TH£ EDWIN C. DINWIDDIE > COLLECTION OF BOOKS ON I TEMPERANCE AND ALLIED SUBJ ECTS ^ (PRESENTED BY MRS. DINWIDDIE) Tio?'"^ <■''■•. Th' ;^^-<^ 7^ POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS LEGISLATIVE, DIPLOMATIC, AND POPULAR 1856-1886 JAMES G. BLAINE NORWICH, CONN. THE HENEY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY 1887 ^n^ iP^ Copyright, 1887, By JAMES G. BLAINE. All rights reserved. SOLD ONLY BY SUBSCRIPTION. perly dime :^ Ciire water and for systems of drainage and sewerage, and occasionally for other forms of public improvement essential to the growth of the community. But in the main, I think our cities have been too ready to draw on the future, too ready to pledge the '' lives and fortunes " of posterity to the payment of a debt which the generation in- curring it is unable to discharge. Expensive municipal buiUl- ings, loan of credit to outside enterprises, not needed and often visionary, have led in some large cities to a grow^th of debt for which there is no corresponding return of pecuniary profit, and no adequate advantage in any form. These debts have in many cases been contracted carelessly and without due relkH'tion. The old adage that what is " everybody's business is nobody's business " is nowliere more applicable than in the general ad- ministration of municipal affairs in our large cities. It is so easy to obtain Legislative authority to contract debts; it is so easy to sell a good city bond to the capitalist who highly prizes such forms of security; it is so easy to incur a debt to be taken care of by those who come after us, instead of levying a severe tax to be paid by ourselves ; in short, it is so easy and alas so natural to have a smooth, pleasant time to-day, thinking little of the ills that may overtake us on the morrow'. This ready, convenient, lazy method of shifting the burdens of to-day, has tended to precipitate on many of our most favored and promis- ing cities a load of taxation, which hampers business, oppresses property, hinders accessions of population, and thus retards the very growth which the debt was contracted to stimulate. Another evil results from the growth of municipal debt which I think has not been sufficiently observed. I mean the facility which such debts give to the capitalist for a safe and profitable investment of his surplus — thus saving him from the trouble, and depriving the community of the advantage, of his embarking in active business. Take for instance a promi- MUNICIPAL DEBT IN THE UNITED STATES. 135 nent and wealthy city — and I do not refer to any particular one — and tliis you will find to be its history and experience at one or more periods of its prosperous career. Its banks and other places of deposit are full to overflowing of money owned by its leading capitalists, waiting for an opportunity to invest. They are carefully examining into different branches of manu- facture, into improvement of real estate by blocks of fine stores, into the outlook for a new railroad, into a project for a new line of steam-packets — all or any one of which would greatly contribute to the development and growth of the city in ques- tion. At the moment these capitalists are about to invest their money in some one of these channels of gain to themselves, and profit to the community, another set of gentlemen having great influence with the municipal officers, commit the city to some new scheme of improvement. From three to five millions of first-class seven per cent bonds are placed on the market — and our capitalists suddenly conclude that nothing presenting so little risk and so clean a margin of profit can be found in manu- factures, or blocks of stores, or railway shares, or steam naviga- tion companies, and they accordingly invest their odd millions in city Vjonds, and devote themselves thenceforth to the enno- bling occupation of cutting coupons. Though the foregoing purports to be a single case, it illus- trates a practical truth worthy to be remembered, viz. : that too much of the surplus capital has been invited into bonds of this kind, and is thereby removed from active participation in the business projects of the country. These projects are thus left too largely to the control of men who have great enterprise, but who are hampered for lack of capital and are constantly encountering the evils of a too widely extended credit. It may be an extravagant assertion, and yet I had almost said, that if the hundreds of millions of capital that have been hidden away in the municipal bonds of the country had been, by the absence of such opportunities for investment, forced into business enter- prises, the country would be so much the richer that a great number of the objects for which the municipal debts were con- tracted could have been accomplished by the mere process of taxation on the vastly superior amount of property that would have been thus created. 136 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. It is also rt matter for serious consideration wlietlier these largo municipal loans have not hud a prejudicial eiVect on the price of money, tending continually to create stringency iu the money market and raise the rate of interest to the borrower and the business man. There is a loud outcry in all quarters against the high rates charged for money, and yet if States and great cities will tlood the markets with their obligations at seven per cent and oftentimes at a higher rate of interest, how can any borrower on mere individual credit expect or hope to negotiate loans at the old-fashioned six per cent rate, which in so many sections of the country was formerly the rule. It will inevitably happen that the individual citizen will pay from one to four per cent higher for money than the prosperous city; and if the city absorbs the great surplus of capital by its tempt- ing rates and perfect security, the individual is necessarily sub- jected to the squeezing process when he wants money on his own note, and he is then made to feel the double burden of paying increased taxes to support the city loan, the negotiation of which had already increased his burdens by raising the rate of interest on the money he was compelled to borrow in the prosecution of his private business. If then we have not exercised sufficient care and circum- spection in regard to incurring State, county and municipal debt in the past, what is the remedy ? I answer, first and fore- most, an awakened, active, well-balanced public judgment, which will suggest and enforce a wise caution and conserva- tive course on this subject. I have no patent remedy to propose, and yet I venture to suggest that the Legislatures of many States have altogether too large a power to create debt without referring the subject to the people for their pri- mary consideration. Perhaps I may entertain a pre-judgment on tliis particular phase of the question in favor of the stringent provision in the Constitution of my own State, where the Legislature has no power to incur a dollar's debt except for war purposes, under the pressure of actual danger, and where an amendment to the Constitution proposed by two-thirds of the Legislature and then submitted to a vote of the people, is a prerequisite for pledging tlie credit of the State for any other purpose whatever. MUNICIPAL DEBT IN THE UNITED STATES. 137 It might also be a wise and salutary provision to define in State Constitutions the precise ends for which municipal credit should be used, limiting those uses to proper and restricted objects, and forbidding in any event the creation of a debt beyond a specified percentage of the official valuation of the city or town. At the same time a judicious safeguard should be provided against the overlapping of county debts, so that while the town is guarding its credit with care it shall not be involved in the embarrassment caused by an extravagant extension of the credit of the county. Finally, as a governing principle, it would be well to apply to all State, county and municipal debts, the wise precaution contained in that famous rule laid down by Mr. Jefi'erson as the basis of all sound National credit. I quote the words of the great philosophic statesrnan, as equally applicable to all possible forms of public obligation, and as affording a basis at once secure for the creditor and advantageous for the debtor : — " Never borrow a dollar without laying a tax at the same instant, for paying the interest annually, and the principal within a given tenn ; ai^d consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith. On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of its citizens ; whilst the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their con- stituents against oppression, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, — . revolution." 