Garfield as a great debater, did not, however, make him a great parliamentary leader. A parliamentary leader, as that term is understood wherever free representative government exists, is necessarily and very strictly the organ of his party. An ardent American defined the instinctive warmth of patriotism when he offered the toast, “Our country always right, but right or wrong, our country.” The parliamentary leader who has a body of followers that will do and dare and die for the cause, is one who believes his party always right, but right or wrong, is for his party. No more important or exacting duty devolves upon him than the selection of the field and the time for contest. He must know not merely how to strike, but where to strike and when to strike. He often skillfully avoids the strength of his opponent’s position and scatters confusion in his ranks by attacking an exposed point when really the righteousness of the cause and the strength of logical intrenchment are against him. He conquers often both against the right and the heavy battalions; as when young Chas. Fox, in the days of his Toryism, carried the House of Commons against justice, against its immemorial rights, against his own convictions, if, indeed, at that period Fox had convictions, and, in the interest of a corrupt administration, in obedience to a tyrannical sovereign, drove Wilkes from the seat to which the electors of Middlesex had chosen him and installed Luttrell in defiance, not merely of law, but of public decency. For an achievement of that kind Garfield was disqualified—disqualified by the texture of his mind, by the honesty of his heart, by his conscience, and by every instinct and aspiration of his nature.

The three most distinguished parliamentary leaders hitherto developed in this country are Mr. Clay, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Thaddeus Stevens. Each was a man of consummate ability, of great earnestness, of intense personality, differing widely each from the others, and yet with a signal trait in common—the power to command. In the give and take of daily discussion, in the art of controlling and consolidating reluctant and refractory followers; in the skill to overcome all forms of opposition, and to meet with competency and courage the varying phases of unlooked-for assault or unsuspected defection, it would be difficult to rank with these a fourth name in all our Congressional history. But of these Mr. Clay was the greatest. It would, perhaps, be impossible to find in the parliamentary annals of the world a parallel to Mr. Clay, in 1841, when at sixty-four years of age he took the control of the Whig party from the President who had received their suffrages, against the power of Webster in the Cabinet, against the eloquence of Choate in the Senate, against the Herculean efforts of Caleb Cushing and Henry A. Wise in the House. In unshared leadership, in the pride and plenitude of power he hurled against John Tyler with deepest scorn the mass of that conquering column which had swept over the land in 1840, and drove his administration to seek shelter behind the lines of his political foes. Mr. Douglas achieved a victory scarcely less wonderful when, in 1854, against the secret desires of a strong administration, against the wise counsel of the older chiefs, against the conservative instincts and even the moral sense of the country, he forced a reluctant Congress into a repeal of the Missouri compromise. Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, in his contests from 1865 to 1868, actually advanced his parliamentary leadership until Congress tied the hands of the President and governed the country by its own will, leaving only perfunctory duties to be discharged by the Executive. With two hundred millions of patronage in his hands at the opening of the contest, aided by the active force of Steward in the Cabinet and the moral power of Chase on the Bench, Andrew Johnson could not command the support of one-third in either House against the Parliamentary uprising of which Thaddeus Stevens was the animating spirit and the unquestioned leader.

From these three great men Garfield differed radically, differed in the quality of his mind, in temperament, in the form and phase of ambition. He could not do what they did, but he could do what they could not, and in the breadth of his Congressional work he left that which will longer exert a potential influence among men, and which, measured by the severe test of posthumous criticism, will secure a more enduring and more enviable fame.

GARFIELD’S INDUSTRY.

Those unfamiliar with Garfield’s industry and ignorant of the details of his work may, in some degree, measure them by the annals of Congress. No one of the generation of public men to which he belonged has contributed so much that will be valuable for future reference. His speeches are numerous, many of them brilliant, all of them well studied, carefully phrased and exhaustive of the subject under consideration. Collected from the scattered pages of ninety royal octavo volumes of Congressional Record they would present an invaluable compendium of the political history of the most important era through which the national government has ever passed. When the history of this period shall be impartially written, when war legislation, measures of reconstruction, protection of human rights, amendments to the constitution, maintenance of public credit, steps toward specie resumption, true theories of revenue may be reviewed, unsurrounded by prejudice and disconnected from partisanism, the speeches of Garfield will be estimated at their true value, and will be found to comprise a vast magazine of fact and argument, of clear analysis and sound conclusion. Indeed, if no other authority were accessible, his speeches in the House of Representatives from December 1863, to June, 1880, would give a well connected history and complete defence of the important legislation of the seventeen eventful years that constitute his Parliamentary life. Far beyond that, his speeches would be found to forecast many great measures, yet to be completed—measures which he knew were beyond the public opinion of the hour, but which he confidently believed would secure popular approval within the period of his own lifetime, and by the aid of his own efforts.

Differing, as Garfield does, from the brilliant parliamentary leaders, it is not easy to find his counterpart anywhere in the record of American public life. He perhaps more nearly resembles Mr. Seward in his supreme faith in the all-conquering power of a principle. He had the love of learning, and the patient industry of investigation, to which John Quincy Adams owes his prominence and his Presidency. He had some of those ponderous elements of mind which distinguished Mr. Webster, and which indeed, in all our public life, have left the great Massachusetts Senator without an intellectual peer.

In English parliamentary history, as in our own, the leaders in the House of Commons present points of essential difference from Garfield. But some of his methods recall the best features in the strong, independent course of Sir Robert Peel, and striking resemblances are discernible in that most promising of modern conservatives, who died too early for his country and his fame, the Lord George Bentinck. He had all of Burke’s love for the sublime and the beautiful, with, possibly, something of his superabundance, and in his faith and his magnanimity, in his power of statement, in his subtle analysis, in his faultless logic, in his love of literature, in his wealth and world of illustration, one is reminded of that great English statesman of to-day, who, confronted with obstacles that would daunt any but the dauntless, reviled by those whom he would relieve as bitterly as by those whose supposed rights he is forced to invade, still labors with serene courage for the amelioration of Ireland, and for the honor of the English name.

NOMINATION TO THE PRESIDENCY.

Garfield’s nomination to the Presidency, while not predicted or anticipated, was not a surprise to the country. His prominence in Congress, his solid qualities, his wide reputation, strengthened by his then recent election as Senator from Ohio, kept him in the public eye as a man occupying the very highest rank among those entitled to be called statesmen. It was not mere chance that brought him this high honor. “We must,” says Mr. Emerson, “reckon success a constitutional trait. If Eric is in robust health, and has slept well and is at the top of his condition, and thirty years old at his departure from Greenland, he will steer west and his ships will reach New Foundland. But take Eric out and put in a stronger and bolder man and the ships will sail six hundred, one thousand, fifteen hundred miles farther and reach Labrador and New England. There is no chance in results.”

As a candidate, Garfield steadily grew in popular favor. He was met with a storm of detraction at the very hour of his nomination, and it continued with increasing volume and momentum until the close of his victorious campaign:

No might nor greatness in mortality Can censure ’scape; back-wounding calumny The whitest virtue strikes. What king so strong Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue?

Under it all he was calm, and strong, and confident; never lost his self-possession, did no unwise act, spoke no hasty or ill-considered word. Indeed nothing in his whole life is more remarkable or more creditable than his bearing through those five full months of vituperation—a prolonged agony of trial to a sensitive man, a constant and cruel draft upon the powers of moral endurance. The great mass of these unjust imputations passed unnoticed, and, with the general debris of the campaign, fell into oblivion. But in a few instances the iron entered his soul and he died with the injury unforgotten if not unforgiven.

One aspect of Garfield’s candidacy was unprecedented. Never before in the history of partisan contests in this country had a successful Presidential candidate spoken freely on passing events and current issues. To attempt anything of the kind seemed novel, rash, and even desperate. The older class of voters recalled the unfortunate Alabama letter, in which Mr. Clay was supposed to have signed his political death-warrant. They remembered also the hot-tempered effusion by which General Scott lost a large share of his popularity before his nomination, and the unfortunate speeches which rapidly consumed the remainder. The younger voters had seen Mr. Greeley in a series of vigorous and original addresses, preparing the pathway for his own defeat. Unmindful of these warnings, unheeding the advice of friends, Garfield spoke to large crowds as he journeyed to and from New York in August, to a great multitude in that city, to delegations and deputations of every kind that called at Mentor during the summer and autumn. With innumerable critics, watchful and eager to catch a phrase that might be turned into odium or ridicule, or a sentence that might be distorted to his own or his party’s injury, Garfield did not trip or halt in any one of his seventy speeches. This seems all the more remarkable when it is remembered that he did not write what he said, and yet spoke with such logical consecutiveness of thought and such admirable precision of phrase as to defy the accident of misreport and the malignity of misrepresentation.

AS PRESIDENT.

In the beginning of his Presidential life Garfield’s experience did not yield him pleasure or satisfaction. The duties that engross so large a portion of the President’s time were distasteful to him, and were unfavorably contrasted with his legislative work. “I have been dealing all these years with ideas,” he impatiently exclaimed one day, “and here I am dealing only with persons. I have been heretofore treating of the fundamental principles of government, and here I am considering all day whether A or B shall be appointed to this or that office.” He was earnestly seeking some practical way of correcting the evils arising from the distribution of overgrown and unwieldy patronage—evils always appreciated and often discussed by him, but whose magnitude had been more deeply impressed upon his mind since his accession to the Presidency. Had he lived, a comprehensive improvement in the mode of appointment and in the tenure of office would have been proposed by him, and with the aid of Congress no doubt perfected.

But, while many of the Executive duties were not grateful to him, he was assiduous and conscientious in their discharge. From the very outset he exhibited administrative talent of a high order. He grasped the helm of office with the hand of a master. In this respect, indeed, he constantly surprised many who were most intimately associated with him in the government, and especially those who had feared that he might be lacking in the executive faculty. His disposition of business was orderly and rapid. His power of analysis, and his skill in classification, enabled him to despatch a vast mass of detail with singular promptness and ease. His Cabinet meetings were admirably conducted. His clear presentation of official subjects, his well-considered suggestion of topics on which discussion was invited, his quick decision when all had been heard, combined to show a thoroughness of mental training as rare as his natural ability and his facile adaptation to a new and enlarged field of labor.

With perfect comprehension of all the inheritances of the war, with a cool calculation of the obstacles in his way, impelled always by a generous enthusiasm, Garfield conceived that much might be done by his administration towards restoring harmony between the different sections of the Union. He was anxious to go South and speak to the people. As early as April he had ineffectually endeavored to arrange for a trip to Nashville, whither he had been cordially invited, and he was again disappointed a few weeks later to find that he could not go to South Carolina to attend the centennial celebration of the victory of the Cowpens. But for the autumn he definitely counted on being present at three memorable assemblies in the South, the celebration at Yorktown, the opening of the Cotton Exposition at Atlanta, and the meeting of the Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga. He was already turning over in his mind his address for each occasion, and the three taken together, he said to a friend, gave him the exact scope and verge which he needed. At Yorktown he would have before him the associations of a hundred years that bound the South and the North in the sacred memory of a common danger and a common victory. At Atlanta he would present the material interests and the industrial development which appealed to the thrift and independence of every household, and which should unite the two sections by the instinct of self-interest and self-defence. At Chattanooga he would revive memories of the war only to show that after all its disaster and all its suffering, the country was stronger and greater, the Union rendered indissoluble, and the future, through the agony and blood of one generation, made brighter and better for all.

Garfield’s ambition for the success of his administration was high. With strong caution and conservatism in his nature, he was in no danger of attempting rash experiments or of resorting to the empiricism of statesmanship. But he believed that renewed and closer attention should be given to questions affecting the material interests and commercial prospects of fifty millions of people. He believed that our continental relations, extensive and undeveloped as they are, involved responsibility, and could be cultivated into profitable friendship or be abandoned to harmful indifference or lasting enmity. He believed with equal confidence that an essential forerunner to a new era of national progress must be a feeling of contentment in every section of the Union, and a generous belief that the benefits and burdens of government would be common to all. Himself a conspicuous illustration of what ability and ambition may do under republican institutions, he loved his country with a passion of patriotic devotion, and every waking thought was given to her advancement. He was an American in all his aspirations, and he looked to the destiny and influence of the United States with the philosophic composure of Jefferson and the demonstrative confidence of John Adams.

THE POLITICAL CONTROVERSY.

The political events which disturbed the President’s serenity for many weeks before that fatal day in July form an important chapter in his career, and, in his own judgment, involved questions of principle and of right which are vitally essential to the constitutional administration of the Federal Government. It would be out of place here and now to speak the language of controversy, but the events referred to, however they may continue to be source of contention with others, have become, so far as Garfield is concerned, as much a matter of history as his heroism at Chickamauga or his illustrious service in the House. Detail is not needful, and personal antagonism shall not be rekindled by any word uttered to-day. The motives of those opposing him are not to be here adversely interpreted nor their course harshly characterized. But of the dead President this is to be said, and said because his own speech is forever silenced and he can be no more heard except through the fidelity and the love of surviving friends. From the beginning to the end of the controversy he so much deplored, the President was never for one moment actuated by any motive of gain to himself or of loss to others. Least of all men did he harbor revenge, rarely did he even show resentment, and malice was not in his nature. He was congenially employed only in the exchange of good offices and the doing of kindly deeds.

There was not an hour, from the beginning of the trouble till the fatal shot entered his body, when the President would not gladly, for the sake of restoring harmony, have retraced any step he had taken if such retracing had merely involved consequences personal to himself. The pride of consistency, or any supposed sense of humiliation that might result from surrendering his position, had not a feather’s weight with him. No man was ever less subject to such influences from within or from without. But after the most anxious deliberation and the coolest survey of all the circumstances, he solemnly believed that the true prerogatives of the Executive were involved in the issue which had been raised, and that he would be unfaithful to his supreme obligation if he failed to maintain, in all their vigor, the constitutional rights and dignities of his great office. He believed this in all the convictions of conscience when in sound and vigorous health, and he believed it in his suffering and prostration in the last conscious thought which his wearied mind bestowed on the transitory struggles of life.

More than this need not be said. Less than this could not be said. Justice to the dead, the highest obligation that devolves upon the living, demands the declaration that in all the bearings of the subject, actual or possible, the President was content in his mind, justified in his conscience, immovable in his conclusions.

GARFIELD’S RELIGION.

The religious element in Garfield’s character was deep and earnest. In his early youth he espoused the faith of the Disciples, a sect of that great Baptist Communion which in different ecclesiastical establishments is so numerous and so influential throughout all parts of the United States. But the broadening tendency of his mind and his active spirit of inquiry were early apparent and carried him beyond the dogmas of sect and the restraints of association. In selecting a college in which to continue his education he rejected Bethany, though presided over by Alexander Campbell, the greatest preacher of his church. His reasons were characteristic: first, that Bethany leaned too heavily toward slavery; and, second, that being himself a Disciple and the son of Disciple parents, he had little acquaintance with people of other beliefs, and he thought it would make him more liberal, quoting his own words, both in his religious and general views, to go into a new circle and be under new influences.

The liberal tendency which he had anticipated as the result of wider culture was fully realized. He was emancipated from mere sectarian belief, and with eager interest pushed his investigations in the direction of modern progressive thought. He followed with quickening step in the paths of exploration and speculation so fearlessly trodden by Darwin, by Huxley, by Tyndall, and by other living scientists of the radical and advanced type. His own church, binding its disciples by no formulated creed, but accepting the Old and New Testaments as the word of God, with unbiased liberality of private interpretation, favored, if it did not stimulate, the spirit of investigation. Its members profess with sincerity, and profess only, to be of one mind and one faith with those who immediately followed the Master, and who were first called Christians at Antioch.

But however high Garfield reasoned of “fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,” he was never separated from the Church of the Disciples in his affections and in his associations. For him it held the ark of the covenant. To him it was the gate of Heaven. The world of religious belief is full of solecisms and contradictions. A philosophic observer declares that men by the thousand will die in defence of a creed whose doctrines they do not comprehend and whose tenets they habitually violate. It is equally true that men by the thousand will cling to church organizations with instinctive and undenying fidelity when their belief in maturer years is radically different from that which inspired them as neophytes.

But after this range of speculation, and this latitude of doubt, Garfield came back always with freshness and delight to the simpler instincts of religious faith, which, earliest implanted, longest survive. Not many weeks before his assassination, walking on the banks of the Potomac with a friend, and conversing on these topics of personal religion, concerning which noble natures have an unconquerable reserve, he said that he found the Lord’s Prayer and the simple petitions learned in infancy infinitely restful to him, not merely in their stated repetition, but in their casual and frequent recall as he went about the daily duties of life. Certain texts of scripture had a very strong hold on his memory and his heart. He heard, while in Edinburgh some years ago, an eminent Scotch preacher who prefaced his sermon with reading the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, which book had been the subject of careful study with Garfield during his religious life. He was greatly impressed by the elocution of the preacher and declared that it had imparted a new and deeper meaning to the majestic utterances of Saint Paul. He referred often in after years to that memorable service, and dwelt with exaltation of feeling upon the radiant promise and the assured hope with which the great apostle of the Gentiles was “persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor principalities, nor powers nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

The crowning characteristic of General Garfield’s religious opinions, as, indeed, of all his opinions, was his liberality. In all things he had charity. Tolerance was of his nature. He respected in others the qualities which he possessed himself—sincerity of conviction and frankness of expression. With him the inquiry was not so much what a man believes, but does he believe it? The lines of his friendship and his confidence encircled men of every creed, and men of no creed, and to the end of his life, on his ever lengthening list of friends, were to be found the names of a pious Catholic priest and of an honest-minded and generous-hearted free-thinker.

THE ASSASSIN’S BULLET.

On the morning of Saturday, July 2d, the President was a contented and happy man—not in an ordinary degree, but joyfully, almost boyishly happy. On his way to the railroad station to which he drove slowly, in conscious enjoyment of the beautiful morning, with an unwonted sense of leisure, and a keen anticipation of pleasure, his talk was all in the grateful and gratulatory vein. He felt that after four months of trial his administration was strong in its grasp of affairs, strong in popular favor and destined to grow stronger; that grave difficulties confronting him at his inauguration had been safely passed; that troubles lay behind him and not before him; that he was soon to meet the wife whom he loved, now recovering from an illness which had but lately disquieted and at times almost unnerved him; that he was going to his Alma Mater to renew the most cherished associations of his young manhood, and to exchange greetings with those whose deepening interest had followed every step of his upward progress from the day he entered upon his college course until he had attained the loftiest elevation in the gift of his countrymen.

Surely, if happiness can ever come from the honors or triumphs of this world, on that quiet July morning James A. Garfield may well have been a happy man. No foreboding of evil haunted him; no slightest premonition of danger clouded his sky. His terrible fate was upon him in an instant. One moment he stood erect, strong, confident, in the years stretching peacefully out before him. The next he lay wounded, bleeding, helpless, doomed to weary weeks of torture, to silence and the grave.