138 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE CONSTITU- TIONAL AMENDMENTS. [A speech delivered by Mr. Blaine at a Republican meeting in Mechanics' Hall, Worcester, Massachusetts, Oct. 28, 1874.] Fellow-Citizens, — In every political campaign it is impor- tant to ascertain the dividing line between parties, to find out precisely what separates them, to determine whether the issue that separates them is worth fighting over. Is there any ques- tion at issue between the two parties to-day of sufficient moment to interest you as intelligent American citizens — any question of sufficient magnitude to decide your vote ? I think there is, and I think it is a question of far greater moment than the currency or the tariff, or anti-monopoly, or railroad or bank questions. It is a question which goes to the very root of all the political controversies of to-day ; it is a question which lies at the foundation of American citizenship; it is a question of maintaining inviolate the provisions of the Federal Constitution. The war has been over nearly ten years ! What are the fruits of it ? What do you point to as the result of it ? You have half a million of graves filled with heroic dead : you have a larger number of heroic wounded still living. You have spent an immense sum of money; you have an immense vol- ume of debt ; you have heavy taxation. Are these to be called the imperishable fruits of the war? Alas, not! They are the sorrowful calamities of the war ! The dead will be forgotten, the debt will be paid, taxes will be reduced, and the genera- tions to come will read of these things as painful traditions. But the result of that war is imperishable — imperishable through the changes in the fundamental laws of your country. DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN 1874. 139 I beg you all to remember that a change in the Constitution of the United States is a matter of great moment. It is exceed- ingly difficult to accomplish. It was purposely made difficult by the founders of the Government. Legislation goes by majori- ties: an Act of this year may be repealed the next — but the organic law cannot be changed so readily. Our fathers ordained that it should requii-e two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House of Representatives of the United States to do even so much as propose to the people to amend the Constitution. And when proposed they made it a requirement that three- fourths of all the States should assent before any change should be ratified and become effective. In the progress of the civil conflict it became a settled conviction in the minds of all patri- otic men, Republicans and Democrats alike, that if the war was to end victoriously for the Union a blow must be struck at slavery, first by the emancipation proclamation, then by an amendment to the Constitution ; and the Thirteenth Amend- ment to the Constitution, perfected in 1864, made it impossible — in language originally applied to another country but appli- cable here — that a slave could breathe the air of the United States and live. It was soon found that the mere fact of stripping the mana- cles of slavery from a man makes him only a freedman, not a freeman. It was also very soon found that although the Thir- teenth Amendment referred primarily and only to the colored man, yet there was a cognate question of citizenship, of equal interest to the white man, and that if this Government was to abide and be strong that question must be settled. For up to that time, Mr. Chairman, there was nothing in the Constitution of the United States, there was nothing in our laws, there was nothing in the judicial decisions of the Government, that you could put your hands on and say, this constitutes citizenship of the United States. There was no standard — nothing that dis- tinctively made you or me a citizen of the United States. In the Constitution it was written that " the citizens of each State shall enjoy the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States ; " and the meaning of that ought to have been so clear that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein, and that the running man might read. It meant very 140 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. plainly that if I, a citizen of ]\Iaine, chose to come and cast my fortunes Avith the citizens of Massachusetts, I was entitled to all the privileges and immunities that you enjoy as citizens of Massachusetts, and, vice versa, if you chose to come to Maine you should have the same rights that we enjoy there. As between Maine and Massachusetts, and as between Mas- sachusetts and all the States westward to the Pacific, north of a certain line of latitude, this was an effectual guaranty, realized and not denied. But the moment you went south of a certain line of latitude, whether you were a colored man or a white man holding certain obnoxious opinions, your citizensliip was not worth the paper on which your name was inscribed on the register of the hotel at which you were a guest. This was not a mere sentiment — it was not a fancied grievance. It was an outrageous discrimination, leading to bad feeling and bad blood and to grave wrong. Take an illustration in my own State, largely engaged in commerce. A ship would sail from Portland for Charleston, S.C., and among her crew there might be two or three colored men. When that ship reached Charles- ton those colored men were placed in prison, detained there while the ship was engaged in loading, and when the ship was ready to sail, if the captain would pay the expenses of incar- ceration, the men were released, or if he refused, they were sold into slavery for life to pay the expenses of the imprisonment. But if on the same day an English ship arrived at Charleston, with any number of colored sailors on board, the city authorities did not lay the weight of a finger upon their heads. We thus helplessly witnessed the galling fact that the Ameri- can flag, in an American port, was less a measure of personal protection than the British flag in an American port. This was a thing not to be endured. Massachusetts took it up. She sent an agent to South Carolina to test the question in the courts of law. The venerable Samuel Hoar of Concord, father of the distinguished gentleman who represents this district in Congress, was selected for the mission. The older portion of my audience will remember that he was driven out by a mob, and his life barely saved by some considerate people in Charles- ton, who seemed to appreciate the great and lasting disgrace that shedding his blood would bring upon that city. DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN 1874. 141 Thus it stood after the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. The shackles of slavery were torn from these men, but was any thing conferred upon them that enabled them to defend their own freedom ? In connection with this was there not some- thing of interest to you and to me — white men ? The Repub- lican party thought so, and being a party of progress they determined to incorporate into the Constitution of the United States an amendment, that should define American citizenship, white and black, native and foreign born, in unmistakable terms, and for all time. That was the origin of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Let us look at the language of th^t amendment. " All per- sons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Mark you then : " all persons," no matter what their color, black or white, blonde or brunette — no matter where born, native or naturalized : The Constitution says, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens thereof, and of the States wherein they reside." That is the affirmative part of the amendment. But the negative is still more suggestive, for it contains a most weighty inhibition — let me read it. '* No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States." Mark you again, gentlemen, " privileges or immunities." Your right to vote ; your right to your own creed ; your right to your personal liberty — no State shall make any law to inter- fere with them : " Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, or liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." This is the spirit of the Four- teenth Amendment to the Constitution. And then these signifi- cant words are added, that " Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this amendment by appropriate legis- lation." Fellow-citizens, that amendment was passed in Congress by the Republican vote, with every Democratic vote opposed. It was passed in three-fourths of the State Legislatures, with every Republican vote in every Legislature in favor of it, and every 142 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. Democratic vote in every Legislature opposed to it, and to this hour there has never been in any convention of