Great in life, he was surpassingly great in death. For no cause, in the very frenzy of wantonness and wickedness by the red hand of murder, he was thrust from the full tide of this world’s interest, from its hopes, its aspirations, its victories, into the visible presence of death—and he did not quail. Not alone for one short moment in which, stunned and dazed, he could give up life, hardly aware of its relinquishment, but through days of deadly languor, through weeks of agony, that was not less agony because silently borne, with clear sight and calm courage, he looked into his open grave. What blight and ruin met his anguished eyes, whose lips may tell—what brilliant, broken plans, what baffled, high ambitions, what sundering of strong, warm, manhood’s friendship, what bitter rending of sweet household ties! Behind him a proud, expectant nation, a great host of sustaining friends, a cherished and happy mother, wearing the full, rich honors of her early toil and tears; the wife of his youth, whose whole life lay in his; the little boys not yet emerged from childhood’s day of frolic; the fair, young daughter; the sturdy sons just springing into closest companionship, claiming every day and every day rewarding a father’s love and care; and in his heart the eager, rejoicing power to meet all demand. Before him, desolation and great darkness! And his soul was not shaken. His countrymen were thrilled with instant, profound, and universal sympathy. Masterful in his mortal weakness, he became the centre of a nation’s love, enshrined in the prayers of a world. But all the love and all the sympathy could not share with him his suffering. He trod the wine-press alone. With unfaltering front he faced death. With unfailing tenderness he took leave of life. Above the demoniac hiss of the assassin’s bullet he heard the voice of God. With simple resignation he bowed to the Divine decree.

As the end drew near, his early craving for the sea returned. The stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital of pain, and he begged to be taken from his prison walls, from its oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and its hopelessness. Gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer to the longed-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as God should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of its manifold voices. With wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to the cooling breeze, he looked out wistfully upon the ocean’s changing wonders; on its far sails, whitening in the morning light; on its restless waves, rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening, arching low to the horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars. Let us think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt and parting soul may know. Let us believe that in the silence of the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a further shore and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the eternal morning.

AFTER THE ORATION.

The eulogy was concluded at 1.50, having taken just an hour and a half in its delivery. As Mr. Blaine gave utterance to the last solemn words the spectators broke into a storm of applause, which was not hushed for some moments. The address was listened to with an intense interest and in solemn silence, unbroken by any sound except by a sigh of relief (such as arises from a large audience when a strong tension is removed from their minds) when the orator passed from his allusion to differences existing in the Republican party last spring. Benediction was then offered by the Rev. Dr. Bullock, Chaplain of the Senate. The Marine Band played the “Garfield Dead March” as the invited guests filed out of the Chamber in the same order in which they had entered it. The Senate was the last to leave, and then the House was called to order by the Speaker.

Mr. McKinley, of Ohio, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, The Senate concurring, that the thanks of Congress are hereby presented to the Hon. James G. Blaine for the appropriate memorial address delivered by him on the life and services of James A. Garfield, late President of the United States, in the Representative Hall, before both houses of Congress and their invited guests, on the 27th of February, 1882, and that he be requested to furnish a copy for publication.

Resolved, That the Chairman of the Joint Committee appointed to make the necessary arrangements to carry into effect the resolution of Congress in relation to the memorial exercises in honor of James A. Garfield be requested to communicate to Mr. Blaine the foregoing resolution, receive his answer thereto and present the same to both Houses of Congress. The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Mr. McKinley then offered the following:

Resolved, That as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased President of the United States the House do now adjourn.

The resolution was unanimously adopted, and in accordance therewith the Speaker at 1.55 declared the House adjourned until to-morrow.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Improvement of the Subordinate Civil Service.

Speech of Hon. George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, in the Senate of the United States, Tuesday, December 12, 1882.

On the bill (S. 133) to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States.

MR. PENDLETON said:

MR. PRESIDENT: When I assented yesterday that this bill should be informally laid aside without losing its place, I had no set speech to deliver, nor had I the intention of preparing a speech for to-day. I did not intend to hold up the bill here as an obstruction to any business before the Senate, or as an aid in passing any measure that might receive my approbation, as my good Friend, the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB], so politely intimated. The bill providing for a bankrupt law was very speedily, and to me unexpectedly, disposed of yesterday, and this bill was called up several hours earlier than I supposed it would be, and I thought the convenience of the Senate as well as of myself would be subserved if I had an opportunity to condense what I had to say on the subject.

The necessity of a change in the civil administration of this government has been so fully discussed in the periodicals and pamphlets and newspapers, and before the people, that I feel indisposed to make any further argument. This subject, in all its ramifications, was submitted to the people of the United States at the fall elections, and they have spoken in no low or uncertain tone.

I do not doubt that the local questions exerted great influence in many States upon the result; but it is my conviction, founded on the observation of an active participation in the canvass in Ohio, that dissatisfaction with the methods of administration adopted by the Republican party in the past few years was the most important single factor in reaching the conclusion that was attained. I do not say that the civil service of the Government is wholly bad. I can not honestly do so. I do not say that the men who are employed in it are all corrupt or inefficient or unworthy. That would do a very great injustice to a great number of faithful, honest, and intelligent public servants. But I do say that the civil service is inefficient; that it is expensive; that it is extravagant; that it is in many cases and in some senses corrupt; that it has welded the whole body of its employès into a great political machine; that it has converted them into an army of officers and men, veterans in political warfare, disciplined and trained, whose salaries, whose time, whose exertions at least twice within a very short period in the history of our country have robbed the people of the fair results of Presidential elections.

I repeat, Mr. President, that the civil service is inefficient, expensive, and extravagant and that it is in many instances corrupt. Is it necessary for me to prove facts which are so patent that even the blind must see and the deaf must hear?

At the last session of Congress, in open Senate, it was stated and proven that in the Treasury Department at Washington there were 3,400 employès, and that of this number the employment of less than 1,600 was authorized by law and appropriations made for their payment, and that more than 1,700 were put on or off the rolls of the Department at the will and pleasure of the Secretary of the Treasury, and paid not out of appropriations made for that purpose but out of various funds and balances of appropriation lapsed in the Treasury in one shape or another, which are not by law appropriated to the payment of these employès. I was amazed. I had never before heard that such a state of affairs existed. I did not believe that it was possible until my honorable colleague rose in his place and admitted the general truth of the statement and defended the system as being necessary for the proper administration of the Treasury Department.

Mr. President, we see in this statement whence comes that immense body of public officials, inspectors, detectives, deputies, examiners, from the Treasury Department who have for years past been sent over the States for the purpose of managing Presidential conventions and securing Presidential elections at the public expense.

I hold in my hand a statement made before the committee which reported this bill, showing that in one of the divisions of the Treasury Department at Washington where more than nine hundred persons were employed, men and women, five hundred and more of them were entirely useless, and were discharged without in any degree affecting the efficiency of the bureau. I read from the testimony taken before the committee. Every gentleman can find it if he has not it already on his table. The statement to which I refer I read from page 121 of report of committee No. 576:

The extravagance of the present system was well shown in the examination of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing by a committee of which I was chairman. Of a force of nine hundred and fifty-eight persons five hundred and thirty-nine, with annual salaries amounting to $390,000, were found to be superfluous and were discharged. The committee reported that for years the force in some branches had been twice and even three times as great as the work required. In one division—

I beg Senators to listen to this—

In one division a sort of platform had been built underneath the iron roof, about seven feet above the floor, to accommodate the surplus counters. It appeared that the room was of ample size without this contrivance for all persons really needed. In another division were found twenty messengers doing work which it was found could be done by one. The committee reported that the system of patronage was chiefly responsible for the extravagance and irregularities which had marked the administration of the bureau, and declared that it had cost the people millions of dollars in that branch of the service alone. Under this system the office had been made to subserve the purpose of an almshouse or asylum.

In consequence of this report the annual appropriation for the Printing Bureau was reduced from $800,000 to $200,000, and out of the first year’s savings was built the fine building now occupied by that bureau.

And again, on page 126, this same gentleman says:

My observation teaches me there is more pressure and importunity for these places—

That is, the $900 clerkship—

and that more time is consumed by heads of Departments, and those having the appointing power, in listening to applications for that grade than for all the other places in the Departments combined; and that when it is discretionary with a Department to appoint a man or a woman the choice is usually exercised in favor of the woman. I know a recent case in the Treasury Department where a vacancy occurred which the head of the bureau deemed it important to fill with a man. It was a position where a man’s services were almost indispensable; but the importunity was so great that he was compelled to accept a woman, although her services were not required. In consequence of this importunity for places for women a practice has grown up in the Treasury Department of allowing the salaries of the higher grades of clerkships to lapse when vacancies occur, and of dividing up the amount among clerks, usually women, at lower salaries. In the place of a male clerk at $1,800 a year, for instance, three women may be employed at $600. Often the services of a man are required in its higher grade, while the women are not needed at all; but as the man can not be employed without discharging the women he can not be had. The persons employed in this way are said to be “on the lapse.” Out of this grew the practice known in Departmental language as “anticipating the lapse.”

In the endeavor to satisfy the pressure for place more people are appointed on this roll than the salaries then lapsing will warrant, in the hope that enough more will lapse before the end of the fiscal year to provide funds for their payment. But the funds almost always run short before the end of the year, and then either the “lapse” appointees must be dropped or clerks discharged from the regular roll to make place for them. In some instances, in former administrations, the employès on the regular roll were compelled, under terror of dismissal, to ask for leaves of absence, without pay, for a sufficient time to make up the deficiency caused by the appointment of unnecessary employès “on the lapse”. Another bad feature is that these “lapse” employès being appointed without regard to the necessities of the work, for short periods and usually without regard to their qualifications, are of little service, while their employment prevents the filling of vacancies on the regular roll and demoralizes the service.

In one case thirty-five persons were put on the “lapse fund” of the Treasurer’s office for eight days at the end of the fiscal year, to sop up some money which was in danger of being saved and returned to the Treasury.

MR. MAXEY. Do I understand the Senator to say that that testimony was taken by the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment?

MR. PENDLETON. Yes sir. This testimony was taken in the month of March, I think, of the present year.

Says this gentleman further—

I have no doubt that under a rigid application of this proposed system the work of the Treasury Department could be performed with two-thirds the number of clerks now employed, and that is a moderate estimate of the saving.

Mr. President, a Senator who is now present in the Chamber and who will recognize the statement when I make it, though I shall not indicate his name, told me that the Secretary of one of the Departments of the Government said to him, perhaps to the Committee on Appropriations, at the last session, that there were seventeen clerks in his Department for whom he could find no employment; that he did need one competent clerk of a higher grade, and if the appropriation were made for that one clerk, at the proper amount according to the gradations of the service and the appropriation for the seventeen were left out, he could, without impairing the efficiency of his Department, leave those seventeen clerks off the roll; but if the appropriation should be made the personal, social, and political pressure was so great that he would be obliged to employ and pay them, though he could find no employment for them.

Need I prove, Mr. President, that which is known to all men, that a systematic pressure has been brought upon the clerks in the Departments of the Government this year to extort from them a portion of their salary under a system which the President himself scouts as being voluntary, and that they are led to believe and fairly led to believe that they have bought and paid for the offices which they hold and that the good faith of those who take from them a portion of the salary is pledged to their retention in their positions?

I have said before upon the floor of the Senate that this whole system demoralizes everybody who is engaged in it. It demoralizes the clerks who are appointed. That is inevitable. It demoralizes those who make the appointment. That also is inevitable. And it demoralizes Senators and Representatives who by the exercise of their power as Senators and Representatives exert pressure upon the appointing power.

I repeat that this system, permeating the whole civil service of the country, demoralizes everybody connected with it, the clerks, the appointing power, and those who by their official position and their relations to the executive administration of the Government have the influence necessary to put these clerks in office.

Mr. President, how can you expect purity, economy, efficiency to be found anywhere in the service of the Government if the report made by this committee to the Senate has even the semblance of truth? If the civil service of the country is to be filled up with superfluous persons, if salaries are to be increased in order that assessments may be paid, if members of Congress having friends or partisan supporters are to be able to make places for them in public employment, how can you expect Senators and Representatives to be economical and careful in the administration of the public money?

I am sure there is no Senator here who will forget a scene which we had upon the last night session of the last session, when the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Allison], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the official leader of the Senate, rising in his place with the last appropriation bill in his hand, and the report of the committee of conference, made a statement to the Senate of the result of the appropriations. He stated that the appropriations that were made during that session amounted to $292,000,000—I throw off the fractions—and he felicitated the Senate and himself as the organ and mouthpiece of his party, that this was an excess of only $77,000,000 over and above the expenditures of the year before. Instantly the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] rose in his place and reminded the Senator that there would be a deficiency in the Pension Bureau alone of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000. The honorable Senator from Georgia, who now occupies the chair [Mr. Brown], inquired of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations whether there would be any deficiencies in the expenses of the current year, or whether the statement was supposed to cover probable deficiencies in addition to the appropriations, and the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK], certainly as familiar with all these subjects as any member of this body, rose in his place and said that notwithstanding the utmost scrutiny of the Committee on Appropriations, undoubtedly at the end of the fiscal year the ordinary deficiencies would be found.

Two hundred and ninety-two millions of dollars of regular appropriations; $20,000,000 of deficiency in one bureau alone, the usual deficiencies occurring during the course of the year of $20,000,000 more! As if this were not enough, my honorable colleague arose in his place and took up the tale and called attention to the fact that the permanent appropriations amounted annually to one hundred and thirty-seven or more millions of dollars. According to his statement made in that speech, which I am sure nobody will forget, the expenditures of the Government during this present fiscal year would amount to $402,000,000 or $403,000,000—nearly $9 a head for every man, woman, and child in the United States—more money than was appropriated for all the expenses of the Government during the first forty years of its existence, I will venture to say, though I do not speak by the book.

Harbor and river appropriation bills of $18,000,000! Thirty-two new buildings commenced in the States, almost every one of which has had buildings before! Two million five hundred thousand dollars appropriated for the commencement of those buildings, for laying the foundation! Before they are finished $25,000,000 more will be needed to complete them! While these enormous appropriations were being made there came up from the country a demand for a revision of the tariff, which was confessedly greatly needed; for a revision of the internal-revenue laws, which was equally necessary; for a reduction of taxation pressing so heavily upon all the interests of the country. Our honorable friends upon the other side of the Chamber chose to answer that demand by a bill repealing the taxes upon perfumery and cosmetics and bank checks, and met with a sneer of derision and ridicule every effort that was made on this side of the Chamber for a reduction of taxation.

Mr. President, it was these methods of administration, it was these acts of the Republican party, which made it possible for the Democratic party, and other men who prized their country higher than they did their party, to elect in Ohio a Democratic ticket by eighteen or twenty thousand majority, and elect sixteen out of the twenty-one members of Congress assigned to that State. I say elected sixteen, perfectly conscious of the fact that thirteen of them only have received their certificates at present. If three of them, against whom the aggregate majority is only sixty votes, do not receive certificates under the action of the returning board or under the powers of our judiciary which have been invoked, they will be seated, as they ought to be, at the beginning of the next session of Congress in the other house.

Under the impulse of this election in Ohio, upon these facts and influences which I have stated as being of great importance there, it became possible for the Democratic party and its allies, whom I have described, to elect a Democratic governor in New York, in Massachusetts, in Kansas, in Michigan, and various other States in which there has been none but a Republican governor for many years past. The same influences enable us, having accessions to our ranks from Iowa and Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania, to have at the beginning of the next session of Congress an aggregate of perhaps sixty or more Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

MR. HALE. Will the Senator from Ohio let me ask him a question right here? As he is confining himself very closely to the civil service of the Government, I should like to ask him one question here relating to that. He has appealed directly to the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who was not present at the time, although he has just come in. The Senator from Ohio has alluded to the remarkable speech made by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations upon the expenditures of the Government at the last session, and the wonderful scene that was exhibited there at that time. In that speech on the expenditures of the Government, by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, was the admission that the aggregate expenditures were seventy-odd millions of dollars more than the year before—remarkable when in that speech of the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he showed that every dollar was accounted for by deficiencies on the part of the previous Democratic Congress and by the increase of pensions and some other matters.

MR. PENDLETON. I remember the speech of the Senator from Iowa very well; I have quoted it repeatedly from the RECORD, in which I found it. I did him no injustice; I know he will not believe I would intentionally do him injustice at any time. I stated then, I stated a moment ago, I have stated it on the stump, I repeat it now, that the Senator from Iowa in that speech said that the appropriations for the current year were $292,000,000, and that they were $77,000,000 in excess of those made for the last year: and I might have added if I chose to make it a partisan affair, that the last Congress was under Democratic control.

MR. HALE. And did he not account for every dollar of that $77,000,000 increase? But I think I will leave it to him, as he is present now.

MR. PENDLETON. Undoubtedly he accounted for it, for he gave all the items that went to make up the $77,000,000.

I am confining myself more closely, Mr. President, to the discussion of the reform of the civil service of the Government than the Senator seems to apprehend. I was showing to him the causes of this very remarkable revolution in public sentiment which we have seen as exhibited by the last election. I attributed that result in great measure to the defects in our civil-service system and to the demoralization which, arising there and in its practices, has reached the other departments of the Government.

Mr. President, I was about to say when the Senator from Maine interrupted me that I begged gentlemen on this side of the Chamber and I beg the Democratic party throughout the country not to mistake this result of last fall as a purely Democratic triumph. It was achieved by the Democratic party with the assistance of men of all parties upon whom their love of country sat heavier than their love of party. It was a protest made by an awakened people who were indignant at the wrongs which had been practiced upon them. It was a tentative stretching out of that same people to find instrumentalities by which those wrongs could be righted.

The people demanded economy and the Republican party gave them extravagance. The people demanded a reduction of taxation and the Republican party gave them an increase of expenditure. The people demanded purity of administration and the Republican party revelled in profligacy; and when the Republican party came to put themselves on trial before that same people the people gave them a day of calamity.

I beg that my colleagues on this side of the Chamber may remember, I desire that our party associates throughout the country shall remember, that the people will continue to us their confidence and increase it, that they will continue to us power and increase it, just in the proportion that we honestly and fairly and promptly answer to the demands which the people have made, and which were thus responded to by the Republican party. They asked revenue reform and they received none. They asked civil-service reform and they obtained none. They asked that the civil service of this Government should not either as to its men or its expenditures be made the basis upon which political contests were to be carried on, and they received for answer that that was an old fashion and a good method of political warfare.

I beg gentlemen upon this side of the Chamber to remember that if they desire to escape the fate which now seems to be impending over their adversaries they must avoid the example which those adversaries have set them.

Mr. President the bill which I have the honor to advocate to-day, and which is reported by a committee of the Senate, is the commencement, in my humble judgment, of an attempt to answer one of the demands which the people have authoritatively made. I speak advisedly. It is the commencement of an attempt to organize a system which shall respond to one of the demands which the people have made.

I suppose the most enthusiastic supporter of this bill will not pretend that it is perfect. I suppose he will not pretend that upon the adoption of this bill a system will immediately spring into life which will perfect and purify the civil service of the Government. But it is the commencement of an attempt to lay the foundations of a system which, if it shall answer in any reasonable degree the expectation of those who by experience and faithful study have framed it, it will in the end correct the abuses to which I have alluded, and which have been delineated by no enemy of the Republican party or of the Administration in the report which I have read to the Senate.

The bill has for its foundation the simple and single idea that the offices of the Government are trusts for the people; that the performance of the duties of those offices is to be in the interests of the people; that there is no excuse for the being of one office or the paying of one salary except that it is in the highest practicable degree necessary for the welfare of the people; that every superfluous office-holder should be cut off; that every incompetent office-holder should be dismissed; that the employment of two where one will suffice is robbery; that salaries so large that they can submit to the extortion, the forced payment of 2 or 10 per cent. are excessive and ought to be diminished. I am not speaking of purely voluntary contributions.

If it be true that offices are trusts for the people, then it is also true that the offices should be filled by those who can perform and discharge the duties in the best possible way. Fidelity, capacity, honesty, were the tests established by Mr. Jefferson when he assumed the reins of government in 1801. He said then, and said truly, that these elements in the public offices of the Government were necessary to an honest civil service, and that an honest civil service was essential to the purity and efficiency of administration, necessary to the preservation of republican institutions.

Mr. Jefferson was right. The experience of eighty years has shown it. The man best fitted should be the man placed in office, especially if the appointment is made by the servants of the people. It is as true as truth can be that fidelity, capacity, honesty, are essential elements of fitness, and that the man who is most capable and most faithful and most honest is the man who is the most fit, and he should be appointed to office.

These are truths that in their statement will be denied by none, and yet the best means of ascertaining that fitness has been a vexed question with every Administration of this Government and with every man who has been charged with the responsibility of its execution. We know what is the result. Pass examinations have been tried; professions have been tried; honest endeavors have been tried; a disposition to live faithfully up to these requirements has been tried; and yet we know and the experience of to-day shows it, that they have all made a most lamentable failure. We do now know that so great has been the increase of the powers of this Government and the number of officers under it that no President, no Cabinet, no heads of bureaus, can by possibility know the fitness of all applicants for the subordinate offices of the Government. The result has been, and under the existing system it must always be, that the President and his Cabinet and those who are charged with the responsibility have remitted the question of fitness to their own partisan friends, and those partisan friends have in their turn decided the question of fitness in favor of their partisan friends. The Administration has need of the support of members of Congress in carrying on its work. It therefore remits to members of Congress of its own party the questions of appointment to office in the various districts. These gentlemen, in the course of their political life, naturally (I do not find fault with them for it) find themselves under strain and pressure to secure a nomination or a re-nomination or election, and they use the places to reward those whose friends and families and connections and aids and deputies will serve their purpose.

I put it to gentlemen, particularly to my friends on this side of the Chamber, because you have not the opportunity to exercise this patronage as much as our friends on the other side, whether or not the element of fitness enters largely into the questions of appointment in your respective districts and States. It can not be. The necessities of the case prevent it. The pressure upon men who want to be elected prevents it. The demands that are made by partisan friends and those who have been influential and potent in securing personal triumph to gentlemen who may happen to be in such relation to the appointing power that they have the influence to secure appointment prevent it. The result is as I have stated, that instead of making fitness, capacity, honesty, fidelity the only or the essential qualifications for office, personal fidelity and partisan activity alone control.

When I came to the Senate I had occasion more than ever before to make some investigation upon the subject, and found to my surprise the extent to which the demoralization of the service had gone. I saw the civil service debauched and demoralized. I saw offices distributed to incompetent and unworthy men as a reward for the lowest of dirty partisan work. I saw many men employed to do the work of one man. I saw the money of the people shamefully wasted to keep up electioneering funds by political assessments on salaries. I saw the whole body of the public officers paid by the people organized into a compact, disciplined corps of electioneerers obeying a master as if they were eating the bread of his dependence and rendering him personal service. I saw these evils were fostered, encouraged, stimulated very largely by Senators and Representatives. They had their friends who lent them a helping hand; and regardless of the fitness of these friends, of the necessity of their employment, they insisted on the appointment and had the power, which on consideration, was found sufficient to secure it.

I believed then, and I believe now, that the existing system which, for want of a better name, I call the “spoils system,” must be killed or it will kill the Republic. I believe that it is impossible to maintain free institutions in the country upon any basis of that sort. I am no prophet of evil, I am not a pessimist in any sense of the word, but I do believe that if the present system goes on until 50,000,000 people shall have grown into 100,000,000, and 140,000 officers shall have grown into 300,000, with their compensation in proportion, and all shall depend upon the accession of one party or the other to the Presidency and to the executive functions, the Presidency of the country, if it shall last in name so long, will be put up for sale to the highest bidder even as in Rome the imperial crown was put to those who could raise the largest fund.

I beg gentlemen to believe that whatever I may have said as to the relations of parties I do not approach the question of the reform of the civil service in any mere partisan spirit. It was because I thought I saw this danger, because I believed that it was imminent, because I believed then as I do now that it is destructive of republicanism and will end in the downfall of republican government, that I felt it my duty to devote whatever ability I had to the consideration of this subject. It was that which induced me a year or two ago to introduce a bill which after the best reflection, the best study, the best assistance that I could get I did introduce in the Senate, and which in some degree modified, has come back from the Committee on Civil Service Reform, and is now pending before this body.

The purpose of this bill is merely to secure the application of the Jeffersonian tests, fidelity, honesty, capacity. The methods are those which are known and familiar to us all in the various avocations of life—competition, comparison. Perhaps the bill is imperfect. If so, I am sure I express the wish of every member of the committee that it may be improved. There is no pride of opinion, there is no determination, if suggestions of value are made not promptly to adopt them. There is no disposition to do aught except to perfect, and in the best possible way, this bill, the sole object of which is to improve this great department of our Government.

Mr. President, it is because I believe the “spoils system” to be a great crime, because I believe it to be fraught with danger, because I believe that the highest duty of patriotism is to prevent the crime and to avoid the danger, that I advocate this or a better bill if it can be found for the improvement of the civil service.

I shall say in passing that I find it no objection to this bill at all that while I believe it is of great value to the country in all its aspects, I do not believe it will bring disaster to the Democratic party. There has been great misapprehension as to the methods and the scope of the bill. I desire the attention of the Senators while I briefly state them. I see I have spoken a good deal longer than I intended. The bill simply applies to the Executive Departments of the Government here in Washington and to those offices throughout the country, post-offices and custom-houses, which employ more than fifty persons. I am told, and I am sure that I am not far out of the way, if I am not exactly accurate, that the number of such offices does not exceed thirty or perhaps thirty-five, and that the number of persons who are employed in them, together with those in the Departments here, will not exceed 10,000.

I said that this was a tentative effort; that it was intended to be an experiment, and it is because it is tentative, because it is intended to be an experiment, that the committee thought it advisable in its initial stages to limit it, as they have limited it, in the bill. The bill does not apply to elective officers, of course, nor to officers appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, nor to the military, nor to the naval, nor to the judicial establishment. It applies simply now to those officials who are employed in the Departments here and in the large offices of the Government elsewhere, first, because as an experiment it was thought that it gave scope enough to test its value and labor enough to employ all those who are engaged in putting it in operation until its merits shall be fairly tried and it shall commend itself either to the approval or condemnation of the American people.

There was another reason. The heads of offices and bureaus, where the number of employès is small, can themselves personally judge of the fitness of persons who are applicants for appointment, knowing as they do more or less in their narrow communities their antecedents, their habits, and their modes of life.

The bill does not touch the question of tenure of office or of removal from office. I see it stated by those who do not know that it provides for a seven years’ tenure of office. There is nothing like it in the bill. I see it stated that it provides against removals from office. There is nothing like it in the bill. Whether or not it would be advisable to fix the tenure of office, whether or not it would be advisable to limit removals are questions about which men will differ; but the bill as it is and as we invoke the judgment of the Senate upon it contains no provisions either as to tenure of office or removals from office. It leaves those questions exactly where the law now finds them. It concerns itself only with admission to the public service; it concerns itself only with discovering in certain proper ways or in certain ways—gentlemen may differ as to whether they are proper or not—the fitness of the persons who shall be appointed. It takes cognizance of the fact that it is impossible for the head of a Department or a large office personally to know all the applicants, and therefore it provides a method by which, when a vacancy occurs by death, by resignation, by the unlimited power of removal, a suitable person may be designated to fill the vacancy. It says in effect that when a vacancy occurs in the civil service everybody who desires entrance shall have the right to apply. Everybody, humble, poor, without patronage, without influence, whatever may be his condition in life, shall have the right to go before the parties charged with an examination of his fitness and there be subjected to the test of open, regulated, fair, impartial examination.

MR. MAXEY. If it is agreeable I should like to interrupt the Senator to ask a question upon that point. In the plan suggested for examination as to fitness is it to be a competitive examination by the bill? I ask the Senator if the committee has fallen upon any plan as to the line of inquiry that should be instituted in that examination, and if so will he indicate it? That I think is an important consideration.

MR. PENDLETON. I am glad that the Senator has asked that question, for it gives me an opportunity of saying to him and to the Senate that if they will examine the report made by the committee, they will find that this system is not entirely new, but that to a very large extent in certain offices in New York, in Philadelphia, and in Boston it has been put into practical operation under the heads of the offices there, and that they have devised, with the assistance of the commission originally appointed by General Grant, but largely upon their own motion, a system which I suppose would, to some extent, be followed under this bill.

MR. MAXEY. What I desire to know is whether the committee, after examining the various lines of questions asked in the competitive examinations, have themselves fallen upon any plan which they could recommend to the Senate as a proper plan for examination?

MR. PENDLETON. No; the committee have not carried their investigations to that point for the simple reason that it would be impracticable for a committee of the Senate charged with the examination of the general subject to look into the proper examinations as to every Department of the Government and every department in that Department. For instance, for a letter-carrier one series of examinations might be very proper, for an assayer another system of examination, for an accountant still other examinations, for a weigher and gauger still another. The examinations must be adapted to the particular offices which it is sought to fill, and that can only be by the leisurely and competent investigation of gentlemen who are charged as an official duty with the determination of what the needs of all the Departments and offices require.

MR. MAXEY. That may be quite a reasonable view of the case; but some of the questions which I have seen submitted I am of the opinion have nothing whatever to do with the examination for a mere clerkship, but would have something to do perhaps with an examination in a college or something of that sort.

MR. PENDLETON. The examinations are to be regulated in relation to the particular offices to be filled. I am not the advocate of any special system of questions which has been devised. I am not the apologist for any error which may have been committed. I am not prepared to say that I have seen any of these series of questions which might not admit of improvement.

MR. MAXEY. I will state to the Senator that the suggestion he has himself made is about the best that I have heard. A great many of the questions which have been submitted I think are nonsensical to be put to an applicant for a minor clerkship.

MR. PENDLETON. I shall offer some amendments in behalf of the committee and in behalf of myself before we reach a vote. The details of the bill are these: The preamble expresses fully the philosophy of the bill. Read it carefully. It sets forth what common justice demands for the citizen and for the Government. It sets forth what the economy, efficiency, and integrity of the public service demand.

WHEREAS COMMON JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, ALL CITIZENS DULY QUALIFIED SHALL BE ALLOWED EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, ON GROUNDS OF PERSONAL FITNESS, FOR SECURING APPOINTMENTS, EMPLOYMENT, AND PROMOTION IN THE SUBORDINATE CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES; AND

WHEREAS JUSTICE TO THE PUBLIC LIKEWISE REQUIRES THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHALL HAVE THE LARGEST CHOICE AMONG THOSE LIKELY TO ANSWER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE: AND

WHEREAS JUSTICE, AS WELL AS ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY, AND INTEGRITY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE WILL BE PROMOTED BY SUBSTITUTING OPEN AND UNIFORM COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS FOR THE EXAMINATIONS HERETOFORE HELD IN PURSUANCE OF THE STATUTES OF 1853 AND 1855.

Section 1 provides for the appointment by the President of a commission of five persons, of different political parties, of whom three shall hold no official place, and two shall be experienced in the public service.

The second section is in the following words:

SEC. 2. That it shall be the duty of said commission.

First, To devise and submit to the President for his approval and promulgation, from time to time, suitable rules, and to suggest appropriate action for making this act effective: and when so approved and promulgated it shall be the duty of all officers of the United States in the Departments and offices to which any such rules may relate to aid, in all proper ways, in carrying said rules, and any modifications thereof, into effect.

Second, And, among other things, said rules shall provide and declare, as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, as follows:

First, for open, competitive examinations for testing the capacity of applicants for the public service now classified or to be classified hereunder.

Second, that all the offices, places, and employments so arranged or to be arranged in classes shall be filled by selections from among those graded highest as the results of such competitive examinations.

Third, that original entrance to the public service aforesaid shall be at the lowest grade.

Fourth, that there shall be a period of probation before any absolute appointment or employment aforesaid.

Fifth, that promotions shall be from the lower grades to the higher on the basis of merit and competition.

Sixth, that no person in the public service is for that reason under any obligations to contribute to any political fund, or to render any political service, and that he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do so.

Seventh, that no person in said service has any right to use his official authority or influence to coerce the political action of any person or body.

Eighth, there shall be non-competitive examinations in all proper cases before the commission, when competition may not be found practicable.

Ninth, that notice shall be given in writing to said commission of the persons selected for appointment or employment from among those who have been examined, of the rejection of any such persons after probation, and of the date thereof, and a record of the same shall be kept by said commission.

And any necessary exceptions from said nine fundamental provisions of the rules shall be set forth in connection with such rules, and the reasons therefor shall be stated in the annual reports of the commission.

Third. Said commission shall make regulations for, and have control of, such examinations, and, through its members or the examiners, it shall supervise and preserve the records of the same, and said commission shall keep minutes of its own proceedings.

Fourth. Said commission may make investigations concerning the facts, and may report upon all matters touching the enforcement and effects of said rules and regulations, and concerning the action of any examiner or board of examiners, and its own subordinates, and those in the public service, in respect to the execution of this act.

Fifth. Said commission shall make an annual report to the President, for transmission to Congress, showing its own action, the rules and regulations and the exceptions thereto in force, the practical effects thereof, and any suggestions it may approve for the more effectual accomplishment of the purposes of this act.

The third and fourth sections authorize the commission to employ a chief examiner, a secretary, and the necessary clerical force; to designate boards of examiners, to direct where examinations shall be held; and requires that suitable rooms shall be furnished for its accommodation in the public buildings in Washington and elsewhere. They require also the chief examiner to act, as far as practicable, with the examining boards, and to secure accuracy, uniformity, and justice in all their proceedings.

The fifth section defines the offenses which are calculated to defeat the just enforcement of the act, and declares the penalties.

The sixth section requires the heads of the different Departments to make a more perfect classification of clerks and employès, both in the Departments in the various offices under their charge, in conformity with the one hundred and sixty-third section of the Revised Statutes, and to extend and revise such classification at the request of the President.

The seventh section is in these words:

SEC. 7. After the expiration of four months from the passage of this act no officer or clerk shall be appointed, and no person shall be employed to enter or be promoted in either of the said classes now existing, or that may be arranged hereunder, pursuant to said rules, until he has passed an examination, or is shown to be specially exempted from such examination in conformity herewith.

But nothing herein contained shall be construed to take from those honorably discharged from the military or naval service any preference conferred by the seventeen hundred and fifty-fourth section of the Revised Statutes, nor to take from the President any authority not inconsistent with this act conferred by the seventeen hundred and fifty-third section of said statutes: nor shall any officer not in the executive branch of the Government, or any person merely employed as a laborer or workman, be required to be classified hereunder; nor, unless by direction of the Senate, shall any person who has been nominated for confirmation by the Senate be required to be classified or pass an examination.

Now, Mr. President, recurring to what I have said as to scope of this bill, to the officers who are embraced in it, to the avoidance of the question of removal and tenure, I have only to say that the machinery of the bill is that the President shall call to his aid the very best assistance, with or without the concurrence of the Senate—for that is a matter about which gentlemen would differ and upon it I have no very fixed opinion—that the President shall with the concurrence of the best advice which he can obtain, form a plan, a scheme of examination free for all, open to all, which shall secure the very best talent and the very best capacity attainable for the civil offices of the Government. The method adopted in the bill is by competitive examination. That method has been imperfectly tried throughout the country. I have here the statement of the postmaster of New York who has given much attention and has had great experience in this matter. I have here his statement that the business of his office increased 150 per cent. within a certain number of years, and the expenses increased only 2 per cent.

To be specific—

Says Mr. Pearson—

while the increase in the volume of matter has been from 150 to 300 per cent. the increase in cost has only been about 2 per cent.

Mr. Graves, whose testimony I read before, has stated as the result of the efforts which were made by General Grant during the period that he was allowed any funds for the purpose of putting this scheme into operation, that the expenses of the Departments here can be reduced at least one-third.

I have heard it said that this system of examination proposes to present only a scholastic test; that it proposes only to give advantage to those who are college-bred, and have had the advantage in early life of superior education. The committee investigated that subject to some extent, and I have here the result in the city of New York. Says Mr. Burt:

Taking seven hundred and thirty-one persons examined, 60 per cent. of the appointees selected from them had been educated simply in the common schools of the country; 33⅓ per cent. had received what they call academic or highschool education; and 6½ per cent, a collegiate education. In all the statistics in regard to common school education there is one little weakness resulting from the fact that we have to throw in that class men who have had hardly any education, men who will say, “I went to school until I was 11 years old,” or “I went to school in the winter,” or something of that kind. We have to throw them in that class—

That is the class who have received a common-school education—

and it rather reduces the average standing in that category. As to the matter of age we have very thoroughly exploded that objection. There have been some young men of 21 and 22 who have come in, but the average has been above 30, and it is astonishing that it is the men above 30 who make the best time on examination, who show a facility to get through work quickly.

He goes on to say:

Yet about two-thirds of the appointees had a common-school education; had not even an academic education.

Thereupon the chairman of the committee asked:

Is it from that you get the value of the element of experience and natural force that I spoke of?

Mr. BURT. Yes, sir; it shows itself there apart from the question of elaborate education.

Of course these examinations must be proper; of course they must be regulated upon common-sense principles; of course they must be conducted to test the fitness of the men who are to be appointed to particular offices. You have tests everywhere. To-day the law requires that there shall be a test of examination in the various Departments here in Washington. They are pass examinations; they are imperfect; they are insufficient; they are not thorough. Mr. Graves himself says that the only examination in his case was that the superior in the Department looked over his shoulder while he was writing and said, “I think you will pass.” That was when he entered the service twenty-odd years ago.

If you have examinations why not have competitive examinations? If you have private pass examinations, why not have open examinations? If examinations are made in the Departments by subordinates of the Departments, why not have them made by responsible examiners amenable to the authority of the President under a system devised by the best intelligence that can be supplied?

I hear the system of competitive examination spoken of as if it were something extraordinary. Within the last fifteen years it has gotten to be a custom that I might almost say is universal that when a member of Congress has the right to appoint a cadet to West Point or to the Naval Academy he asks his constituents to compete for it. Formerly it was never done; it was looked on as the mere perquisite of a member of Congress. I appointed a gentleman to West Point who graduated at the head of his class, and now is the active and vigorous spirit of the Military Academy. I appointed him simply upon my own personal examination and knowledge. It would not be done now; it could not be done now; the public sentiment is against it. The public sentiment of the district that I then represented would not permit it; but open competitive examinations are demanded, and everybody having the requisite qualifications of age and health and vigor can compete for the appointment.

Why not apply that system to the Executive Departments of this Government? What earthly reason can there be why when you desire to appoint the best and fittest man for the place that is vacant he should not subject himself to the competition of other people who desire to have that place? Of course, as I said before, this all goes upon the basis that there shall be reasonable examinations and reasonable competition.

Nor are there any aristocratical tendencies about this system, as I have heard suggested; for while it does not in any wise create an official caste it does in words and in effect, open up the possibility of the public service to the poorest and the humblest and least influential in the land.

Mr. President, I desire to say only one word further. I have spoken to-day under great disadvantage, and perhaps I may have omitted things that I shall desire in the course of this discussion to lay before the Senate.