the Democratic party, National, State, county, or district, a single declaration so far as I have seen agreeing to abide by and enforce that amendment. The sententious Democratic platform of New York, inspired by Mr. Tilden and written by Mr. Manton Marble, now quoted by Democrats everywhere, most significantly omits all approval of the Fourteenth Amendment. It simply professes obedience to the Constitution and laws. Yes ; but do you consider the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to be parts of the Constitution ? The great Democratic leader, Jeremiah Black, has answered you. He says those amendments should be put in process of gradual extinction, and the Democratic party must put them in process of gradual extinction. The Republican party, empowered by Congress to legislate under those amendments, proceeded to do so, and they passed what has been derisively styled the " Kuklux law " by hot par- tisans. You have read in the Democratic papers a great deal of abuse heaped upon the Kuklux law. Pray, now, what is that law? Strip it of its legal verbiage, and it is simply this: that if any citizen of the United States shall receive an injury in his person or his property, and the local authority is unable or unwilling to protect and redress him, then it is the duty of the United States Government to step in and do it. So long as the State authority shall discharge its duty (as the State of iNIassachusetts, the State of Maine, and the great body of the States do), there is no necessity for invoking Federal interposition ; but when State supervision is not given, and when the citizen is left without redress, then, according to the Kuklux law, it is the duty of the Federal Government with all its powers to vindicate the citizen in all his rights. It is on that point the Democratic party takes issue with us. You draw a line of demarcation, and upon that side stands every Democrat, and upon this every Republican. Let me read you the last confession of faith in the last National convention of the Democratic party. This is what the platform of two years ago in the Presidential struggle said : " Subject to our Constitu- tional obligations to maintain the equal rights of citizens, our DEMOCRATIC TARTY IX 1874. 143 policy shall aim at local government and not at centralization, and there shall be no Federal subversion of the internal policy of the several States, but each shall be left free to enforce the rights and promote the well-being of its inhabitants by such means as the judgment of its own people shall dictate." Wherefore, if a man happens to be maimed or half mur- dered by Kuklux klans in Alabama or Louisiana, it must prove a great comfort to his wounded body and bruised spirit to hear that the great Democratic party of the United States says that the Natioual Government shall not interfere, but that the local Government shall " promote the well-being of its inhabitants by such means as the judgment of its own people shall dictate." The meaning of all this is, that the community inflicting the outrage shall organize themselves into a jury to try themselves for having done it. No matter how much you may be mal- treated by any community, no matter if you are warned to leave in twenty-four hours, no matter what your injury may be in the forfeiture of your estate and the abuse of your person, you must look for your redress wholly to the villains who in- flicted the outrage — you cannot in any stress ask the United States to intervene in your behalf. I hold in my hand an official report made by a select com- mittee of both branches of Congress, and I find that the Union men, both black and white, murdered in the South since the war closed, are greater in number than those who lost their lives in the Mexican war and in the war of 1812 combined. More men have been wounded in the South than were wounded in the Mexican war and in the war of 1812. Yet the Democrats coolly remand you to local self-government, and obligingly tell you that there is no power in the Federal Government to inter- vene in your behalf. We all know, gentlemen, that remanding the man who is injured, in the great majority of these cases of Southern outrage, to the local authorities, is the greatest farce in the world, or would be if it were not so ghastly a tragedy of blood. You send him who has been outraged by a baud of -villains, to be tried by that band itself, while the United States, according to Democratic authority, has no right whatever to intervene. Assuredly, we present most extraordinary contra- dictions on this question of citizenship, the most extraordinary 144 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. in this, that if an American citizen be harmed in any respect by a foreign government, we at once fly into a tempestuous rage, order naval vessels into commission, summon the army, start all the diplomatic functions of the Government, display in every form our readiness and our eagerness to vindicate that man at the expense of blood and treasure. It has been so always, regardless of party. I might give you a hundred cases if I had time. Let me give you two extreme cases : I select them because of their extraordinary character. I will give you a Democratic precedent and then a Republican precedent. A little more than twenty years ago the first happened. After the revolution in Germany, in 1848, and in consequence of it, a large emigration came to this country. Among those emigrants a man who settled in the State of New Jersey de- clared his intention to become a citizen of the United States. He never went farther. He was not fully naturalized. He never paid a cent of taxes, local. State or national. He never voted. In the language of our Maine statute, he never had any " last or usual place of abode ; " and without going a single step beyond what I have stated, that man went back to Europe, and finally engaged in trade in the city of Smyrna, in Asia Minor. In 1853 he was arrested by an Austrian official, and was about to be taken to Vienna to be tried for high treason by the Austrian Government. He appealed to the American con- sul for protection. He stated his case truthfully, like a man, — stated just what a shadowy claim he had upon citizenship in this country. The consul felt doubtful, but he called into confer- ence Duncan Ingraham, of the United States Navy, who was in the harbor with a vessel-of-war, and after conferring upon the case, they agreed that the man ought to be protected, and Cap- tain Ingraham sent a polite note to the authorities of Smyrna saying that if Martin Costa was not put aboard his vessel in twenty-four hours, he would bombard and destroy the city. A gentle intimation of that kind, with twenty columbiads behind it, is a very persuasive sort of argument, and the man was put on board and brought back to this country, and William L. Marcy of New York, one of the greatest of the past generation of Democratic statesmen, published an able paper, vindicating Costa's right to American protection. DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN 1874. 145 Let me give you a Republican precedent of later date which happened indeed only four years ago. In the long-continued revolt in Cuba, there was one John Emile Howard, who fell under the power of the Spanish Government. It was alleged that he had been aiding and abetting the rebellion, in that he had given his medical services to the rebel army. He had given some medicine, or set a broken limb, or done some act of mercy to suffering humanity. The Spanish officials arrested him, tried him by a drum-head court-martial, and sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment in a penal colony on the coast of Africa, — a sentence worse than death. That man appealed to this Gov- ernment for protection, sent his memorial to a Democratic rep- resentative, Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of the city of Philadelphia, and Mr. Randall presented the case to the House. The facts in that memorial were these : This man was the son of a French emigrant who came to America after the down- fall of Napoleon in 1815, and settled in Philadelphia. The father was naturalized fully and completely, and the naturaliza- tion carried with it that of his minor children, of whom this man was one. He grew up in Philadelphia, graduated at the Pennsylvania University, took his degree, and in 1840 went to the island of Cuba. He never returned ; he never paid a tax here, never voted here ; performed no act of citizenshii^ whatever in any State of the American Union. But he had done nothing to denationalize himself; he had never sworn allegiance to any other government ; he had kept steadily burn- ing in his heart a desire to return to that which to all intents and purposes to him was his native land. The House of Representatives upon that memorial, the