But I desire, Mr. President, to follow out for one moment the line of thought which I indicated when I said that I believed this system would be of great advantage to the country, and that to me it was no objection, that I believed it would be of great advantage to the Democratic party. The suggestion has been made here that it might be better to lay this matter over until after another election, and that the mutations of parties might fill, under the old system, the various Departments with members of the faith to which I belong. Aye, Mr. President, but the next Presidential election may not have that result, and it will not have the result, in my honest conviction, unless we do two things: First, respond to the demands which the people make upon the Democratic party now in its condition of probation; and, second, disarm that great body of officials who as disciplined armies go forth to control the Presidential elections.

I believe, and I am only excused from making this remark because of what I have heard publicly and in private conversation upon the floor of the Senate—I believe if we argue this question upon the lower plane of mere partisan advantage we Democrats ought to support the measure. It has been said that this abandonment of the spoils system will retain in office the appointees of the Republican party. I conceal nothing; I state it in my place in Senate, and before my fellow-Senators who are of the other persuasion, I do not think it. There is no proposition to extend the term of office where it is now fixed, nor in any wise limit the constitutional power of removal from office. The proposition is simply and only that where a new appointment shall be made the element of fitness shall be decisive. Can any Democrat object to that?

How many Democrats are there in office now? How many will there ever be under the spoils system? The Republicans have possession of the Government for two years and more. How many Democrats will be put in office during that time, except on the merit system? Not one. But if this system be fairly inaugurated and administered within one year there will be fifty where now there is one.

It has been said that the abandonment of the spoils system will exclude Democrats from office when the day of our victory shall come. I do not think it. On the contrary, I believe that the adoption of this policy as our party creed will hasten the day of the victory of our party and its adoption as a law will under any administration fill many offices with Democrats. I think it will bring to our aid very many men not hitherto of our political faith who believe this reform a vital question in our politics. I think it will disarm and disorganize and neutralize the trained bands of office-holders who have wrested from us, as I have said, at least two Presidential elections. And finally, repudiating utterly, as I do, that the animating spirit of the Democratic party is the love of spoils, and that its cohesive principle is that of public plunder—repudiating, I say, that doctrine, I think the Democrats throughout this land—I know that in my own State they can—will stand the test of any examination, and in a fair field will not come out second best.

Who shall do them the discredit, who shall do this party, now numbering at least half the people of this country, the discredit to say that they can not stand the test of merit for official position and promotion with any equal number of men in any party of the country.

I have detained the Senate much too long, and yet I must add that the very best aid to any system of reforming the service is in the most rigid application of the democratic theory of the Federal Constitution and Government; that its powers are all granted; that the subjects on which it can act are very limited; that it should refrain from enlarging its jurisdiction, or even exercising admitted but unnecessary powers; that it should scrupulously avoid “undue administration.” Add to this the election by the people to local Federal offices, and there will be little necessity and little room for other methods.

* * * * *

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON].

MR. PENDLETON. The Senator from Iowa is not in his place at this moment, but gave me authority to withdraw his amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection, it will be considered as withdrawn for the time being.

MR. PENDLETON. I now move to strike out lines 22 and 23 of section 2, as follows:

Third. That original entrance to the public service aforesaid shall be at the grade, and appointments thereto.

And to insert in lieu thereof “appointments to the public service aforesaid;” so as to read:

Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the Departments at Washington, shall be apportioned, as nearly as practicable, among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia, upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census.

This amendment has been discussed, and I do not care to detain the Senate in the further discussion of it. It opens up the public service in all its grades to competition, not only from those within but those outside of the Departments. The objections to the provision that entrance shall be at the lowest grade, and higher places shall be filled by promotions only, are so strong that I desire to perfect the bill by striking out this clause at this time. At the proper time I shall move to strike out the clause in relation to promotion, if it shall seem necessary to accomplish my purpose. I wish entrance to the public service to be open at all grades to every one whether he may be now in office or not.

The amendment was adopted.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SENATE AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

Speech of Hon. John J. Ingalls, of Kansas, in the Senate of the United States, Friday, March 26, 1886.

The Senate having under consideration the resolutions reported by Mr. EDMUNDS from the Committee on the Judiciary, relative to the refusal of the Attorney-General to furnish copies of certain papers—

Mr. INGALLS said:

Mr. PRESIDENT: Contemporaneous construction of the Constitution, fortified by long usage and acquiescence, undisturbed for more than seventy-five years, has to my mind incontestably and impregnably established two fundamental propositions: first, that under the Constitution of the United States the power to appoint includes the power to remove, and that both these powers are vested in the President of the United States, subject only to the power of the Senate to negative in cases of appointment; and, second, that where the tenure of an office is not fixed by the Constitution it is held at the pleasure of the Executive.

I therefore take up this argument where the opposition leave it: I begin where they close. I concede all that they demand as to the constitutional power of the Executive upon the subject of appointments to office. If it shall appear that the report of the Committee on the Judiciary is inconsistent with these declarations, that the report and the resolutions to which we are now asked to give our assent in any manner impair or infringe upon, or are in derogation of these admitted high executive prerogatives, then I shall submit to condemnation, for my signature is appended to that report.

So far as I have been able to unravel and disentangle the complicated array of argument by which it has been attempted to destroy the force and effect of the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, I understand that the objections are practically four:

First, that by the action of the majority of the Senate an attempt is made to invade the prerogative of the president by demanding his reasons for the suspensions from office that he has made. To that I interpose upon the threshold and in the vestibule of this argument an absolute contradiction and denial.

The President of the United States in the message that he voluntarily, of his own motion, sent down to this body, starts out with an absolutely unfounded imputation upon the position of the majority. He says that the Senate has been from time to time, in various ways, through committees of the body and by personal importunity, appealing to the Executive to give his reasons for the suspension of officials that have been reported to this body with the designation of others to fill the places thus to be rendered vacant.

Sir, I deny it, and I now challenge from any supporter or adherent of the administration the exhibition of a word, or syllable, or justifiable inference upon which that allegation, so often repeated with so much variety of iteration, can be properly or justly founded.

The effort has been ingeniously made to shift the issue, to darken council by words without wisdom, and to make it appear that there has been a deliberate purpose and intention on the part of the Senate to interfere with the recognized prerogatives of the Executive by demanding his reasons for suspension; and unless I hear some Senator while this debate is now proceeding and while I invite the statement—unless I hear something said in support of that averment, which I deny, and which I affirm has been made for the purpose of clouding this controversy in popular estimation, I shall assume that my denial is not to be met.

Again, sir, it has been alleged in debate, in the public press, by intimation and declaration, and it has been the basis of many studied arguments in this Chamber that there had been demands by the Senate upon the executive for private papers in the cases sent down for consideration. I deny it. I contradict that statement by an appeal to the record; and before that great tribunal by whom this issue is to be tried and determined, I allege that that averment is without foundation. There has never been in form or in substance, directly or indirectly, expressly or remotely, any demand made by any committee of this body upon the Executive or upon the head of any Department for the production of private papers; and I shall be glad in the front of my explicit denial and contradiction if some one of the advocates, some one of the champions of the administration, will point out, before this controversy is concluded, when, where, and how there has been any demand made by the Senate upon the President of the United States or upon any head of a Department for the production of private papers.

That issue was brought in here by the administration. It is said that a guilty conscience needs no accuser. We have been told of those who “fear in every bush an officer.” Sir, it was the interior consciousness of the administration out of which was evolved this phantasy, this farcical allegation, that there was an attempt on the part of the Senate to compel the production of private unofficial papers and communications in the possession of the President of the United States. No Senator doubts that the President occupies an absolutely independent position, and none would desire under any circumstances to interfere with his admitted prerogatives.

I shall strip this controversy of its fallacious incidents. I shall clear away the undergrowth of misrepresentation, sophistry, and false pretenses, that has hitherto obstructed the pathway of our consideration of the real issues that are involved in this contention. With my consent it shall not hereafter be averred before the popular tribunal that is ultimately to decide this question that there has been an indefensible and insolent attempt to impair the constitutional prerogatives of the President of the United States.

Another allegation has been that while this controversy has proceeded the Senate has been inactive, interposing partisan objections to the transaction of executive business, to prevent the execution of his high trusts by the President of the United States. I yesterday had compiled from the records of the executive office, for the purpose of showing what has been done in this particular, a statement, public under our rules, which shows that from the 25th of January, 1886, to the date of the last executive session there had been confirmed by the Senate four hundred and ninety-three nominations of officers sent down by the President. Never in any single instance where there has been a vacancy, occurring by resignation, expiration of term or proper removal upon which we could properly act, has there been an instant of delay. The Senate has not inquired whether the nominee was a Democrat or Republican, but has proceeded vigorously, industriously and steadfastly in the performance of its constitutional duties, and if there has been inaction or non-action upon nominations, I shall show before I conclude my remarks that it has been invited by the administration.

Again, it has been alleged that the action of the majority of the Senate is instigated by the purpose of keeping Republicans in office; that we are moved by partisan considerations to thwart by all means in our power the efforts of the Executive to transfer the official patronage of the Government to the party that was placed in power by the votes of a majority of the people. I am not authorized to speak for others, but for myself and for those who have accredited me here, I cannot submit with patience to such an intolerable accusation.

Mr. President, the Republicans of Kansas are Republicans. They are neither afraid to be so classified nor ashamed to be thus described. They do not covet any qualifying or palliative epithets. Their attitude is neither apologetic nor defensive. They have an unconquerable pride in their political achievements, in the history they have made, in the triumphs they have won. For twenty-five years they have stood upon the skirmish line, neither asking nor giving quarter. They are Republicans not by inheritance, not by tradition, not by accident, but from conviction; and they are as steadfast in defeat as in victory. They are partisans, intrepid, undaunted, uncompromising, and they can give reasons for the faith that is in them.

They believe and I believe that for the past quarter of a century upon every vital issue before the American people, secession, slavery, coercion, the public credit, honest elections, universal freedom, and the protection of American labor, they have always been right and that their opponents have always been wrong; and, while they concede unreservedly patriotism and sincerity to their adversaries, temporary repulse has not convinced them that they were in error. There is neither defection nor dismay in their columns. They are ready, they are impatient to renew the battle. Animated by such impulses, it is not singular that they should feel that no Republican can hold an appointive office under a Democratic administration without either sacrificing his convictions or forfeiting his self-respect.

Accordingly, sir, when a little more than a year ago a Democratic administration was inaugurated, those who were in public station began with one consent to make excuse to retire to private life. They did not stand upon the order of their going; they trampled upon each other in a tumultuous and somewhat indecent haste to get out of office. There was no craven cry for mercy; no mercenary camp-follower fled for shelter to the bomb-proofs of the tenure-of-office act; no sutler crawled behind the fragile breastworks of civil-service reform for protection. They lost their baggage, but they retained their colors, their arms, their ammunition, and their camp equipage, and marched off the field with the honors of war. If at the expiration of one year a few yet remain in office, rari nantes in gurgite vasto, it is because the victors have been unable to agree among themselves or been unable to discover among their own numbers competent and qualified successors.

Mr. President, candor compels me to say that the Democracy of that State share the same temper and spirit. From 1854, when the Territory was organized, down to the 29th of January, 1861, when the State was admitted, if there was a Republican holding any appointive office it was an inadvertence; and if from 1861 down to 1885 there was a Democrat holding an official position requiring confirmation by the Senate, it was an oversight; it escaped the somewhat vigilant scrutiny of my colleague and myself and those who preceded us here.

Therefore, Mr. President, I am not of those who believe in non-partisanship in politics; and I should be recreant to the high trust confided in me were I to refrain from declaring my conviction that political parties, energetic, vigorous, and well defined, are indispensable to the success of free popular governments. Wherever the life of States is freest and most irrepressible, there party spirit is most active and aggressive. It is by the conflict and collision of political parties that the latent and richest powers of the State are made manifest; and those whom I represent have no sympathy with the dogma that it reflects glory upon a statesman to affect independence of his party, or that it is an indication of virtue in a citizen to belong to no political organization.

Political parties are social groups in the nation, allied by common purposes and kindred aspirations for the accomplishment of beneficial results. When parties perish this Government will expire, for we all understand that in this country the only government is the party in power. Here is no dynasty, no ruling family, nothing corresponding to the functions of government under other systems except the party that is for the time being intrusted by the votes of a majority of the people with the execution of their will. And, sir, when a majority of the people declare that there shall be a change of administration, it is necessarily implied that there shall be a change of those agencies through which alone political administration can be made effectual. It is useless to juggle and palter about this matter. A change of administration is a change of policies and methods, and the Chief Magistrate is entitled to the co-operation of agents and ministers who are in sympathy with his opinions and the doctrines which he is chosen to enforce and maintain.

Sir, unless the President of the United States is to be a mummy swathed in the cerements of the grave, he must have powers commensurate with his duties. He is charged to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and unless he has the power to select the agencies through which the laws are administered, through which the revenues are collected and disbursed, the post-offices conducted, the Indians supported and controlled, the glory and honor of the nation maintained, that duty imposed upon him by the Constitution is an idle phrase; it means nothing; it is an empty formula. Charged with these great duties, liable to impeachment if they are not properly performed, how can it be claimed with justice that there shall be an interpolation of novel doctrines of reform, under which while the chief is still to be held responsible, he shall be deprived of all the agencies and ministrations under the Constitution by which they can alone be so administered, in sympathy with him and the policy that he represents.

Therefore, sir, I am confident that when it was ascertained in November, 1884, that a change of the political majority in this country had been registered, there was a general faith and conviction that a change of official holdings would follow. The Democratic party desired it; the Republican party expected it, and would have been content; and had it been done the people at large would have said with one accord, amen. But this generation has witnessed the genesis of a new political gospel; a novel organization has appeared upon earth; a new school of political philosophers who announce that non-partisanship is the panacea for all the evils that afflict the Republic. Having no avowed opinions upon the great topics of the hour, they feebly decry the corruptions of the American system, and peevishly and irritably declare that the Government is degenerate and degraded, and that the true prescription to elevate, reform, and purify the public service is to prevent the clerks from being removed out of their places in the Departments. This brotherhood has not been hitherto very largely re-enforced from the Democracy. If there has been an original civil-service reformer who has deserted from the ranks of the Democracy, history does not record his name. It has been left to the party to which I belong to afford conspicuous and shining illustrations of that class of political thinkers who are never quite sure that they are supporting a party unless they are reviling the candidates and denouncing its platform, who are not positive that they are standing erect unless they are leaning over backward, and whose idea of reforming the organization in which they profess to be classified is to combine with its adversaries and vote for candidates who openly spurn their professions and depreciate the stock in trade which they denominate their principles. Standing on the corners of the streets, enlarging the borders of their phylacteries, they loudly advertise their perfections, thanking God that they are not as other men, even these Republicans and Democrats; they traffic with both to ascertain which they can most profitably betray.

Mr. President, the neuter gender is not popular either in nature or society. “Male and female created He them.” But there is a third sex, if that can sex be called which sex has none, resulting sometimes from a cruel caprice of nature, at others from accident or malevolent design, possessing the vices of both and the virtues of neither; effeminate without being masculine or feminine; unable either to beget or to bear; possessing neither fecundity nor virility; endowed with the contempt of men and the derision of women, and doomed to sterility, isolation, and extinction. But they have two recognized functions. They sing falsetto, and they are usually selected as the guardians of the seraglios of Oriental despots.

And thus to pass from the illustration to the fact, these political epicenes, without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity, chant in shrill falsetto their songs of praise of non-partisanship and civil-service reform, and apparently have been selected as the harmless custodians of the conscience of the national Executive.

Sir, I am not disposed to impugn the good faith, the patriotism, the sincerity, the many unusual traits and faculties of the President of the United States. He is the sphinx of American politics. It is said that he is a fatalist; that he regards himself as the child of fate—the man of destiny; and that he places devout and implicit reliance upon the guiding influence of his star. Certainly, whether he be a very great man or a very small man, he is a very extraordinary man. His career forbids any other conclusion.

The Democratic party was not wanting when its convention assembled at Chicago in many renowned and illustrious characters; men who had led the forlorn hope in its darkest and most desperate days; men for whose character and achievements, for whose fame and history, not only that organization but the country had the profoundest admiration and respect. There was Thurman, and Bayard, and Hendricks, and Tilden, and McDonald, and others perhaps not less worthy and hardly less illustrious, upon whom the mantle of that great distinction might have fallen; but the man at the mature age of thirty-five abandoned a liberal and honored profession to become the sheriff of Erie, without known opinions and destitute of experience or training in public affairs, outstripped them all in the race of ambition; and when but little more than a year ago he entered this Chamber as the President elect of the United States, he encountered the curious scrutiny of an audience to whom he was a stranger in feature as in fame; a stranger to the leaders of his own party as well as to the representatives of all the nations of the earth who had assembled to witness the gorgeous pageant of his inauguration.

Sir, the career of Napoleon was sudden, startling, and dramatic. There have been many soldiers of fortune who have sprung at one bound from obscurity to fame, but no illustration of the caprices of destiny so brilliant and bewildering is recorded in history as the elevation of Grover Cleveland to the Chief Magistracy of sixty millions of people.

If when he was inaugurated he had determined that the functions of Government should be exercised by officers selected from his own party the nation would have been content; but he did not so determine, and herein and hereon is founded the justification that the majority of the Senate can satisfactorily use and employ in demanding that no action shall be had in connection with these suspensions from office until there has been satisfactory assurances that injustice has not been done. If it were understood that these suspensions and removals were made for political reasons the country would be content, the Republican majority in the Senate would be content. But what is the attitude? Ever since his inauguration and for many months before, by many utterances, official and private, in repeated declarations never challenged, Mr. Cleveland announced that he would not so administer this Government. At the very outset, in his letter of acceptance, he denounced the doctrine of partisan changes in the patronage, and through all of his political manifestoes down to the present time he has repeated these assurances with emphatic and unchanging monotony.

He has declared that there should be no changes in office, where the incumbents were competent and qualified, for political reasons, but that they should be permitted to serve their terms. Like those who were grinding at the mill, one has been taken and another has been left. Some Republicans have been suspended and others have been retained. What is the irresistible inference? What is the logic of the events, except that, in view of what the President has declared, every man who is suspended is suspended for cause, and not for political reasons? It is not possible to suspect the President of duplicity and treacherous deception.

For the purpose of illustration, let me call the attention of the Senate and through the Senate the attention of the country, which is to judge of this matter, to the basis on which this inquiry proceeds. I read from the letter of Grover Cleveland, dated Albany, August 19, 1884, accepting the nomination for the Presidency of the United States. He says:

The people pay the wages of the public employés, and they are entitled to the fair and honest work which the money thus paid should command. It is the duty of those intrusted with the management of their affairs to see that such public service is forthcoming. The selection and retention of subordinates in Government employment should depend upon their ascertained fitness and the value of their work, and they should be neither expected nor allowed to do questionable party service.

There is another utterance in this document to which I might properly allude further on, but which appears to me to be so significant that I will read it now. It has a singular fitness in connection with this subject that we have been discussing. Speaking of honest administration, he says,

I believe that the public temper is such that the voters of the land are prepared to support the party which gives the best promise of administering the Government in the honest, simple, and plain manner which is consistent with its character and purposes.

And now:

They have learned that mystery and concealment in the management of their affairs cover tricks and betrayal.

Yes, they have learned that mystery in the administration of the patronage of the Government, by the concealment from the people of the documents and papers that bear upon the character and conduct of officials suspended and those that are appointed, cover tricks and betrayal. “I thank thee for that word.” A “Daniel” has “come to judgment.” No more pertinent and pungent commentary upon the facts of the present situation could be formulated than that which Grover Cleveland uttered before his foot was upon the threshold, that mystery and concealment in the management of the affairs of the people covered tricks and betrayal. There are tricks and somebody has been betrayed.

Again, on the 20th day of December, 1884, after the election, some of the contingent of Republican deserters who elected Mr. Cleveland to the Presidency, becoming apprehensive that there might be trouble about their thirty pieces of silver, formulated their uneasiness in words and addressed him a letter calling his attention to the professions upon which he had been elected and demanding further guarantee. To that letter, on the 25th day of December, 1884, Mr. Cleveland replied, and from that reply I select certain paragraphs, not being willing to tax the patience of the Senate or waste my own strength in reading what is not strictly material.

I regard myself pledged to this—

That is, to this practical reform in the civil service, this refusal to turn out competent and qualified officials and put in Democrats—

because my conception of true Democratic faith and public duty requires that this and all other statutes should be in good faith and without evasion enforced, and because, in many utterances made prior to my election as President, approved by the party to which I belong and which I have no disposition to disclaim, I have in effect promised the people that this should be done.

Not his party, but the people, Republican as well as Democrats. Then he proceeds to castigate the Democratic party:

I am not unmindful of the fact to which you refer that many of our citizens fear that the recent party change in the national Executive may demonstrate that the abuses which have grown up in the civil service are ineradicable. I know that they are deeply rooted, and that the spoils system has been supposed to be intimately related to success in the maintenance of party organization, and I am not sure that all those who profess to be the friends of this reform will stand firmly among its advocates when they find it obstructing their way to patronage and place.

He goes on thus, and this is a most significant promise and pledge:

There is a class of Government positions which are not within the letter of the civil-service statute but which are so disconnected with the policy of an administration that the removal therefrom of present incumbents, in my opinion, should not be made during the terms for which they were appointed solely on partisan grounds, and for the purpose of putting in their places those who are in political accord with the appointing power—

And then follows that celebrated definition which lifted the lid from the box of Pandora—

but many men holding such positions have forfeited all just claim to retention because they have used their places for party purposes in disregard of their duty to the people, and because, instead of being decent public servants, they have proved themselves offensive partisans and unscrupulous manipulators of local party management.

The letter closes with this somewhat frigid assurance of consolation to the Democratic party.

If I were addressing none but party friends, I should deem it entirely proper to remind them—

That is, party friends—

that though the coming administration is to be Democratic—

Strictly Democratic—

a due regard for the people’s interest does not permit faithful party work to be always rewarded by appointment to office, and to say to them that while Democrats may expect a proper consideration, selections for office not embraced within the civil-service rules will be based upon sufficient inquiry as to fitness, instituted by those charged with that duty, rather than upon persistent importunity or self-solicited recommendations on behalf of candidates for appointment.

“Here endeth the first lesson!” This was in the year 1884. I now come to the declaration of 1885. Just as the Democratic State convention which nominated the present governor of New York for the position that he now holds, was about to assemble at Saratoga on the 24th, I think, of September, the President gave out for publication the letter of resignation of Dorman B. Eaton, a civil-service commissioner, which was dated July 28, 1885, and accompanied it with a letter of his own accepting that resignation which was dated September 11, 1885. It was alleged in Democratic newspapers that the President held back these letters in order to give publicity to his reply at that time for effect upon the convention, and it was remarked that it had caused a panic among the Democracy. His letter is dated, as I said, September 11, 1885, and I will read a few paragraphs showing his opinion of the Democratic party and the course that they had pursued in attempting to force him off the civil-service reform platform. After some rather glittering platitudes in regard to the work accomplished by Mr. Eaton, he proceeds:

A reasonable toleration for old prejudices, a graceful recognition of every aid, a sensible utilization of every instrumentality that promises assistance and a constant effort to demonstrate the advantages of the new order of things, are the means by which this reform movement will in the future be further advanced, the opposition.

Now, this is an epithet to which I desire to call particular attention—

The opposition of incorrigible spoilsmen rendered ineffectual and the cause placed upon a sure foundation.

But not content with applying his scourge to the “incorrigible spoilsmen” of the Democratic party, the President took occasion to express his opinion in rather picturesque language of another class of politicians that had somewhat afflicted him, and to whom he was under bonds:

It is a source of congratulation that there are so many friends of civil-service reform marshaled on the practical side of the question; and that the number is not greater of those who profess friendliness for the cause, and yet, mischievously and with supercilious self-righteousness, discredit every effort not in exact accord with their attenuated ideas, decry with carping criticism the labor of those actually in the field of reform, and ignoring the conditions which bound and qualify every struggle for a radical improvement in the affairs of government, demand complete and immediate perfection.

“Supercilious self-righteousness, attenuated ideas, and carping criticism,” can not be regarded as complimentary phrases when applied to the apostles of this new evangel of political reformation.

He continues—

I believe in civil-service reform and its application in the most practicable form attainable, among other reasons, because it opens the door for the rich and the poor alike to a participation in public place-holding. And I hope the time is at hand when all our people will see the advantage of a reliance for such an opportunity upon merit and fitness, instead of a dependence upon the caprice or selfish interest of those who impudently—

To whom does he refer?—

who impudently stand between the people and the machinery of the Government.

You will agree with me, I think, that the support which has been given to the present administration in its efforts to preserve and advance this reform by a party restored to power after an exclusion for many years from participation in the places attached to the public service, confronted with a new system precluding the redistribution of such places in its interest, called upon to surrender advantages which a perverted partisanship had taught the American people belonged to success, and perturbed with the suspicion, always raised in such an emergency, that their rights in the conduct of this reform had not been scrupulously regarded, should receive due acknowledgment and should confirm our belief that there is a sentiment among the people better than a desire to hold office, and a patriotic impulse upon which may safely rest the integrity of our institutions and the strength and perpetuity of our Government.

The first official utterances of President Cleveland upon the 4th of March, 1885, renewed the assurance that had been given. He declared:

The people demand reform in the administration of the Government and the application of business principles to business affairs. As a means to this end civil-service reform should be in good faith enforced. Our citizens have the right to protection from the incompetency of public employés who hold their places solely as the reward of partisan service, and from the corrupting influences of those who promise and the vicious who expect such rewards. And those who worthily seek public employment have the right to insist that merit and competency shall be recognized instead of party subserviency or the surrender of honest political belief.

How this system, thus inaugurated, this amphibious plan of distributing the patronage of the country among his own partisans and at the same time insisting upon the enforcement of civil-service reform doctrines practically resulted finds its first illustration in the celebrated circular of the Postmaster-General that was issued on the 29th of April, 1885. I do not propose to defile my observations by reading that document. I allude to it for the purpose of saying that a more thoroughly degraded, loathsome, execrable and detestable utterance never was made by any public official of any political persuasion in any country, or in any age. It was an invitation to every libeller, every anonymous slanderer, every scurrilous defamer, to sluice the feculent sewage of communities through the Post-Office Department, with the assurance that, without any intimation or information to the person aspersed, incumbents should be removed and Democratic partisans appointed. I offered a resolution on the 4th of this month calling on the Postmaster-General for information as to the number of removals of fourth-class postmasters, not requiring confirmation by the Senate, between the 4th day of March, 1885, and that date. It was a simple proposition. It required nothing but an inspection of the official register and a computation of numbers. No names were required and no dates. There was a simple question of arithmetic to ascertain the number of removals of fourth-class postmasters not included in the list sent to the Senate by the President, the salary being less than $1,000. Eighteen days elapsed. There seemed to be some reluctance on the part of the Department to comply with that request, and I thereupon offered a supplemental resolution, which was adopted by the Senate, asking the Postmaster-General to advise us whether that first resolution had been received, and, if so, why it was not answered, and when a reply might be expected.

On the second day following an answer came down. It does not include the number of places that were filled where there had been resignations. It does not include the list of those appointed where there had been vacancies from death or any other cause; but simply those who had been removed without cause and without hearing in the space of the first twelve months of this administration pledged to non-partisanship and civil-service reform. The number foots up 8,635. Eighty-six hundred and thirty-five removals of fourth-class postmasters under an administration pledged by repeated utterances not to remove except for cause, making an average, counting three hundred and thirteen working days in that year, of twenty-eight every day; and, counting seven hours as a day’s work, four removals every hour, or at the rate of one for every fifteen minutes of time from the 4th day of March, 1885, until the 4th of March, 1886. And that is civil-service reform! That is non-partisanship in the administration of this Government! That is exercising public office as a public trust!

Mr. COCKRELL. How many of these fourth-class postmasters are there?

Mr. INGALLS. I do not know.

Mr. COCKRELL. About fifty-one thousand, are there not?

Mr. INGALLS. It makes no difference how many; they did the best they could, and angels could do more. I see that the Senator from Missouri is impatient; he is anxious that the axe should fall more rapidly.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas will pause a moment. It is the duty of the Chair to inform the occupants of the galleries that the rules of the Senate forbid any expression of approbation or disapprobation. It will be the painful duty of the Chair to enforce that rule, if it is insisted upon.

Mr. INGALLS. I hope the Senator from Missouri will curb his impatience and restrain his impetuosity. The Postmaster-General will get through if you only give him time.

Mr. COCKRELL. He will get through in four years at this rate.

Mr. INGALLS. One every fifteen minutes!

Mr. COCKRELL. Fifty-one thousand is the number of fourth-class postmasters, I believe, and only eight thousand in a year have been removed.

Mr. INGALLS. Only one every fifteen minutes! How often do you expect them to be removed? He has done the best he could. And this does not include the number of those who resigned; this does not include any except those who have been removed. To the Senator from Missouri rising in his seat, impatient at the dilatory procrastination of the Post-Office Department in not casting out more Republican postmasters, I say this does not include all. Undoubtedly many more than eighty-six hundred and thirty-five have fallen beneath the axe of the Department or have been filled by partisans of the party in power as a reward for efficient and faithful party service in consequence of the retirement of thousands of patriotic Republicans: and when the Senator from Missouri attempts to convey the impression here that out of fifty-one thousand fourth-class postmasters only eighty-six hundred and thirty-five have been changed during this past year he is entirely outside the record. It is to be observed that this is but a single Department. How many have gone out of the State department, how many have gone out of the Interior department, how many out of the Army and Navy departments, and out of that illuminated Department of Justice, and out of the Treasury, of course is entirely unknown, and probably will always remain unknown till the secrets of earth are revealed at the last day. They are carefully concealed; there are no lists furnished to the press for publication. Therefore I trust that the friends of the administration will be consoled, that the complaints which have been so frequent hitherto of the want of activity on the part of the administration in finding places for their friends will be tempered by the consideration that they have done the best they could in the time at their disposal.

Mr. President, the list of official utterances is not yet complete. On the first day of this session President Cleveland again repeated his declaration that the civil service was to be divorced from partisanship, and he took occasion to inflict some more castigation upon those who were endeavoring to force him off the civil-service platform which he had declared he intended to occupy. This was his language:

Lay siege to the patronage of Government, engrossing the time of public officers with their importunities, spreading abroad the contagion of their disappointment, and filling the air with the tumult of their discontent.

Rather florid, rather oriental phrase, but in its exactness mathematical; a demonstration in geometry could not be more explicit and satisfactory than that description by President Cleveland of the occupation and the lamentations of the Democratic party. It will bear repetition.

Lay siege to the patronage of Government, engrossing the time of public officers with their importunities, spreading abroad the contagion of their disappointment, and filling the air with the tumult of their discontent.

A besieging, importunate, contagious, tumultuous, discontented organization.

There is more to the same effect in this document that I should like to read, but time does not serve, nor is it material, because there are other independent utterances to which I must pass; and I do this for the purpose of showing the consistent and persistent adhesion of the President of the United States to the declarations with which he started out when he commenced to administer the Government.

On the 30th day of January, 1886, the ordinary avenues of communication with the public being inaccessible, President Cleveland availed himself of the interviewer, and in the Boston Herald was printed a long letter detailing in quotations a conversation with President Cleveland, the many points of which will be found below. This was after this controversy, if you call it so, between the President and Senate, had begun to develop and there were some indications of approaching misunderstanding or disagreement:

He next spoke of his position toward the Senate in the matter of confirmations to office. He said it gave him some anxiety, for the Senate had been a good while in disclosing what it meant to do. “They seem”—

He says plaintively—

“to distrust me,” said he, “if I am to accept what I hear from others. But I hear nothing from them. They have not called upon me for information or for documents.”

That complaint no longer exists.

“I have tried”—

He says—

“to deal honorably and favorably by them. My purpose was announced at the beginning of my administration. I meant then to adhere to it. I have never changed it. I do not mean to change it in the future. It seems to me unjust and ungenerous in them”—

That is, in the Senate—

“unjust and ungenerous in them to suspect that I do. If I had not meant to adhere to my policy it would have been foolish in me to begin it. I should have escaped much in refusing to begin it. It is not at all pleasant for me to disappoint, and I fear sometimes to offend, my party friends. Nothing but a sense of duty has brought me to this step. Why run all this risk and incur this hard feeling only in the end to retreat? It seems to me it would have been as impolitic as it is wrong. No; I have tried to be true to my own pledges and the pledges of my party. We both promised to divorce the offices of the country from being used for party service. I have held to my promise, and I mean to hold to it.”

Then there was an answer to a question propounded by the interviewer, in which he defines his relation toward offensive partisanship in the Democratic party:

“I did not propose to hold party service in the past in the Democratic ranks as against a man. On the contrary, it gave him a strong, equitable claim to office. He had been excluded for twenty-four years because he was a Democrat. He should be remembered for the same reason when a Democratic administration came into power, provided he was a competent man for the position to be filled. What I understand by civil-service reform, as I am carrying it out, is that the office-holders shall be divorced from politics while they fill their positions under this government. That rule I have meant to stand by.” I asked him if he was aware of any deviation from it among his appointees. “If there has been any,” said he, “it has not been called to my attention.” I suggested that some such charge had been made in New York. He said he did not believe that there was any foundation for it, and that it was well known there that his wishes were that the office-holders should attend to the duties of their positions, and interfere neither with candidates nor election contests.

And here comes in the significant statement bearing upon the duty of Republicans in connection with these suspensions and removals from office:

“My removals from office, such as are made,” said he, “are made for cause. It would be absurd for me to undertake to give the country my reasons in all cases, because it would be impracticable. When I have removed a Republican for political reasons or for any other reasons, I would apply the same rule to my own party. I think the Republican Senators should be just enough to believe this of me. They ought to appreciate that I am trying to do my duty. Why they should continue to distrust me I do not see. They do not come to me either personally or by committee to get an understanding of my attitude, or to obtain explanations on points of action to which they object. They stand off and question the sincerity of my purposes.”

The eight thousand six hundred and thirty-five fourth-class postmasters and the six hundred and forty-three suspensions before the Senate and the thousands of changes in other departments “are made for cause,” not for political reasons merely; but to give those who have been so removed the opportunity to explain or defend themselves would be “absurd” and “impracticable.”

But this is not all. Later in the winter the Civil Service Commission was reorganized, and in a newspaper printed in this city appeared a statement alleged to be “personal” and included in quotation marks, and which it is commonly reported was in the handwriting of the President.

I cannot rid myself—

He said, after speaking about the personnel of the Civil Service Commission—

I cannot rid myself of the idea that this civil-service reform is something intended to do practical good and not a mere sentiment invented for the purpose of affording opportunity to ventilate high-sounding notions and fine phrases.

He alludes to the action of the Civil-Service Commission about a weigher in the city of Brooklyn, and says:

When the Civil Service Commission consulted with me as to the status of Mr. Sterling and the true construction of the rule bearing upon that subject, I agreed with them in their second opinion that the position of weigher was subject to an examination, and that it should be filled by one who by means of a proper examination under the law proved himself competent and eligible. But it seemed to me that the good of the service required that the person to be appointed should be possessed of certain traits and qualifications which no theoretical examination would develop. One having in charge two or three hundred men of the class with which a weigher has to deal should possess personal courage, energy, decision and firmness of character. It is entirely certain that the possession of such qualifications could not in the least be determined by the result of an examination organized for the purpose of testing an applicant’s knowledge and education.

And he closes:

No cause can gain by injustice or by a twisting of its purposes to suit particular tastes. And when a result is fairly reached through the proper operation of methods adopted to further a reform, it should be accepted—especially by the friends of the movement. They should not permit those of whom they require submission to say, with any semblance of truth, that they themselves submit only when the result accords with their views.

This closes the public declarations of the President of the United States upon the views which he entertains as to the method and plans and system upon which the public service is to be conducted under his administration. There are some interesting details as to the practical effects and results of the effort of the administration to purify the public service, which I would be glad if I had time to refer to, but I believe I will forbear. I can only say that it seems from an inspection of the record as if the cry “put the rascals out” had been changed in effect to “put the rascals in.” Of course Mr. President, no party is exempt from accidents, no organization has a monopoly either of good men or of bad men, and in calling attention to the results of civil-service reform as applied to this administration, I should be insincere if I were to assume that such results had followed from any predetermined purpose to put bad men into office.

We heard a great deal during the campaign about the corruptions, profligacy, misdeeds, and maladministration of Republican officials. I can only say that in view of what has occurred under this administration, if I were inclined to be uncharitable I could with entire propriety say that while the Republican party was in power it endeavored whenever it detected crime anywhere to punish it; but one of the practical results of Democratic administration has been the reverse, and that is to place in office a very large number of admitted and convicted felons. I have before me a selection from which I will, I believe, in support of this view of the case, give a law extract, stating in advance that these compilations are made from Democratic newspapers which, of course, is a mitigation of the slander, though it does not necessarily destroy its credibility.

Mr. ——, of Baltimore, who was made an Indian inspector in 1885, had been involved in notorious election frauds and was condemned by the civil-service reform Independents of Maryland as a companion of Higgins, as a ballot-box stuffer, and a professional gambler.

The postmaster at Sioux City, Iowa, was convicted and sentenced in Dakota for violation of the pension laws. The man who was removed to make a place for this eminent civil-service reformer had eight months yet to serve, and there was no complaint against him even to the extent that he was an offensive partisan.

Mr. Holmes, a postmaster in Mississippi, had been involved in notorious election-fraud scandals.

Mr. Shannon, appointed postmaster at Meriden, Miss., was the editor of the Mercury newspaper, which after President Grant’s death contained a rabid editorial attacking the General’s character; and he had been indicted in the United States court for “unlawfully and criminally conspiring with many others for the evasion of the civil rights law.”

In Rhode Island a Democratic postmaster was appointed who had been in the preceding three months arrested nine times for violation of the liquor law.

In Pennsylvania a man was appointed in the Philadelphia Mint who openly confessed to writing a forged letter from Neal Dow to be used in influencing the German vote in the State of Ohio the preceding year.

There have been some strange things done in Maine. I almost hesitate to quote this, but if I am wrong the Senators from that State will undoubtedly correct me. It is alleged that the postmaster in the town of Lincolnville was at the time of his appointment actually in the Portland jail, where he was serving a term for a misdemeanor.