facts being ascertained and corroborated, passed a resolution, by an almost unanimous vote, requesting the President of the United States to interpose in his behalf. President Grant did so, and our minister at Madrid, General Sickles of New York, was in- structed to demand Howard's release ; not on the ground, mark you, that the man had not done what he was charged with doing, but on the ground that whether he had or not, he was an American citizen, and was entitled, by our treaty with Spain, to be tried in a certain manner — not by court-martial — and not having been tried according to treaty stipulation, he was 146 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. not legally held, and hence our minister to Spain, under the instruction of President Grant, demanded his release. The Spanish Ministry, always proud and unyielding, hesitated and raised quibbles, and did not want to give him up at all. Finally, they said they would pardon him. General Sickles was promptly instructed not to accept a pardon, because a par- don implied guilt — implied that the man had been rightfully tried. General Sickles refused to accept his pardon, and after a little further diplomatic delay and hesitation, the Spanish Government gave him up, and he came back to his ancient home in the city of Philadelphia. These are extreme cases. Compared with the citizenship which 3'ou and I enjoy — which you, the naturalized men in this audience, and you, the native born men — Costa and Howard had but shadowy claims, and yet they had enough to call forth the whole power of the Government to vindicate their right. I do not mean to dissent from the decisions made, but I do not understand, and cannot be made to comprehend, how a government that has an arm long enough and strong enough to reach to the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, and pluck a man from the hands of Austrian f)0wer, and on the other side, to reach over the Atlantic and beyond the Pyrenees, and take a man from the hands of Spanish tyranny, has not power enough to reach down into Alabama and South Carolina and protect its own citizens both native born and naturalized. Within sixty days your attention has been called to a very tragical case in Tennessee. A brutal mob of white citizens as- saulted a crowd of innocent colored men, killed five of them, and maimed eleven others. President Grant, through the department of justice, was intervening for their protection, when he withheld his power, on the assurance of Governor Brown of Tennessee that he was about to put all the enginery of the State in motion in order to punish the authors of the crimes. But you will observe that whether Governor Brown had done this or not, the Democratic doctrine denies the right of the President of the United States to intervene. See the inevitable absurdity which this Democratic doctrine involves. It those sixteen citizens of the United States had received that injury on British soil, our Government would have promptly DEMOCRATIC PARTY IX 1874. 147 and most emphatically demanded reparation for the slain and recompense to the wounded. The demand would have been made at the mouth of the cannon. Or, if on the other hand, those sixteen colored men had been subjects of Queen Victoria, doing lawful business in Tennessee, and had been thus out- raged and mobbed. Great Britain would have promptly de- manded reparation from the United States. So that, whether these men had been American citizens on British soil, or British subjects on American soil, they would in either case have been sustained by the enginery of a great nation for their vindication ; but having the misfortune to be simply American citizens on American soil, the modern Democratic doctrine is that there is no power in the Constitution or laws of the Repub- lic whereby they can be protected or their rights vindicated. The majesty and might of a nation are measured, fellow- citizens, by no standard so accurately as by the degree of pro- tection given to their citizens or subjects. It is altogether idle to preach loyalty to a people unless loyalty brings protection. What did you fight for in the late war ? Was it for a mere abstract idea, or for a great and strong Government, that should protect you and your children to the latest generation, in their rights of person and property? If you went out and fought for a Government that was willing to take your blood and for- tune, and not willing, in return, to extend its protection to you, you are a deluded and defrauded man. I beg you, my friends, whether you be native born or naturalized, whether you be rich or poor, not to pass this idly by on the assumption that you are in no danger — that this, in the vulgar language of the cam- paign, is only a " nigger question." The strength of a column is the strength of its weakest part, and I tell you the strength of government protection to citizenship is not that which goes out to the wealthy and the influential, to the strong and the mighty, but it is that which protects and upholds the lowly, the poor and the weak. I said in the earlier part of my remarks, and I here repeat, that I have never known a case where any authorized expo- nent of the Democratic party, in convention or elsewhere, has given any expression in favor of the enforcement of the Thir- teenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. If there be 148 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. such a case I should like to have it poiuted out to me. While I can find no exposition of the party in favor of enforcement of those amendments, I can find numberless instances where they resolve that those amendments shall not be maintained. I hold in my hand an official copy of the report of the joint committee of the two Houses of Congress upon the Kuklux con- spiracy. Out of numberless quotations from the report of the Democratic minority that I might make I read you this : Refer- ring to the dominance of the Republican party as the cause of these • amendments, the minority declare, " But whenever that party shall go down, and go down it will some time not long in the future, that will be the end of the political power of the negro among white men on this continent." Among the Democrats who announced this extraordinary position were Mr. Bayard of Delaware and General Blair of Missouri. The talk of these Democratic senators is very plain. It means, if it means any thing, that the Thirteenth and Four- teenth Amendments are to be nullified — nothing else. Let me read you something still more significant : " Gradually," say these same Democrats, "in time, under a change of circum- stances, this exceptional state of the popular mind," that is, the state of the popular mind that upholds these amendments, '' will change, wear out, and pass away, and public opinion will vibrate back to its old condition as it existed prior to the disturbing influences of the war." This, mark you, is an official declaration that secured the approval of every Democrat in both branches of Congress. Take them on their word : what does it mean by " vibrating back to the point where it was before the disturbing influences of the war"? If it means any thing, it means that the negro will ultimately go back into slavery. You withdraw all the National authority ; you leave those States according to the platform upon which Horace Greeley stood as a Presidential candidate — you leave those States to settle this question for themselves under Mr. Tilden's doctrine of to-day, and very quickly they would settle the condition of the colored men. These facts lead me to sa}', and I consider it the closing indict- ment of the case, that it is not the '• wliite leagues " of the South, it is not the misguided, disappointed, crushed rebel with DEMOCRATIC PARTY IX 1874. 