An agent by the name of Judd, who was appointed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was, upon inquiry as to the fact whether he had been a horse-thief and served in the penitentiary, suspended from office. The writer states that the only ground for supposing that he was not a horse thief arose from the fact that they do not put men in the penitentiary for stealing horses out West: that if he was alive it was a reasonable, natural conclusion that he had not stolen any horses. Nobody denied the penitentiary.

A gentleman named Richard Board, of Kentucky, was appointed in July, on the recommendation of Comptroller Durham, clerk in the railway mail service and assigned to duty in New Mexico. This is under the Postmaster-General, who found leisure between removing postmasters every fifteen minutes to appoint this man in another branch of the service where he incautiously mentioned to his friends something about his previous history, and it appeared that he had been three times arrested in Cincinnati for obtaining money under false pretenses, that he had been twice arrested for stealing in Kentucky, and once in Texas—a variegated and diversified career. “No pent up Utica” contracted his powers. He had stolen in three states. His father was a very wealthy man in high standing who had spent a great deal of money to protect his son, and through him he secured the endorsement of Comptroller Durham, and after he had been in service for a few weeks he committed a number of robberies, stole $163 from the money order service, and at the date of this communication was lying in jail at Santa Fé awaiting trial.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES] yesterday took occasion to advert with somewhat of animated hilarity to the suggestion of the Senator from Iowa about the evolutionary condition of the Democratic party, and dwelt with considerable unction upon a term that the Senator from Iowa had applied to the Democracy in his very able and interesting speech: “a protoplasmic” cell, and the Senator then proceeded to give us the definition of the term as it appears in the dictionaries, and suggested that if those facts had been known at the time when the canvass was pending Mr. Cleveland would undoubtedly have been counted out in New York.

The Senator from Iowa might have gone further in his application of the doctrine of evolution with much propriety. Geology teaches us that in the process of being upward from the protoplasmic cell, through one form of existence to another there are intermediary and connecting stages, in which the creature bears some resemblance to the state from which it has emerged and some to the state to which it is proceeding. History is stratified politics; every stratum is fossiliferous; and I am inclined to think that the political geologist of the future in his antiquarian researches between the triassic series of 1880 and the cretaceous series of 1888 as he inspects the jurassic Democratic strata of 1884 will find some curious illustrations of the doctrine of political evolution.

In the transition from the fish to the bird there is an anomalous animal, long since extinct, named by the geologists the pterodactyl, or the winged reptile, a lizard with feathers upon its paws and plumes upon its tail. A political system which illustrates in its practical operations the appointment by the same administration of Eugene Higgins and Dorman B. Eaton can properly be regarded as in the transition epoch and characterized as the pterodactyl of politics. It is, like that animal, equally adapted to waddling and dabbling in the slime and mud of partisan politics and soaring aloft with discordant cries into the glittering and opalescent empyrean of civil-service reform.

The President closes his recent message to the Senate in this language:

The pledges I have made were made to the people, and to them I am responsible for the manner in which they have been redeemed. I am not responsible to the Senate and I am unwilling to submit my actions and official conduct to them for judgment.

There are no grounds for an allegation that the fear of being found false to my professions influences me in declining to submit to the demands of the Senate. I have not constantly refused to suspend officials, and thus incurred the displeasure of political friends, and yet willfully broken faith with the people for the sake of being false to them.

Neither the discontent of party friends nor the allurements constantly offered of confirmation of appointees conditioned upon the avowal that suspensions have been made on party grounds alone, nor the threat proposed in the resolution now before the Senate that no confirmations will be made unless the demands of that body be complied with, are sufficient to discourage or deter me from following in the way which I am convinced leads to better government for the people.

He is not responsible to the Senate, nor is the Senate responsible to him; both are alike responsible to the people. But in the cases at bar we are compelled to inquire, in justice to the people, whether those pledges have been redeemed, or whether they have been broken, violated, and disregarded. Had the patronage of the Government, within proper limits, been turned over for its exercise to the party intrusted with power by a majority of the people there could have been no complaint, but upon the assurances that I have read, the declaration was made that in every case where an incumbent was competent and qualified he should remain in office till the expiration of his term.

When, therefore, some were suspended and others were left, what is the irresistible inference, after the declarations of the President, except that these persons were suspended for cause either affecting their personal integrity or their official administration? Upon the ground, then, of personal justice, if no other, we are entitled to know whether wrong has been done by the accusations that have been filed in the Departments, so that we may protect those who are unable to defend themselves from injustice and defamation.

But there is another reason, and to me a still more convincing reason, why we should be advised in the case of these suspensions what are the papers, the official documents, and the reports on the files of the departments affecting the administration of these offices, and that is this: under the tenure-of-office act, every official suspended is reinstated by the provisions of section 1768 of the Revised Statutes, if the Senate adjourns without confirming the designated person, and continues to exercise and discharge the duties of that office, until he is again suspended by the President. Therefore, in acting upon these cases we have a double duty to perform; in the first place, to decide whether the person suspended was properly suspended, and in the next place, whether he is a competent person to be restored to office under and by virtue of the operation of the statute under which he was suspended. If he is not a competent person then he ought not to be restored, and we cannot determine whether he is competent and qualified and fit to discharge the duties of that office until we have the official declarations and statements upon which the action of the President was based.

Since this debate began, there are indications that the President has become convinced that his position is untenable, and that he has concluded to yield to the reasonable requests of the Senate and relieve suspended officials from the otherwise inevitable imputations upon their conduct and character. I find the following correspondence in one of the metropolitan journals, which if authentic relieves the relation between the President and the Senate of the principal restraint:

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, UNITED STATES SENATE, March 17, 1886.

DEAR SIR: Will you please advise the Committee on Finance whether or not there are any papers or charges on file reflecting against the official or moral character of ——, late collector of internal revenue for the first district of ——, suspended?

If there are any such papers or charges will you please communicate their nature and character to the committee?

Very truly, yours, JUSTIN S. MORRILL.

Hon. DANIEL MANNING, Secretary of the Treasury.

* * * * *

MARCH 19, 1886.

SIR: Your communication on behalf of the Finance Committee of the Senate, dated March 17, 1886, asking whether or not there are any papers or charges on file reflecting against the official or moral character of ——, late collector of internal revenue for the first district of ——, suspended, is received.

In reply thereto I have the honor to state that, so far as this inquiry relates to a suspension from office, I feel bound by the rules laid down in the President’s recent message to the Senate upon the general subject of such suspensions.

But in order that I may surely act within the requirements of the statute relating to the furnishing by this Department of information to the Senate, I beg leave to remind the committee that the office referred to has no fixed term attached to it, and to further state that the President is satisfied that a change in the incumbency of said office will result in an improvement of the public service, and that the policy of the present administration will be better carried out by such change.

Except as the same may be involved in these considerations, no papers containing charges reflecting upon the official or moral character of the suspended officer mentioned in your communication are in the custody of this Department.

Respectfully, yours, D. MANNING, Secretary.

HON. JUSTIN S. MORRILL, Chairm’n of the Senate Com. on Finance.

But whether this be true or not, this is not the forum in which this controversy is to be ultimately decided. The Executive is not on trial before the Senate; the Senate is not on trial before the Executive; but both, as to the sincerity of their professions and the consistency of their actions, are on trial before that greater, wiser, and more powerful tribunal—the enlightened conscience of the people, from whose verdict there is neither exculpation nor appeal.

THE GREAT TARIFF CAMPAIGN OF 1888.

The views which point to the tendency of the Democratic party in the direction of Free Trade, at least to their antagonism to the theory of Protection for protection’s sake, are well given in the special message of President Cleveland, given elsewhere in this work. A wing of the Democratic party, headed by Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, dissented from this view, and opposed both the Morrison and the Mills bills. For the purpose of illustrating the views of this class of Democrats, as well as because of the distinction of the speaker, we append

The Tariff Speech of Samuel J. Randall.

Delivered in the House of Representatives, May 18, 1888.

He opened by referring to the President’s recent message, in which the Executive advised Congress that the surplus in the Treasury by the 30th of June, at the end of the current fiscal year, would be expected to reach the sum of $140,000,000, including prior accumulations; or more closely stated, the sum of $113,000,000, apart from prior accumulations, over and above all authorized expenditures, including the sinking fund for the current year.

He then quoted from the President’s message defining his position on the tariff and internal revenue questions, and said that, from the utterances of the President, he understands the Executive to be adverse to any reduction of the internal taxes, as that mode of taxation afforded, in the opinion of the President, “no just complaint, and that nothing is so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people.”

The President further said that the tariff law was a vicious and illegal source of inequitable tax, and ought to be revised and modified, and the President had urged upon Congress the immediate consideration of this matter to the exclusion of all others. The President had asserted in substance that the reduction necessary should be made by additions to the free list, and by the lowering of the rates of duty.

In the presence of such language, emanating from the Executive, authorized by the direction of the Constitution to communicate and from time to time give to Congress information on the state of the Union, and recommend such measures as he should judge necessary, it was imperatively required of the representatives of the people to give fair, intelligent, and prompt attention to the suggestions made. He had done so.

He had introduced and had referred to the Committee on Ways and Means a bill to reduce and equalize duties on imports and to reduce the internal revenue taxes, and some provisions of that bill showed that the remedies he would apply were at variance with those recommended by the President. The President sought to prevent the continuation of the surplus revenue by resorting to changes in the customs duties only.

The remedy he (Randall) proposed was through the repeal of internal revenue taxes as well as by a full revision of the tariff, as promised to the people by the Democratic Convention of 1884. The reduction provided for in his bill aggregated $77,000,000 on internal taxes.

Those taxes had always been the last to be levied, and the first to be repealed when no longer necessary.

Jefferson had given the death-blow to excise taxes, that most vicious of all taxes, and among the things he received the thanks of the Legislature of his native State for doing, was for having the internal taxes abolished. The first tax also to be repealed after the War of 1812 had been the excise tax, which was recommended by Madison, and was the first law enacted under the administration of Monroe. The Democratic Convention of 1884 declared that internal revenue was a war tax, and this declaration, taken in connection with the other declarations of the platform, clearly established the fact that the opinion of the Convention was that some of the internal revenue taxes should first go, and that they should all go whenever a sufficient sum was realized from custom-house taxes to meet the expenses of the Government economically administered.

The country was practically in such a condition now, and the true response to those declarations warranted the repeal of the internal revenue taxes to the extent proposed by his bill. He favored now, as he had always done, a total repeal of the internal revenue taxes.

In the bill which he introduced he proposed to sweep all these taxes from the statute books, except a tax of fifty cents on whiskey, and he would transfer the collection of that tax to the customs officials if that was found to be practicable.

With Albert Gallatin, he regarded excise taxes as offensive to the genius of the people, tolerated only as a measure of emergency, and as soon as the occasion for them had passed away they should cease to exist.

Gallatin and Jefferson had secured the repeal of the internal taxes, and relieved the people from their annoyances and the hordes of officials clothed with dangerous power. If this internal revenue system was abolished to-day we would have no surplus revenue to scare the country, while the administration of public affairs would be rendered purer and better. His bill proposed a revision of the tariff on the principle believed to be in harmony with the authorized declarations of the Democratic party in their last convention.

Those declarations clearly recognized the fact that a difference existed in the cost of production of commodities in this and other countries on account of a higher rate of wages in the United States, and declared for a duty ample to cover that difference. There was a cardinal principle which must cover every intelligent revision of the tariff. Labor in this country received a much larger share of what was annually produced than in any other country, and this advantage to labor could only be maintained by giving to the industries protection equal to that difference.

He quoted from Edward Atkinson that since the end of the Civil War, and yet more since the so-called panic of 1873, there had been greater progress in the common welfare among the people of the United States than ever before. The statements of Mr. Atkinson would seem to settle the question as to whether we should adhere to the benevolent policy of protecting home manufactures. It demonstrated unmistakably the truth that, to increase wages, products must be increased, for in the end wages were but the laborer’s share of products.

While a dollar might buy more in another country than here, a day’s labor here would obtain more of the comforts of life than anywhere else. Under free trade this advantage to labor disappeared. It was impossible it should be otherwise. If the tariff itself did not give higher wages to the laborer, it did preserve from foreign competition the industries from which the laborer received his wages. He wished to refer to a few fundamental propositions which had been maintained throughout this debate, and which appeared to exercise and control influence over the opinion of men.

First. That the duties were always added to the price to the consumer.

On articles not produced in this country, this doubtless was true as a general rule, and measurably true on articles in part produced in this country, but not in sufficient quantities to supply the home market. But on all commodities produced in sufficient quantities to supply the home market, a different principle controlled. In these things competition determined the price, and the foreign producer came into this market, where the prices were fixed, and the duties were what he paid for the privilege of coming into the market. Another erroneous proposition was that duties on articles produced in this country were a tax or bounty which the consumer paid to the manufacturer, by means of which the manufacturer derived large profits. If this were true, it was not easy to see what justification there was for the committee bill any more than for the present tariff law. But that it was erroneous seemed apparent on a closer examination of the laws of trade. Adam Smith long ago had laid down the proposition that larger profits in one industry than in another could not long prevail in the same country. The United States formed a world of its own. Would it be possible that one class of consumers would pay a perpetual tax to another?

Suppose last year we had manufactured $1,000,000,000 worth of products less than we actually did, and had gone abroad to supply our deficiency, expecting to pay for the goods with our agricultural products—we had sold Europe last year all of the wheat and corn the continent could take—who could tell what prices Europe would have paid if we had thrown upon her markets $1,000,000,000 worth of agricultural products in excess of the quantity we had sold. The farmer and manufacturer in this country must depend almost exclusively upon our home market.

Any other policy would mean ruin and bankruptcy to the country. The greater the producing power of the people the more independent and wealthy would the country be.

Mr. Randall next entered into an explanation of the principles upon which his bill had been constructed. He said that in fixing the duties the rates had been adjusted as nearly as possible to cover the difference in the margin of cost of production here and abroad. In working out the details of the bill it had been his purpose to lower duties wherever possible.

Between the extreme free trader on one hand and a prohibitory tariff on the other there were intermediate positions. One of them was to fix a revenue line on imports just high enough to realize a sufficient revenue for the needs of the Government. Another was to make the tariff sufficiently high to cover the difference of cost of production in this country and other countries. To lower the rate of duty when that line was passed must be to increase the revenue. To raise the rate of duty when the line of maximum revenue was reached would result in a decrease of duty.

Any computation that did not take these facts into account would be utterly worthless. It might safely be assumed that when the importation of any line of merchandise steadily increased from year to year, and there was no good reason why those goods could not be produced in this country, and the result of the increased importations had been to suppress our manufactures, it was proof positive that the duty should be increased.

Otherwise it might be assumed that the duties were quite high enough. And when the duties were high enough to permit the existence of trusts to raise the prices of the commodity, the duty should be reduced as closely as possible to the line. He stated distinctly that if it could be made to appear in any case that the measure he proposed conferred more protection than was needed to cover the cost of production, he was ready to lower it. If in any instance the rate was too low to cover that cost, he was ready to raise it.

Monopolies existed without the tariff. The standard oil trust, the whiskey trust, and the cotton-seed oil trust, and others that he could mention—the greatest trusts in the whole country—were not protected by the tariff. He was for the protection of labor, not in one State merely, but in all States.

He was for the protection and maintenance of that system that allows to labor a larger proportionate share of its products than was realized in any other country or under any other system.

The late Secretary Manning had signalized his accession to the control of the Treasury Department by a more thorough examination of the economic questions of the day than had been made by any of his predecessors. His reports and public utterances were marvels of honest, conscientious, and effective labor.

He had strongly urged the necessity for the substitution of specific for ad valorem duties. The Custom House officers charged with the collection of the revenues had given valuable and emphatic testimony in favor of the change. The present Secretary of the Treasury had taken the same grounds. (At this point Mr. Randall quoted extensively from Secretary Fairchild’s utterances on the subject. He then proceeded with his description of the objects of his own bill.) Certain provisions of the metal schedules, he said, had been very sharply assailed, and he devoted some time to answering the speakers who had attacked his measure.

He took up the schedules relating to steel rails, and quoted figures at length to sustain his action in fixing the duties at the rates he proposed in his bill. The duty on cotton ties, he said, was one of the inconsistencies of the present tariff. It was only fair that they should pay a duty as hoop iron and as an article of manufacture. The present law was a positive discrimination against the home manufacturer and in favor of the foreign producer. The rate of wages in England in cotton tie manufactories was hardly one-half of the wages paid in such manufactories in Pittsburg.

He then proceeded to a criticism of the committee bill as follows:

A declared purpose of this bill is to secure “free raw materials to stimulate manufactories.”

In execution of this idea, the bill places on the free list a large number of articles which are really manufactured articles, such as salt, sawed and dressed lumber, glue, various oils and chemicals, china, clay, etc. These constitute the products of large and useful industries throughout the United States in which many millions of capital are invested, and employing many thousands of working people. At the same time the bill leaves or puts upon the dutiable list, lead, iron, zinc and nickel ores, and coal, which might be called raw materials. Further than this, the bill not only makes so-called “raw materials” free, but places on the free list the manufactured products of these materials. Thus the manufacture of such articles is made impossible in this country, except by reducing American labor to a worse condition than that of labor in Europe. It goes even further, and places or leaves dutiable certain so-called raw materials, such as iron ore, lead, coal, paper, paints, etc., while placing on the free list articles made from these materials, such as hoop iron and cotton ties, tin plates, machinery, books and pamphlets, etc.

In other words, the bill leaves or makes dutiable the raw material and puts on the free list the articles manufactured from it; thus not only placing an insurmountable barrier in the way of making such articles here, but actually protecting the foreign manufacturer and laborer against our own, and imposing for their benefit a burden upon the consumer in this country. Again, the bill places lower rates on some manufactured articles than on the raw materials used in making them. For instance, type metal, 15 per cent.; pig lead, 44 per cent.; carpets, 30 per cent.; yarns used in their manufacture, 40 per cent.

It leaves an internal revenue tax of more than 100 per cent. on alcohol used in the arts, amounting to as much as the entire amount of duty collected on raw wool. This article enters as a material into a vast number of important and needful articles which the committee have either made free or have so reduced the rates thereon that the duty would be less than the tax on the alcohol consumed in their manufacture.

In some cases, the difference between the duty imposed by the bill on the so called raw materials and the articles made from them is so small as to destroy these industries, except upon the condition of levelling the wages of home labor to that of Europe. This was so in the case of pig lead and red lead, which is made from it, and of pig iron and steel blooms and steel rails.

Such legislation would leave the ore in the mines, or the pig lead in the smelting works, or the pig iron to rust at the furnaces, while foreigners would supply our markets with these manufactured products. In a large number of articles throughout the schedules the reductions proposed by the bill are so large that the effect must be to destroy or restrict home production and increase enormously foreign importations, thus largely increasing customs revenue instead of reducing it, as claimed by the advocates of the bill. Particular mention in this connection is made of earthen and chinaware, glass, leaf tobacco, manufactures of cotton, flax, hemp, and jute, carpets, brushes, leather, gloves, manufactures of India rubber, and pipes.

Mr. Randall asserted that instead of the bill reducing customs revenues $64,000,000, as was claimed, it would be fair to estimate that its effect would be to largely increase the revenue, instead of reducing it, while the amount of material wealth it would destroy is incalculable.

Those supporting the bill, he said, hold themselves out as the champions of the farmer, while they take from him the protection duties on his wool, hemp, flax, meats, vegetables, etc. And what do they give him in return. They profess to give the manufacturer better rates than he now has. If this be so, how is the farmer to be benefited, or where does he get compensation for the loss of his protective duties?

Much has been said about removing taxes on necessaries and imposing them upon luxuries. What does this bill propose? It gives olive oil to the epicure and taxes castor oil 95 per cent.; it gives free tin plates to the Standard Oil Company and to the great meat-canning monopolies, and imposes a duty of 100 per cent. on rice; it gives the sugar trust free bone-black and proposes prohibitory duties on grocery grades of sugar; it imposes a duty of 40 per cent. on the “poor man’s” blanket and only 30 per cent. on the Axminster carpet of the rich; it admits free of duty the fine animals imported by the gentlemen of the turf, makes free the paintings and statuary of the railway millionaire and coal baron.

Mr. Randall said he yielded to no man on his side of the House in his desire for continued Democratic control in the administration of the Federal Government. He did not believe the adoption of the committee’s bill would make such result certain, and added:

“I cannot be coerced into any particular action upon economic questions by the direction of party caucus. The period of the political caucus has departed never to return, and yet we should confer and have unity, if it is possible.

“In these matters I speak only for myself. My convictions on the tariff are strong, and founded, as I think, upon principle, and upon information and intelligent comprehension of the subject. When any one here enters upon the task of invoking caucus power or other modes of coercion, I can only say to him, if he acts with good purpose, that it will prove a fruitless undertaking; or if with ill motive, then I consign him to all the natural contempt which such self-constituted superciliousness deserves.”

In conclusion, Mr. Randall quoted from the earliest statesmen in support of his views upon the tariff, and said:

“If Jackson could say he was confirmed in his opinions by the opinions of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, how much more am I confirmed in my opinions by his great authority added to that of the founders and builders of the Democratic party? I warn the party that it is not safe to abandon principles so fundamental to our institutions and so necessary to the maintenance of our industrial system; principles which attest the wisdom of those who established them by the fruits they have borne, the full fruition of which, however, can only be realized in the extension of diversified industries to all parts of the country, not in the North and East alone, but in the South and West as well. A new era of industrial enterprise has already dawned upon the South; no section of the country possesses greater natural advantages than the South, with her genial climate, her limitless raw materials, her mines of coal and iron, with abundant labor ready to develop them. Considering what has been there achieved in a single decade, what may not a century bring forth from her under a system calculated to favor the highest industrial development? When I read the history of my country and consider the past and present, and reflect on what is before us, I cannot believe that the idea that went down in the convulsions of 1861 will ever again dominate the destinies of the Republic.”

Tariff Speech of Major Wm. McKinley, Jr.,

Member of Congress from Ohio.

In the great tariff campaign of 1888 the two most distinguished Republican speakers were Mr. Blaine and Major McKinley. The latter was invited by the Chautauqua Society of Georgia to explain the doctrine of Protection, and did so in the following comprehensive speech:

FELLOW-CITIZENS: I make my acknowledgments to the Piedmont Society for the courtesy and cordiality of its invitation, which has given me the opportunity to meet, for the first time, an assemblage of the citizens of Georgia.

I have come, upon the suggestion of the committee, to address you upon a public question of great national import, which concerns not only the prosperity of one section, but of all sections of our common country, and which is of commanding interest to our sixty millions of people. It is no new subject which I propose to consider. It is as old as government by men. Taxation, with few exceptions, has been the chief and absorbing issue for more than a century of the republic.

A revenue tariff is such a one as will produce the largest revenue from the lowest duty. The lowest rate of duty will encourage importations, diminish home production, and inevitably increase the revenue. It will, of necessity, check competition at home, and send our merchants abroad to buy; it affords no protection, not even incidental, for the very instant that you discover that such duty favors the home producer, that instant you discover that importations and revenue are checked, and that our own producers are able to control the home market or a part of it. Then at once the advocate of a revenue tariff reduces the duty, brings it down to the true revenue standard, for it must not be overlooked, according to the free trade maxim, “where protection begins, revenue ends,” and the question of revenue is always controlling. A revenue tariff is inconsistent with protection; it is intended for a wholly different purpose. It loses its force and character as a genuine revenue tariff when it becomes to any extent protective. It has but one object. It can have but one effect—that of opening up our markets to the foreign producer—impoverishing the home producer and enriching his foreign rival.

England is more nearly a free trade country than any other, and her system of taxation furnishes an unmistakable example of the practice and principle of a revenue tariff. Her import duties are imposed almost exclusively upon articles which cannot be produced by her own people upon her own soil. Tobacco, snuff, cigars, chicory, cocoa, currants, figs, raisins, rum, brandy, wine, tea, and coffee—these are the articles from which her customs revenue is derived—articles, in the main, not produced in England, but which must be supplied from abroad; while, practically, all competing products of foreign make and production are admitted through her custom-house free of duty.

A brief statement of the dutiable imports of Great Britain will not be without interest.

It will be observed that her duties are more largely imposed upon the peculiar American products than upon any others. The duty upon tobacco is, according to moisture, from 84 to 92 cents per pound for the raw or unmanufactured article; and, if manufactured, it pays a duty of from $1.04 to $1.16 per pound. The manufactured article is made dutiable at 20 cents a pound greater than the raw product, which, with all of England’s boasted free trade, is intended as a protection to those engaged in the manipulation of tobacco. It is almost prohibitive to Americans who would export manufactured tobacco. The ad valorem equivalent of the duty on tobacco is nearly 2000 per cent. Cigars pay a duty of $1.32 per pound, and from tobacco and snuff over $43,000,000 of duties are collected annually. The duty on tea is 12 cents a pound. How would the Americans enjoy paying such a duty upon this article of everyday use? The duty collected from this source is over $18,000,000 annually. Coffee pays a duty of 3 cents a pound; but, if ground, prepared, or in any way manufactured, it must pay a duty of 4 cents a pound—another example of where England protects those engaged in manufacture. Cocoa pays a duty of 2 cents a pound, but if it is in any form subjected to manufacture it pays 4 cents a pound, the duty on the manufactured article being double that on the raw material.

Besides the articles named, there are about ninety or a hundred others, chiefly of American production, patented and other medicines, which are dutiable at $3.36 per gallon. More than $96,000,000, or nearly one-fourth of the British revenues, are raided from customs duties.

You will note the character of taxation to which the revenue reformer invites the people of the United States. Both the breakfast table and the sick room are made to bear a large part of the burden under the British system of taxation. It is not without significance that the nearer we approach this system the more generous the bestowal of British commendation. Every step we take in that direction, every enlargement of the free list of competing foreign products, every reduction of duty upon such products is hailed as a vindication of Cobden and a beneficence to British interests. It is in vain for the British statesman to assure us that their system is best for us. We are not accustomed to look to our commercial rivals for disinterested favors. “It is folly,” said Washington in his farewell address, “for one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay, with a portion of its independence, for whatever it may accept under that character. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, and which a just pride ought to discard.” We are not insensible to the good opinion of mankind and of the English-speaking race, but when it is to be had only at the expense of our industrial independence, at the sacrifice of the dignity and independence of labor and the destruction of national prosperity, we must regard it with supreme suspicion, and turn from it as the eulogy of selfish interest and the commendation of interested greed.

The other theory of taxation, and the one which I believe to be essential to American development and national prosperity, is based upon an exactly opposite principle. It permits all articles of foreign production, whether of the field, the factory, or the mine, except luxuries only, which we cannot produce in the United States, to enter our ports free and unburdened by custom-house exactions. The duty is to be imposed upon the foreign competing product; that is, the product which, if brought into this country, would contend with the products of our own soil, our own labor, and our own factories, in our own markets. Under this system, if the foreign producer would enter our market with a competing product, he must contribute something for the privilege which he is to enjoy, and this something, in the form of duties, goes into the Treasury, furnishing revenue to the Government; and these duties operate to protect the joint product of labor and capital against a like foreign product.

This mode of levying duties answers a double purpose. It produces revenue to the Government, and at the same time fosters and encourages the occupations of our own people, promotes industrial development, opens up new mines, builds new factories, and sustains those already established, which in turn furnish employment to labor at fair and remunerative wages. A revenue tariff accomplishes but a single purpose—that of raising revenue; it has no other mission; while a protective tariff accomplishes this and more—it brings revenue to the American treasury and discriminates in favor of the American citizen. A revenue tariff invites the product of foreign labor and foreign capital to occupy our markets free and unrestrained in competition with the product of our own labor and capital. A protective tariff invites the product of foreign labor and foreign capital which are necessary to the wants of our people (which we cannot produce in the United States) to occupy our markets and go untaxed to the people, but insists that every foreign product which is produced at home, or can be, successfully, in quantities capable of supplying the domestic consumption, shall, whenever necessary to maintain suitable rewards to our labor, bear a duty which shall not be so high as to prohibit importations, but at such a rate as will produce the necessary revenues and, at the same time, not destroy but encourage American production. It says to the world of producers: “If you want to share with the citizens of the United States their home market, you must pay for the privilege of doing it. Your product shall not enter into free and unrestrained competition with the product of our own people, but shall be discriminated against to such an extent as to fully protect and defend our own.”

It is alleged as a serious objection to protective duties that the tax, whatever it may be, increases the cost of the foreign as well as the domestic product to the extent of such tax or duty, and that it is wholly paid by the consumer. This objection would be worthy of serious consideration if it were true; but, as has been demonstrated over and over again, it is without foundation in fact. Wherever the foreign product has successful competition at home, the duty is rarely paid by the consumer. It is paid from the profits of the manufacturer, or divided between him and the merchant or the importer, and diminishes their profit to that extent. Duty or no duty, without home competition the consumer would fare worse than he fares now. There is not in the long line of staple products consumed by the people a single one which has not been cheapened by competition at home, made possible by protective duties. There is not an article that enters into the everyday uses of the family, which is produced in the United States, that has not been made cheaper and more accessible as the result of home production and development, which was to be secured only by the sturdy maintenance of the protective system. While this is true of protective tariffs, exactly the opposite is true of revenue tariffs. They are always paid by the consumer. When a duty is put on a foreign product the like of which is not produced at home, and which enters our markets free from home competition, the cost to the American consumer is exactly the foreign cost with the duty added, whatever that may be, much or little. Supposing, for example, there was a tax upon tea and coffee. There being no production of these articles in the United States, and therefore no competition here, the cost to the American public would be the cost abroad and the duty added. We imported last year 526,489,000 pounds of coffee. A duty of 10 cents a pound would have produced to the Government over $52,000,000, which would have been paid by the 12,000,000 families of this country, consumers of this article; 87,584,000 pounds of tea were imported last year; at 10 cents a pound, $8,000,000 and upward would have gone into the Treasury, every dollar of which would have been paid by our own people. Take sugar as another example. We produced last year in this country about eight per cent. of what our people consumed. The duty collected from imported sugar amounted to $58,000,000. The domestic production was so inconsiderable as compared with the domestic consumption as to have had little, if any, appreciable effect upon the price to the consumer, and therefore this sum was almost wholly paid by our own citizens, and the cost of sugar to the American consumer, because of the inadequate home supply, is practically the foreign price, duty added, the domestic production being so small contrasted with the domestic demand that it in no wise controlled or influenced the price.

The revenue tariff periods of our history have been periods of greatest financial revulsions and industrial decadence, want, and poverty among the people, private enterprises checked and public works retarded. From 1833 to 1842, under the low tariff legislation then prevailing, business was at a standstill, and our merchants and traders were bankrupted; our industries were paralyzed, our labor remained idle, and our capital was unemployed. Foreign products crowded our markets, destroyed domestic competition, and, as invariably follows, the prices of commodities to consumers were appreciably raised. It is an instructive fact that every panic this country has ever experienced has been preceded by enormous importations. From 1846 to 1861 a similar situation was presented under the low tariff of that period.

Contrast this period with the period from 1860 to 1880, the former under a revenue tariff, the latter under a protective tariff. In 1860 we had 163,000,000 acres of improved land, while in 1880 we had 287,000,000, an increase of 75 per cent. In 1860 our farms were valued at $3,200,000,000; in 1880 the value had leaped to $10,197,000,000, an increase of over 300 per cent. In 1860 we raised 173,000,000 bushels of wheat; in 1880, 498,000,000. In 1860 we raised 838,000,000 bushels of corn; in 1880, 1,717,000,000 bushels. In 1860 we produced 5,000,000 bales of cotton; in 1880, 7,600,000 bales, an increase of 40 per cent. In 1860 we manufactured cotton goods to the value of $115,681,774; in 1880 the value reached $211,000,000, an increase of upward of 80 per cent. In 1860 we manufactured of woollen goods $61,000,000; in 1880, $267,000,000, an increase of 333 per cent. In 1860 we produced 60,000,000 pounds of wool; in 1880, 240,000,000 pounds, an increase of nearly 300 per cent. In 1860 we mined 15,000,000 tons of coal; in 1880, 79,000,000 tons, an increase of over 400 per cent. In 1860 we made 987,000 tons of pig iron; in 1880, 3,835,000 tons. In 1860 we manufactured 235,000 tons of railroad iron, and in 1880, 1,208,000 tons. In 1860 our aggregate of national wealth was $16,159,000,000; in 1880 it was $43,000,000,000.

From 1848 to 1860, during the low tariff period, there was but a single year in which we exported in excess of what we imported. The balance of trade during twelve of the thirteen years was against us. Our people were drained of their money to pay for foreign purchases. We sent abroad, over and above our sales, $396,216,161. This vast sum was drawn from the United States, from its business, from the channels of trade, which would have been better employed in productive enterprises, and thus supplied our wants for which we were compelled to go abroad. During the last thirteen years, under a protective tariff, there was but one year that the balance of trade was against us. For twelve years we sold to our foreign customers in excess of what we bought from them $1,612,659,755.

This contrast makes an interesting exhibit of the work under the two systems. You need not be told that the government and the people are most prosperous whose balance of trade is in their favor. The government is like the citizen; indeed, it is but an aggregation of citizens; and when the citizen buys more than he sells, he is soon conscious that his year’s business has not been a success.

Our wealth increases $875,000,000 every year, while the increase of France is $375,000,000, Great Britain $325,000,000, and Germany $200,000,000. The total carrying capacity of all the vessels entered and cleared from American ports during the year 1886–7 in the foreign trade was 28,000,000 tons. The amount of freight transported by the railroads of the United States was alone 482,000,000 tons during the same period.

The sum of our industries exceeds that of any other people, or tribe, or nationality. Mulhall, the English statistician, places the industries of the United States at $11,405,000,000 annually, which is $2,205,000,000 greater than those of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, nearly twice those of France or Germany, nearly three times those of Russia, and almost equal to the aggregated industries of Austria, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Australia, Canada, and Sweden and Norway.

This advancement is the world’s wonder. The nations of the earth cannot furnish such a splendid exhibition of progress in any age or period. We defy a revenue tariff policy to present such an exhibition of material prosperity and industrial development. Art, science, and literature have held their own in this wonderful march. We are prosperous to-day beyond any other people. The masses are better cared for, better provided for, more self-respecting, and more independent than ever before in our history, which cannot be said of the masses of other countries.

One of the striking differences between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff is that the former sends the money of its people abroad for foreign supplies and seeks out a foreign market. The latter keeps the money at home among our own people, circulating through the arteries of trade, and creates a market at home, which is always the best, because the most reliable.

Surely a new era of industrial development has come to the South. Nothing should be permitted to check or retard it. To her nature has been most prodigal with her gifts. Her hills and valleys have been made the storehouses of richest treasure. Coal and iron mines wait impatiently the touch of labor and capital, and tempt both with the promise of lavish profit.

Raw materials are found at every turn to invite the skilled artisan to transform them into the finished product for the highest uses of man. She possesses the fibres in rich abundance; her skilled labor should weave the fabric.

It is said that there is nothing grown in any of the States, except Florida, that Georgia cannot profitably produce. She has coal, iron deposits, marble and building stone, cotton and the cereals. Nothing but her own folly, nothing but blindness to her highest and best interests can keep her from the front rank of the industrial States of the Union.

Whether we discuss this question from principle, from statistics, or experience, we must reach the same conclusion; all lead to the same conviction.

One of the chief complaints against the protective system is its alleged hindrance to foreign trade and a foreign market for our own products. It is argued that if we could import raw material from other countries free, and manufacture such raw material into products for use, we could export them at great profit, and thus secure a standing in the markets of the world. This theory is wholly, as I believe, illusory. It is without substance. We have an example of free raw material in a certain line of manufactures—that of leather for boots, shoes, etc. In 1872 hides and skins were made free, so that our manufacturers could import them without custom-house burdens. They have had “free trade” in their raw material now for sixteen years. This industry has been an exceptionally successful one, and yet you cannot avoid being surprised when I say to you that in these sixteen years we have been able to export but two per cent. of the leather production of this country.

But if free raw material be necessary to secure an export trade and the foreign markets, then I answer that our manufacturers to-day have substantial free trade in foreign raw materials which they make into the finished product in the United States, provided they export it. Sections 3019, 3020, 3021, and 3022 of the United States Statutes provide for the remission of duties on all foreign materials used in manufacturing for the export trade. The law is positive that all articles manufactured for export from imported materials upon which duties have been paid, shall, when exported, be entitled to a drawback of 90 per cent. of the duties paid on such raw materials. Some use has been made of these laws. The remission of duties in 1884 paid upon imported material manufactured for foreign markets amounted to $2,256,638. On some articles the drawback is equal to the duty paid, but in no instance where articles are imported to be manufactured here and sent abroad is the duty to exceed 10 per cent.

And yet we are gravely told by the tariff reformers that we cannot reach foreign markets on account of the high tariff on the raw material, when, in fact, for foreign trade foreign raw materials are practically free. This principle was recognized as early as the administration of George Washington, and has been enlarged and made applicable to all imported materials, the drawbacks varying from 60 to 100 per cent. What becomes, then, of the cry for free raw materials in the presence of this fact? The truth is, we are not so much concerned about the foreign market as we are about the home market. The latter is the best, and we have not yet been able to control it, and, until we do, that should be our chief concern. But if any of our people are sighing for a foreign market, and value it more highly than our own, they can import foreign raw material practically free of duty, and after advancing it into the higher forms of manufacture, can go out and possess the world’s markets. Taxed raw materials do not stand in their way, and it is hypocrisy to claim otherwise.

“The markets of the world,” in our present condition, are a snare and a delusion. We will reach them whenever we can undersell competing nations, and not sooner. Tariffs do not keep us out, and free trade will not make it easier to enter them.

Upon what terms can we adopt a revenue tariff system in this country? In one way only; by accepting European conditions, and submitting to all the discomforts and disadvantages of our commercial rivals. The chief obstruction in the way of a revenue tariff are the wages paid American workingmen, and any return to that policy involves a reduction of the cost of labor. We cannot afford to have cheap labor in the United States. Cheap labor means cheap men and dear money. I would rather elevate and improve the condition of my fellow-citizens than increase the value of money and the power of “money-bags.” This is a republic of free and equal citizenship. The government is in the hands of the masses, and not of the few. This is our boast, and it is a proud one. The condition of the masses, their well-being, their intelligence, their preparation for the civil duties which rest upon them, depend largely upon the scale of industrial wages. It is essential, therefore, that the best possible wages attainable shall be secured and maintained. This is vital and fundamental. We cannot, without grave danger and serious disturbance—we ought not under any circumstances—adopt a policy which would scale down the wages and diminish the comforts of the American workingmen. Their welfare and independence, their progress and elevation are closely related to the welfare and independence and progress of the republic. We have got no pampered class in this country, and we want none. We want the field kept open. No narrowing of the avenues, no lowering of our standard. We want no barriers raised against a higher and better civilization. The gateway of opportunity must be open to all, to the end that they may be first who deserve to be first, whether born in poverty or reared in luxury. We do not want the masses excluded from competing for the first rank among their countrymen and for the nation’s greatest honors, and we do not mean they shall be.