149 whom the danger lies, but it lies at the door of the Northern Democracy. If to-day you will root out of the minds of the Southern Democrats the conviction that a Democratic triumph in this country is to bring about the precise state of things you have in that minority report, 3'ou will make loyal men out of them in a moment. They do not live by their own passions. They live by the comfort, assurance and hope which they receive from Massachusetts and other Northern States, aiid most of all from the city and State of New York. I venture therefore to say that for the disturbed condition of things at the South to-day the Democratic party of the North is principally if not solely responsible. Let the Northern leaders of that party declare as patriotic men tliat they accept the Constitutional amendments in good faith. Let them sa}* to Southern men : 'You must accept these amendments with all that they imply and all that they include, as the legitimate fruits of the war. They may offend, they may grate upon your prejudices, they may irritate and chasten, but in the judgment of those who have the care and keeping of this great government, they have been considered essential to the preservation of the future, and you must submit.' Let that word go forth from the Democrats of the North, and there will be no further disturb- ance in the South — none whatever. Let that go forth from any Democratic convention, especially let it go from a conven- tion with the prestige and power of that which in New York lately nominated INIr. Tilden for governor — still more, let it go from a Democratic convention with the prestige that put Horatio Seymour six years ago before the people for President, and 3-0U will end the entire trouble in the South. I venture to go farther : let conventions be dumb, National and State, and I will name you fifty Democrats whose word of assurance will end the trouble. Yes, I venture even to go farther still, and as in ancient times if ten righteous men had been found in Sodom the wrath of God might have been averted from the cities of the plain, so this day and this hour I can name 5'ou ten Democrats, and two of them shall be from New York, who, if with the weight of their character and the might of their influence, they shall speak peace to this country on the Southern question, will give it peace ! 150 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. SHALL JEFFERSON DAVIS BE RESTORED TO FULL CITIZENSHIP? [On the tenth day of January, 1876, Mr. Randall of Pennsylvania called up a bill (of which he had given previous notice) relieving all persons in the United States from the disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Blaine of Maine proposed an amendment, in the nature of a sixbstitute (of which he had also given previous notice), that "all persons in the United States under the disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment, with the exception of Jefferson Davis, late President of the so-called Confederate States, shall be relieved of such disabilities, upon their appearing before any judge of a United States Court, and taking and subscribing an oath that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and bear true faith and alle- giance to the same." Mr. Randall declined to admit the amendment, and demanded the previous question, which was sustained by yeas 164, nays 100. The Amnesty Bill was then put upon its passage, and, requiring a two-thirds vote, it was defeated, ayes 175, noes 97. Mr. Blaine immediately rose, and addressed the House. His speech is given below.] Mr. Speaker, — I rise to a privileged question. I move to reconsider the vote which has just been declared. I propose to debate the question at issue, and now give notice that if the motion to reconsider shall be agreed to, it is my intention to offer the amendment which has been read several times. I will not delay the House to ask that it be read again. Every time the question of amnesty has been introduced, during the last two Congresses, by a Democratic member, it has been done with a certain flourish of magnanimity which seemed to convey an imputation on this side of the House. It seemed to charge the Republican party, which has been in con- trol of the Government for the last fifteen years, with being bigoted, narrow, and illiberal, grinding down certain gentlemen in the Southern States under a great tyranny, from which, the SHALL JEFFERSON DAVIS BE AMNESTIED? 151 hard-hearteclness of this side of the House constantly refuses to relieve them. If I may anticipate as much wisdom as ought to characterize the gentlemen on the other side of the House, this may be tlie last time that amnesty need be brought to the attention of Con- gress. I desire, therefore, to place on record precisely what the Republican party has done in this matter, I wish to place it there as an imperishable record of liberality and magnanimity and mercy far beyond that which has ever before been shown in the world's history by conqueror to conquered. I entered Congress at the same time with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Randall], while the hot flame of war was yet raging, when the Union was rocking to its foundations, and when no man knew whether we were to have a countr}' or not. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have been sur- prised when he and I were novices in the Thirty-eighth Con- gress, if he had been told that before our joint service ended we should see sixty-one gentlemen, who were then in arms against ns, admitted to the privileges of membership in this body, and all by the grace and magnanimity of the Republican party. When the war ended, according to the universal usage of nations, the Government, then under the exclusive control of the Republican party, had the right to determine what should be the political status of the people who had suffered defeat. Did the Republicans, with full power in their hands, inaugurate any measure of persecution ? Did they set forth on a career of bloodshed and vengeance ? Did they take the property of the Southern people who had rebelled ? Did they deprive any man of his civil rights? Not at all. Instead of a general and sweeping condemnation, the Republican party placed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution only this exclusion : — "That no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Cons^ress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or com- fort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." 152 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. It has been variously estimated that this section at the time of its original insertion in the Constitution included from four- teen to thirty thousand persons. As nearly as I can gather the facts of the case, it included about eighteen thousand men in the South. It did not apply to the hundreds of thousands — or millions, if you please — who had been engaged in the attempt to destroy this Government. It held under disability only those who, in joining the rebellion, had violated a special and peculiar and personal oath to support the Constitution of the United States. It was limited to these. That disability, Mr. Speaker, was hardly placed upon the South before we began in this hall and in the other wing of the Capitol, when more than two-thirds of the members in each branch were Republicans, to remit it, and the very first bill removed the disability from 1,578 citizens of the South. The next bill removed it from 3,526 others. Amnesty was thus granted by wholesale. Many of the gentlemen on this floor shared the grace conferred on those occasions. After these bills had passed, with several smaller bills specifying individuals, the Congress of the United States in 1872, still being two-thirds Republican in both branches, passed this general law : — " That all political disabilities, imposed by the third section of the four- teenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States, are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Repre- sentatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of depart- ments, and foreign ministers of the United States." Since that measure passed, a very considerable number of the gentlemen whom it still left under disability have been relieved specially, by name, in separate Acts. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, in no instance since the Act of May 22, 1872, have the disabilities been removed, except upon respectful petition to the Congress of the United States from the person interested. I believe in no instance, except one, have they been refused upon the petition being presented. I believe in no instance, except one, has there been any other than a unanimous vote for removing the disability. I find there are widely varying opinions in regard to the number that are still under disabilities in the South. By con- NUMBER UNDER DISABTLTTY IN 1876. 153 ference with the Department of War and of the Navy, and with the assistance of some records which I have caused to be searched, I am able to state to the House, I believe with substantial accuracy, the number of gentlemen in the South still under disabilities. Those who were officers of the United States army, educated at its own expense at West Point and who joined the rebellion, and are still included under this Act, number, as nearly as the War Department can state it, 325 ; those in the Navy about 295. Those under the other heads — Senators and Representatives of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty- seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States — make up a number somewhat more difficult to state accurately, but estimated at 125 to 130. The entire list, therefore, is about 750 persons now under disabilities out of the great unnumbered host that engaged in the rebellion. I am very frank to say that in regard to all these gentlemen, save one, I do not know any reason why amnesty should not be granted, as it has been to many others of the same class. I am not here to argue against it. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] suggests "on their application." I agree with him on that point. But in the absence of the respectful form of application, which since May 22, 1872, has become a sort of common law as preliminary to amnesty, I simply Avish to make it a condition that they shall go before a United States court, and, with uplifted hand, swear that they will conduct them- selves as good and loyal citizens of the United States. That is all. Gentlemen may say that this is a foolish exaction. Possibly it is. Bat I confess I have a prejudice in favor of it. I insist upon it, because I do not want to impose citizenship on any gentleman. If I am correctly informed, and I state it on ap- parently good authority, there are some gentlemen in this list who have spoken contemptuously of resuming citizenship, and have spoken still more contemptuously of applying for citizen- ship. I may state it erroneousl}^ and if I do I am ready to be corrected ; but I understand that Mr. Robert Toombs has, on several occasions, at watering-places, both in this country 154 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. and in Europe, openly and publicly stated that he would not ask the United States for citizenship. I insist, therefore, that if Mr. Robert Toombs is not i3repared to go into a court of the United States, and swear that he hon- estly intends to be a good and loyal citizen, he may live and die outside of that great privilege. I do not think that the two Houses of Congress should convert themselves into a joint convention for the purpose of embracing Mr. Robert Toombs, and requesting him to favor us by coming back and accepting the honors of citizenship. All we ask on this side of the House is, that each of these gentlemen shall show his good faith by coming forward and taking the oath, which all the members on this floor take, and are proud to take. It is a very small exac- tion to make as a preliminary to full restoration to all the rights of citizenship. In my amendment, Mr. Speaker, I have excepted Jefferson Davis from amnesty. I do not place his exclusion on the ground that he was, as he has been commonly called, the head and front of the rebellion, because I do not think the exception would be tenable. Mr. Davis was in that respect as guilty, no more so, no less so, than thousands of others who have received the benefit and grace of amnesty. Probably he was less efficient as an enemy of the United States, probably he was more useful as a disturber of the councils of the Confeder- acy, than many who have already received amnesty. It is not because of any particular and special damage that he above others did to the Union, or because he was personally or espe- cially of consequence, that I except him. But I except him on this ground : that he was the responsible author, knowingly, deliberately, guiltily, of the great crime of Andersonville. I base his exclusion on that ground ; and I believe to-day, that so rapidly does one event follow on the heels of an- other in the age in which we live, that even those of us who were contemporaneous with the war, and especially those who have grown up since, fail to remember the crime at Ander- sonville. Since the gentleman from Pennsylvania [INIr. Randall] intro- duced this bill last month, I have taken occasion to re-read some of the historic cruelties of the world. I have read once CRUELTY OF GENERAL WINDER. 155 more the details of those atrocious murders by the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries, which are always mentioned with a thrill of horror throughout Christendom. I have refreshed my mem- ory with the details of the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, that stands out in history as another of those atrocities beyond imagination. I have read anew the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. But neither the deeds of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries, nor the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, nor the thumb-screws of the Spanish Liquisition, surpass tlie hideous crime of Andersonville. This is not matter of mere pas- sion but of proof. Thank God, Mr. Speaker, that while this Con- gress was under different control from that which exists here to-day, with a Committee composed of both sides and of both branches, that tale of horror was placed where it cannot be denied, and where it must remain as a warning. I hold in my hand the story written out by a committee of Congress. I state that Winder, who is dead, was sent to An- dersonville with a full knowledge of his j)revious atrocities in Richmond. These were so terrible, that Confederate papers, the Richmond Examiner iov one, after AVinder had gone thanked God that Richmond was rid of his presence. We in the North knew from returning skeletons what Winder had accom[)lished at Belle Isle and Libby ; and, fresh from those accursed cruel- ties to his fellow-men, he was sent by Mr. Jefferson Davis, against the protests of others in the Confederacy, to construct this den of horrors at Andersonville. It would be utterly beyond the scope of the occasion, and beyond the limits of my hour, to go into full details. But in arraigning Mr. Davis, I will not ask any one to take the testi- mony of a Union soldier. I ask gentlemen of this House to take only the testimony of men who themselves Avere engaged in and devoted to the Confederate cause. If that testimony does not entirely justify the declaration I have made, tlien I will take prompt occasion to state that I have been in error in my reading. After detailing the preparation of that prison, the arrange- ments made with studied cruelty for the victims, the report which I hold in my hand, and which was concurred in by Democratic members as well as Republican members of Con- 156 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. gress, gives a condensed description of the horrors — and I beg members to hear it, for it is far more impressive than any thing I can say. After giving full details, the report states : — " The subsequent history of Andersonville has startled and shocked the world with a tale of horror, of woe, and death before unheard and unknown to civilization. No pen can describe,. no painter sketch, no imagination comprehend its fearful and unutterable iniquity. It would seem as if the concentrated madness of earth and hell had found its final lodgement in the breast of those who inaugurated the rebellion and controlled the policy of the Confederate government, and that the prison at Andersonville had been selected for the most terrible human sacrifice which the world has ever seen. Into its narrow walls were crowded thirty-five thousand enlisted men, many of them the bravest and best, the most devoted and heroic of those grand armies which carried the flag of their country to final victory. For long and weary months here they suffered, maddened, were murdered, and died. Here they lingered, unsheltered from the burning rays of a tropical sun by day, and drenching and deadly dews by night, in every stage of mental and physical disease, hungered, emaciated, starving, maddened; festering with unhealed wounds; gnawed by the ravages of scurvy and gangrene; with swollen limb and distorted visage; covered with vermin which they had no power to extirpate ; exposed to the flooding rains which drove them drown- ing from the miserable holes in which, like swine, they burrowed ; parched with thirst, and mad with hunger ; racked with pain, or prostrated with the weakness of dissolution; with naked limbs and matted hair; filthy with smoke and mud ; soiled with the very excrement from which their weakness would not permit them to escape; eaten by the gnawing worms which their own wounds had engendered; with no bed but the earth ; no covering save the cloud or the sky ; these men, these heroes, born in the image of God, thus crouching and writhing in their terrible torture and calculating barbar- ity, stand forth in history as a monument of the surpassing horrors of An- dersonville, as it shall be seen and read in all future time, realizing in the studied torments of their prison-house the ideal of Dante's ' Inferno ' and Milton's 'Hell.'" I venture the assertion, from reading the testimony upon which the report is based, that this description is not overdrawn. I will read but a single paragraph from the testimony of Rev. William John Hamilton, a Catholic priest at Macon, who, I believe, never Avas in the North. He is a Southern man, and a Democrat, and a Catholic priest. And when you unite those three qualities in one man, you will not find much testimony that would be strained in favor of the Rej^ublican party, or any member of it. This man had gone to Andersonville on a mission of mercy to the men of his own faith, to administer to them the rites of his church in their last moments. That is the way in Avhich he happened to be a witness. I will read his answer under oath to TESTIMONY OF REV. WILLIAM JOHN HAMILTON. 