Free trade, or a revenue tariff, will, of necessity, shut them out. It has no respect for labor. It holds it as the mere machinery of capital. It would have cheap men that it might have cheap merchandise. With all of its boasted love for the struggling millions, it is infinitely more interested in cutting down the wages of labor than in saving twenty-five cents on a blanket; more intent in reducing the purchasing power of a man’s labor than the cost of his coat. Things are not always dearest when their price is nominally the highest. The price is not the only measure, but the wherewith to buy it is an essential factor. Few men before me but have found in the course of their lives more than once that that which was cheapest when measured by mere price was the dearest when they were without money and employment, or when their products could find no market, and, finding it, commanded no price at all commensurate with the labor required to produce them. Primarily, it is labor which is interested most in this question of protection. The man with money can seek other avenues of profit and investment, or can wait for his dividends, but the laborer cannot wait for his dinner, and the United States do not want citizens who make presidents, and senates, and the house of representatives, to be in a condition of dependence and destitution. That is not the sort of citizenship we want.

We are different from any other nation, and it is that difference which makes us the best. Our political system rests upon a principle different from that of any other. It is founded upon the consent of the people. If we had wanted it otherwise we would not have left home, but would have remained the obedient child of an imperious parent. We would not have turned away from the mother country. We would have remained one of her dependencies. We would not have fought our way through blood and sacrifice to independence. We separated to set up for ourselves a free and independent political society, and that policy is the best for us which best subserves the purposes of our organization, our citizenship and civilization. It is ours to work out our own destiny, and, in doing so, furnish an example of a free and progressive people, whose industrial policy has made it possible to satisfy the best and highest aspirations of men, and which closes no field to human endeavor. We would wish for all mankind the beneficence of our system and the opportunities which it presents. We bid them level their condition up to ours; we will not level ours down to theirs. We will remove all restrictions from international trade, as we have removed all restrictions from inter-State trade, whenever they will raise their labor and their conditions to our standard.

Men of Georgia, upon this great industrial question there should be no North nor South. To us of every section have been entrusted the interests of our country—our whole country. To others have been confided the care of other nations and other people. We will not interfere with them; we bid them not interfere with us. My fellow-citizens, in this conflict, influenced by patriotism, national interest, and national pride, let us be Americans.

Speech of Hon. Chauncey M. Depew.

Presenting President Harrison for Re-nomination at the Minneapolis Convention, June 9, 1892.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.—It is the peculiarity of Republican National Conventions that each one of them has a distinct and interesting history. We are here to meet conditions and solve problems which make this gathering not only no exception to the rule but substantially a new departure. That there should be strong convictions and their earnest expression as to preferences and politics is characteristic of the right of individual judgment which is the fundamental principle of Republicanism. There have been occasions when the result was so sure that the delegates could freely indulge in the charming privilege of favoritism and of friendship. But the situation which now confronts us demands the exercise of dispassionate judgment and our best thought and experience. We cannot venture on uncertain ground or encounter obstacles placed in the pathway of success by ourselves. The Democratic party is now divided, but the hope of the possession of power once more will make it in the final battle more aggressive, determined and unscrupulous than ever. It starts with fifteen States secure without an effort by processes which are a travesty upon popular government, and, if continued long enough, will paralyze institutions founded upon popular suffrage. It has to win four more States in a fair fight, States which, in the vocabulary of politics, are denominated doubtful. The Republican party must appeal to the conscience and the judgment of the individual voter in every State in the Union. This is in accordance with the principles upon which it was founded and the objects for which it contends. It has accepted this issue before and fought it out with an extraordinary continuance of success. The conditions of Republican victory from 1860 to 1880 were created by Abraham Lincoln and U. S. Grant. They were that the saved republic should be run by its saviours, the emancipation of slaves, the reconstruction of the States, the reception of those who had fought to destroy the republic back into the fold, without the penalties or punishments, and to an equal share with those who had fought and saved the nation, in the solemn obligation and inestimable privilege of American citizenship. They were the embodiment into the Constitution of the principles for which 2,000,000 of men had fought and 500,000 had died. They were the restoration of public credit, the resumption of specie payments and the prosperous condition of solvent business for twenty-five years. They were names with which to conjure and events fresh in the public mind which were eloquent with popular enthusiasm. It needed little else than a recital of the glorious story of its heroes and a statement of the achievements of the Republican party to retain the confidence of the people. But from the desire for a change, which is characteristic of free governments, there came a reversal, there came a check to the progress of the Republican party and four years of Democratic administration. Those four years largely relegated to the realm of history past issues and brought us face to face with what Democracy, its professions and its practices mean to-day. The great names which have adorned the roll of the Republican statesman and soldiers are potent and popular. The great measures of the Republican party are still the best part of the history of the country. The unequalled and unexampled story of Republicanism in its progress and its achievements stands unique in the record of parties in governments which are free. But we live in practical times, facing practical issues which affect the business, the wages, the labor and the prosperity of to-day.

“It will be won or lost upon the policy, foreign and domestic, the industrial measures and the administrative acts of the administration of Benjamin Harrison. Whoever receives the nomination of this convention will run upon the judgment of the people as to whether they have been more prosperous and more happy, whether the country has been in a better condition at home and stood more honorable abroad under these last four years of Harrison and Republican administration than during the preceding four years of Cleveland and Democratic government. Not since Thomas Jefferson has any administration been called upon to face and solve so many or such difficult problems as those which have been exigent in our conditions. No administration since the organization of the government has ever met difficulties better or more to the satisfaction of the American people. Chile has been taught that, no matter how small the antagonist, no community can with safety insult the flag or murder American sailors. Germany and England have learned in Samoa that the United States has become one of the powers of the world, and no matter how mighty the adversary, at every sacrifice American honor will be maintained. The Bering Sea question, which was the insurmountable obstacle in the diplomacy of Cleveland and of Bayard, has been settled upon a basis which sustains the American people until arbitration shall have determined our right. The dollar of the country has been placed and kept on the standard of commercial nations, and a convention has been agreed upon with foreign governments, which, by making bi-metallism the policy of all nations, may successfully solve all our financial problems. The tariff, tinkered with and trifled with to the serious disturbance of trade and disaster to business since the days of Washington, has been courageously embodied into a code which has preserved the principle of the protection of American industries. To it has been added a beneficent policy, supplemented by beneficial treaties and wise diplomacy, which has opened to our farmers and manufacturers the markets of other countries. The navy has been builded upon lines which will protect American citizens and American interests and the American flag all over the world. The public debt has been reduced. The maturing bonds have been paid off. The public credit has been maintained. The burdens of taxation have been lightened. Two hundred millions of currency have been added to the people’s money without disturbances of the exchanges.

“Unexampled prosperity has crowned wise laws and their wise administration. The main question which divides us is to whom does the credit of all this belong? Orators may stand upon this platform more able and more eloquent than I who will paint in more brilliant colors, but they cannot put in more earnest thought the affection and admiration of Republicans for our distinguished Secretary of State. I yield to no Republican, no matter from what State he hails, in admiration and respect for John Sherman, for Governor McKinley, for Thomas B. Reed, for Iowa’s great Senator, for the favorites of Illinois and Wisconsin, but when I am told that the credit for the brilliant diplomacy of this administration belongs exclusively to the Secretary of State, for the administration of its finances to the Secretary of the Treasury, for the construction of its ships to the Secretary of the Navy, for the introduction of American pork in Europe to the Secretary of Agriculture, for the settlement, so far as it is settled, of the currency question, to Senator John Sherman, for the formulation of the tariff laws to Governor McKinley, for the removal of the restrictions placed by foreign nations upon the introduction of American pork to our ministers at Paris and Berlin, I am tempted to seriously inquire who, during the last four years, has been President of the United States anyhow? Cæsar, when he wrote those commentaries, which were the history of the conquests of Europe under his leadership, modestly took the position of Eneas when he said: ‘They are the narrative of events, the whole of which I saw and the part of which I was.’ General Thomas, as the rock of Chickamauga, occupies a place in our history with Leonidas among the Greeks, except that he succeeded where Leonidas failed. The fight of Joe Hooker above the clouds was the poetry of battle. The resistless rush of Sheridan and his steed down the valley of the Shenandoah is the epic of our civil war. The march of Sherman from Atlanta to the sea is the supreme triumph of gallantry and strategy. It detracts nothing from the splendor or the merits of the deeds of his lieutenants to say that having selected them with marvellous sagacity and discretion Grant still remained the supreme commander of the national army. All the proposed acts of any administration before they are formulated are passed upon in Cabinet council, and the measures and suggestions of the ablest Secretaries would have failed with a lesser President, but for the great good of the country and the benefit of the Republican party they have succeeded because of the suggestive mind, the indomitable courage, the intelligent appreciation of situation and the grand magnanimity of Benjamin Harrison. It is an undisputed fact that during the few months when both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury were ill the President personally assumed the duties of the State Department and of the Treasury Department, and both with equal success. The Secretary of State in accepting his portfolio under President Garfield wrote: ‘Your administration must be made brilliant, successful and strong in the confidence and pride of the people, not at all diverting its energies for re-election, and yet compelling that result by the logic of events and by the imperious necessities of the situation.’ Garfield fell before the bullet of the assassin and Mr. Blaine retired to private life. General Harrison invited him to take up that unfinished diplomatic career where its threads had been so tragically broken. He entered the Cabinet. He resumed his work and has won a higher place in our history. The prophecy he made for Garfield has been superbly fulfilled by Harrison. In the language of Mr. Blaine: ‘The President has compelled a re-election by the logic of events and the imperious necessities of the situation.’

“The man who is nominated here to-day to win must carry a certain well-known number of the doubtful States. Patrick Henry, in the convention which started rolling the ball of the independence of the Colonies from Great Britain, said: ‘I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.’ New York was carried in 1880 by General Garfield, and in every important election since then we have done our best. We have put forward our ablest, our most popular, our most brilliant leaders for Governor and State officers to suffer constant defeat. The only light which illumines with the sun of hope the dark record of those twelve years is the fact that in 1888 the State of New York was triumphantly carried by President Harrison. He carried it then as a gallant soldier, a wise Senator, statesman, who inspired confidence by his public utterances in daily speech from the commencement of the canvass to its close. He still has all these claims, and in addition an administration beyond criticism and rich with elements of popularity with which to carry New York. Ancestry helps in the old world and handicaps in the new. There is but one distinguished example of a son first overcoming the limitations imposed by the pre-eminent fame of his father, and then rising above it, and that was when the younger Pitt became greater than Chatham. With an ancestor a signer of the Declaration of Independence and another who saved the Northwest from savagery and gave it to civilization and empire, who was also President of the United States, a poor and unknown lawyer of Indiana has risen by his unaided efforts to such distinction as lawyer, orator, soldier, statesman and President, that he reflects more credit on his ancestors than they have devolved upon him and presents in American history the parallel of the younger Pitt. By the grand record of a wise administration, by the strength in frequent contact of the people, in wonderfully versatile and felicitous speech, by the claims of a pure life in public and in the simplicity of a typical American home, I nominate Benjamin Harrison.”

Speech of Hon. Leon Abbett.

Presenting Grover Cleveland for Nomination at the Chicago Convention, June 22, 1892.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION.—In presenting the name to this Convention, I speak for the united Democracy of the State of New Jersey, whose loyalty to Democratic principles, faithful services to the party, and whose contributions to its success entitle it to the respectful consideration of the Democracy of the United States. Its electoral vote has always been cast in support of Democratic principles and Democratic candidates.

In voicing the unanimous wish of the delegation from New Jersey, I present as their candidate for the suffrages of this Convention the name of a distinguished Democratic statesman, born upon its soil, for whom in the two great Presidential contests the State of New Jersey has given its electoral vote.

The supreme consideration in the mind of the Democracy of New Jersey is the success of the Democratic party and its principles. We have been in the past, and will be in the future, ready to sacrifice personal preferences in deference to the clear expression of the will of the Democracy of the Union. It is because of that that this name will awaken throughout our State the enthusiasm of the Democracy and insure success. It is because he represents the great Democratic principles and policy upon which this entire convention is a unit; it is because we believe that with him as a candidate the Democrats of the Union will sweep the country and establish its principles throughout the length and breadth of the land, that we offer to the Convention as a nominee the choice of New Jersey, Grover Cleveland.

If any doubt existed in the minds of the Democrats of New Jersey of his ability to lead the great Democratic hosts to victory they would not present his name to-day. With them success of the party and the establishment of its principles are beyond their love and admiration for any man. We feel certain that every Democratic State though its preferences may be for some other distinguished Democrat, will give its warm, enthusiastic and earnest support to the nominee of this Convention.

The man whom we present will rally to his party thousands of independent voters, whose choice is determined by their personal conviction that the candidate will represent principles dear to them, and whose public life and policy gives assurance that if chosen by the people they will secure an honest, pure and conservative administration and the great interests of the country will be encouraged and protected.

The time will come when other distinguished Democrats who have been mentioned in connection with this nomination will receive that consideration to which the great services they have rendered their party entitle them, but we stand to-day in the presence of the fact that the majority of the Democratic masses throughout the country, the rank and file, the millions of its voters, demand the nomination of Grover Cleveland.

This sentiment is so strong and overpowering that it has affected and controlled the actions of delegates who would otherwise present the name of some distinguished leader of their own State with whom they feel victory would be assured and in whom the entire country would feel confidence, but the people have spoken and favorite sons and leaders are standing aside in obedience to their will.

Shall we listen to the voice of the Democracy of the Union? Shall we place on our banner the man of our choice, the man in whom they believe, or shall we, for any consideration of policy or expediency, hesitate to obey their will?

I have sublime faith in the expression of the people when it is clear and decisive. When the question before them is one that has excited discussion and debate; when it appeals to their interests and their feelings and calls for the exercise of their judgment and they then say we want this man and we can elect him, we, their representatives, must not disobey nor disappoint them.

It is incumbent upon us to obey their wishes and concur in their judgment; then, having given them the candidate of their choice, they will give us their best, their most energetic efforts to secure success.

We confidently rely upon the loyal and successful work of the Democratic leaders who have advocated other candidates. We know that in the great States across the river from New Jersey, now controlled by the Democratic party, there is no Democrat who will shirk the duty of making every effort to secure the success of the candidate of this Convention, notwithstanding his judgment may differ from that of the majority.

The Democracy of New York and its great leaders whose efforts and splendid generalship have given to us a Democratic Senator and Governor will always be true to the great party they represent; they will not waver, nor will they rest in the coming canvass until they have achieved success.

Their grand victories of the past, their natural and honorable ambition, their unquestioned Democracy will make them arise and fight as never before, and with those that they represent and lead they will march in the great independent vote and will again secure for us the Democratic victory in New York. The grand Democrats under whose leadership the city and State of New York are now governed will give to the cause the great weight of their organizations.

The thundering echoes of this Convention announcing the nomination of Grover Cleveland will not have died out over the hills and through the valleys of this land before you will hear and see all our leaders rallying to the support of our candidate.

They will begin their efforts for organization and success and continue their work until victory crowns their efforts. All Democrats will fight for victory, and they will succeed because the principles of the party enunciated here are for the best interests of the country at large and because the people of this land have unquestioning faith that Grover Cleveland will give the country a pure, honest and stable government and an administration from which the great business interests of the country and the agricultural and laboring interests of the masses will receive proper and due consideration.

The question has been asked, Why is it that the masses of the party demand the nomination of Grover Cleveland? Why is it that this man who has no offices to distribute, no wealth to command, should have stirred the spontaneous support of the great body of Democracy? Why is it that with all that has been urged against him the people still cry “Give us Cleveland?” Why is it, though he has pronounced in honest, clear and able language his views upon questions upon which some of his party may differ with him, that he is still near and dear to the masses?

It is because he has crystallized into a living issue the great principle upon which this battle is to be fought out. If he did not create tariff reform he made it a Presidential issue; he vitalized it and presented it to our party as the issue for which we could fight and continue to battle until upon it victory is now assured.

There are few men in his position who would have the courage to boldly make the issue and present it so clearly and forcibly as he did in his great message of 1887. I believe that his policy then was to force a national issue which would appeal to the judgment of the people.

We must honor a man who is honest enough and bold enough under such circumstances to proclaim that the success of the party upon principle is better than evasion or shirking of true national issues for temporary success. When victory is obtained upon a principle, it forms the solid foundation of party success in the future.

It is no longer the question of a battle to be won on the mistakes of our foes, but it is a victory to be accomplished by a charge along the whole line under the banner of principle.

There is another reason why the people demand his nomination. They feel that the tariff reform views of ex-President Cleveland and the principles laid down in his great message, whatever its temporary effect may have been, give us a live and a vital issue to fight for, which has made the great victories since 1888 possible. It consolidated in one solid phalanx the Democracy of the nation.

In every State of this union that policy has been placed in Democratic platforms and our battles have been fought upon it, and this great body of representative Democrats have seen its good results.

Every man in this Convention recognizes the policy of the party. In Massachusetts it gave us a Russell. In Iowa it gave us a Boies. In Wisconsin it gave us a Peck for Governor and Vilas for Senator. In Michigan it gave us Winans for Governor and gave us a Democratic Legislature, and will give us eight electoral votes for President.

In 1889 in Ohio it gave us James Campbell for Governor, and in 1891, to defeat him it required the power, the wealth and the machinery of the entire republican party. In Pennsylvania it gave us Robert E. Pattison. In Connecticut it gave us a Democratic Governor, who was kept out of office by the infamous conduct of the Republican party. In New Hampshire it gave us a Legislature, of which we were defrauded. In Illinois it gave us a Palmer for Senator and in Nebraska it gave us Boyd for Governor.

In the great Southern States it has continued in power Democratic Governors and Democratic Legislatures. In New Jersey the power of the Democracy has been strengthened, and the Legislature and executive are now both democratic.

In the great State of New York it gave us David B. Hill for Senator and Roswell P. Flower for Governor.

With all these glorious achievements it is the wisest and best party policy to nominate again the man whose policy made these successes possible. The people believe that these victories, which gave us a Democratic House of Representatives in 1890 and Democratic Governors and Senators in Republican and doubtful states, are due to the courage and wisdom of Grover Cleveland. And so believing, they recognize him as their great leader.

In presenting his name to the Convention it is no reflection upon any of them as the leaders of the party. The victories which have been obtained are not alone the heritage of those States; they belong to the whole party. I feel that every Democratic State and that every individual Democrat has reason to rejoice and be proud and applaud these splendid successes.

The candidacy of Grover Cleveland is not a reflection upon others; it is not antagonistic to any great Democratic leader. He comes before this Convention not as the candidate of any one State. He is the choice of the great majority of Democratic voters.

The Democracy of New Jersey therefore presents to this Convention, in this the people’s year, the nominee of the people, the plain, blunt, honest citizen, the idol of the Democratic masses, Grover Cleveland.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAN POLITICS.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us