157 a question addressed to him in regard to the bodily condition of the prisoners. He said, — " Well, as I said before, when I went there I was kept so busily engaged in giving the sacrament to the dying men that I could not observe much, but of course I could not keep my eyes closed as to what I saw there. I saw a great many men perfectly naked [their clothes had been taken from them by rebels, as other testimony shows], walking about tlie stockade perfectly nude. They seemed to have lost all regard for delicacy, shame, morality, or any thing else. I would frequently liave to creep on my hands and knees into the holes tliat the men had burrowed in the ground, and stretcli myself out alongside of them to hear their confessions. I found tliem almost living in vermin in those holes ; they could not be in any other condition but a filthy one, because they got no soap, and no change of clothing, and were there all huddled up together." Let me read further, from the same witness, a personal de^ scription : — " The first person I conversed with on entering the stockade was a coun- tryman of mine, a member of the Catholic Church, who recognized me as a clergyman. I think his name was Farrell. lie was from tiie north of Ire- land. He came toward me and introduced hiujself. He was quite a boy. I do not think, judging from his appearance, that lie could have been more than sixteen years old. I found him without a hat, and without any cover- ing on his feet, and without jacket or coat. He told me that liis shoes had been taken from him on the battle-field. I found the boy suffering very much from a wound on his right foot, — in fact, the foot was split open like an oyster, — and, on inquiring the cause, they told me it was from exposure to the sun in the stockade, and not from any wound received in battle. I took off my boots, and gave hiin a pair of socks to cover his feet, and told him I would bring him some clothing, as 1 expected to return to Anderson- ville the following week. I had to return to Alacon to get another priest to take my place on Sunday. When I returned, on the following week, on inquiring for this man Farrell, his companions told me he had stepped across the dead-line, and requested the guards to shoot him. He was not insane at the time I was conversing with him." Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to go into such horrible details as these for any purpose of arousing bad feeling. I wish only to say that the man who administered the affairs of that prison went there by order of Mr. Davis, was sustained b}' him, and the Rev. William John Hamilton, from whose testimony I have read, states again that he went to General Howell Cobb, com- manding thiit department, and asked that intelligence as to the condition of affairs there be transmitted to the Confederate gov- ernment at Iiichmond. There are many proofs to show that Mr. Davis was thoroughly informed as to the condition of affairs at Andersonville. One word more, and I shall lay aside this book. When the 153 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. march of General Sherman in the Atlanta campaign was in progress, there was danger, or supposed danger, that his army might come into the neighborhood of Andersonville ; and the following order, to which I invite the attention of the House, --^ a regular military order, — Order No. 13, dated. Headquarters Confederate States Military Prison, Andersonville, July 27, 1864, was issued by Brigadier-General John H. Winder : — , " The officers on duty and in charge of the battery of Florida artillery at the time will, upon receiving' notice that the enemy have approached vi'ithin seven miles of this post, open fire upon the stockade with grape-shot, with- out reference to the situation beyond these lines of defence." Here, within this horrible stockade, were thirty-five thousand poor, helpless, naked, starving, sickened, dying men ! The Catholic priest to whom I have referred states that he begged General Howell Cobb to represent that, if these men could not be exchanged, or could not be relieved in any other way, they should be taken to the Union lines in Florida and paroled ; for they were shadows, they were skeletons. Yet it was declared in a regular order, issued by the commandant of the prison, who had been specially selected by Mr. Davis, that if the Union forces should come within seven miles, the battery of Florida artillery should open fire with grape-shot on these shadows and skeletons without the slightest possible regard to Avhat was going on outside. And they had stakes put up with flags in order that the line of fire might be properly directed from the battery of Florida artillery. I mention only one additional horror in this dark valley of cruelty and death. When one of the tortured victims escaped from its confines — as was sometimes though not often the case — he was remorselessly hunted down by bloodhounds. In a single month twenty-five escaped, but in the official record kept b}'- the notorious Wirz " they were taken hy the dogs before the daily returns were made out^ Mr. Speaker, the Administration of Martin Van Buren, that went down in a popular convulsion in 1840, had no little of ob- loquy thrown upon it because it was believed that the Seminoles in the swamps of Florida had been hunted with bloodhounds. Bloodthirsty dogs were sent after the hiding savages, and the civilization and Christian feeling of the American people BLOODHOUNDS AT ANDERSONVILLE. 159 revolted against the cruelty. I state here, upon the testimony of witnesses as numerous as would require me all day to read, that bloodhounds were used at Anderson ville ; that large packs of them were kept, and Confederate officers directed them on the hunt; that they were sent after the poor unfortunate, shrinking men who by any accident could get out of that hor- ril^le stockade. I do not wish to be understood as arraigning the Southern people for these inhumanities. God forbid that I should charge sympathy with such wrongs upon the mass of any people. There were many evidences of great uneasiness in the South about the condition of Andersonville. I know that leading officers of the Confederacy protested against it. I know that many of the subordinate officers protested against it. I know that a distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, now rep- resenting his State in the other end of the Capitol, protested against it. But I regret to say that these wrongs were known to the Confederate Congress, they were known at the doorway of their Senate, along the corridors of their Capitol. A gen- tleman whom I see at this moment, who served in the Confed- erate Congress, and who had before served in the Senate of the United States, brought them to the attention of the Confed- erate Congress, and I class him with those whose humanity was never burned out by the angry fires of the rebellion. I allude to the Honorable and now venerable Henry Stuart Foote. It is one of the rank offenses of Jefferson Davis, Mr. Speaker, that besides conniving at the cruelties at Andersonville, he concealed them from the Southern people. He labored not only to conceal them, but to make false statements about them. We have obtained, and have now in the* Congressional Library, a complete series of Mr. Davis's messages — the official imprint from Richmond. I have looked over them, and I have an extract here from his message of Nov. 7, 1864, at the very time when these horrors were at their height and their worst. Mr. Davis said : — " The solicitude of the Government for the relief of our captive fellow- citizens has known no abatement, but has on the contrary been still more deeply evoked by the additional sufferings to which they have been wantonly subjected by deprivation of adequate food, clothing, and fuel, which they were not even permitted to purchase from the prison sutler." 160 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. And he adds that the — " Enemy attempted to excuse their harharous treatment by the unfounded allega- tion that it ivas retaliatory fur like conduct on our part." In answer to this atrocious slander by the Confederate Presi- dent, now become historic, I am justified in declaring that there is not a Confederate soldier living who has any credit as a man in his community, and who was a prisoner in the hands of the Union forces, who will say that he ever was cruelly treated ; that he ever was deprived of just such rations as the Union soldiers had — the same food and tlie same clothing. Mr. Cook of Georgia. Thousands of them say it — thou- sands of them ; men of as high character as any in this House. Mr. Blaine. I take issue upon that. There is not one who can substantiate it — not one. As for measures of retaliation, although goaded by this terrific treatment of our friends im- prisoned by Mr. Davis, the Senate of the United States specifi- cally refused to pass a resolution of retaliation, as contrary to modern civilization and to the first precepts of Christianity. No retaliation was attempted or justified. It was forbidden, and Mr. Davis knew it was forbidden as well as I knew it or any other man, because what took place in Washington or what took place at Richmond was known on either side of the line within a day or two thereafter. Mr. Speaker, this is not a proposition to punish Jefferson Davis. Nobody is attempting that. I thought the indictment of Mr. Davis at Richmond, under the administration of Presi- dent Johnson, was not justifiable, for he was indicted only for that of which he was guilty in common with all others who went into the Confederate revolt. But here and now I ex- press my firm conviction that there is not a government, not a civilized government on the face of the globe — I am very sure there is not a European government — that would not have arrested Mr. Davis at the close of the war, and when they had him in their power would not have tried him for maltreatment of the prisoners of war, and shot him within thirty days. France, Russia, England, Germany, Austria, any one of them would have done it. The poor victim Wirz deserved his death for brutal treatment and murder of many victims, but it was NUiMBER WHO DIED AT ANDERSONVILLE. 161 weak policy on the part of our government to allow Jefferson Davis to go at large and to hang Wirz, Wirz was nothing in the world but a mere subordinate, acting under orders, and there was no special reason for singling him out for death. I do not say he did not deserve it. He deserved no mercy, but, as I have often said, his execution seemed like passing over the jDresident, superintendent, and board of directors in the case of a great railway accident and hanging the brakeman of the rear car. I repeat, there is no proposition here to punish Jefferson Davis. Nobody is seeking to do it. That time has gone by. The statute of limitations, the common feelings of humanity, supervene for his benefit. But what you ask us to do is to declare by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of Congress that we consider Mr. Davis worthy to fill the highest offices in tlie United States, if he can find a constituency to indorse him. He is already a voter ; he is at liberty to engage in any calling ; he can buy and he can sell ; he can go and he can come. He is as free as any man in the United States. It is now proposed in the pending bill for which the gentleman from Pennsylvania stands sponsor, that Mr. Davis, by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and a two-thirds vote of the House, shall be declared eligible and worthy to fill any office under the Government of the United States including the Chief Magistracy thereof. For one, upon full deliberation, I refuse ni}^ assent to that proposition. One word, Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation, which I omitted. It has been said in mitigation of Jefferson Davis's responsibility for the Andersonville horror, that the men "who died there (I think the number was about twelve thousand) fell a prey to an epidemic, and died of a disease which could not be averted. The record shows this to be untrue. Out of 35,000 men about 33 per cent died ; while of the soldiers encamped near by to guard the prisoners, only one man in four hundred died ; that is, within half a mile, only one in four hundred died, while inside the stockade one in three died. As to the general question of amnesty, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, it is too late to debate it. Whether the general and generous remission of political disability by the Republicans has been in all respects wise, or whether it has been 162 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. unwise, I will not detain the House here and now to discuss. Even if I had a strong conviction upon that question, I do not know that it would be productive of any good to enunciate it at this time. But I must say, it is a singular spectacle that the Republicans, in possession of the entire Government, have deliberately called back into political power the leading men of the South, nearly every one of whom is their bitter and relent- less and malignant foe ; and to-day, from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, the very men who have received this amnesty are as busy as they were before the war in consolidating the old slave States into one compact political organization. We see the banner held out, blazoned again with the inscription that with the united South and a few votes from the North this country can be governed. I want the people to understand the char- acter of the movement; to appreciate its animus, to measure its intent. But I do not think that offering amnesty to the seven hundred and fifty men who are now without it will hasten or retard the course of events in the South. It is often said that "we shall lift Mr. Davis again into great consequence by refusing him amnesty." That is not for me to consider. I only see before me, when his name is pre- sented, a man who, by a wave of his hand, by a nod of his head, could have put an end to the atrocious cruelties at Ander- sonville ! Some of us had kinsmen there, many of us had friends there, all of us had countrymen there. In the name of those kins- men, friends, and countrymen, I here protest, and shall with my vote protest, against calling back and crowning with the honors of full American citizenship the man who stands respon- sible for that organized murder. REMOXETIZATIOX OF SILVER. 163 REMONETIZATION OF SILVER. [Speech of James G. Blaine of Maine, delivered in the United States Senate, Thursday, Feb. 7, 1878. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 109o) to authorize the free coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal-tender character.] Me. President, — The discussion on the question of remon- etizing silver has been prolonged and exhaustive. I may not expect to add much to its value, but I promise not to add much to its length. I shall endeavor to consider facts rather than theories, to state conclusions rather than arguments. I believe gold and silver coin to be the money of the Consti- tution — indeed, the money of the American people anterior to the Constitution, money which the organic law of the Republic recognized as independent of its own existence. No power was conferred on Congress to declare that either metal should not be money. Congress has therefore, in my judgment, no more power to demonetize silver than to demonetize gold; no more power to demonetize either than to demonetize both. In this statement I am but repeating the weighty dictum of the first of Constitutional lawyers. "I am certainly of opinion," said Mr. Webster, " that gold and silver, at rates fixed by Con- gress, constitute the legal standard of value in this country, and that neither Congress nor any State has authoritij to establish any other standard or to displace this standard.''' Few persons can be found, I apprehend, who will maintain that Congress possesses the power to demonetize both gold and silver, or that Congress could be justified in prohibiting the coinage of both ; and yet in logic and legal construction it would be difficult to show where and why the power of Congress over silver is greater than over gold — greater over either than over both. If, there- 164 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. fore, silver has been demonetized, I am in favor of remonetizing it. If its coinage has been prohibited, I am in favor of ordering it to be resumed. If it has been restricted, I am in favor of ordering it to be enlarged. What power, then, has Congress over gold and silver? It has the exclusive power to coin them ; the exclusive power to regulate their value, — very great, very wise, very necessary powers, for the discreet exercise of which a critical occasion has now arisen. However men may differ about causes and pro- cesses, all will admit that within a few years a great disturbance has taken place in the relative values of gold and silver, and that silver is worth less or gold is worth more in the money markets of the world in 1878 than in 1873, when the further coinage of silver dollars was prohibited in this country. To remonetize it now as though essential conditions had not changed, is willfully and blindly to deceive ourselves. If our demonetization were the only cause for the decline in the value of silver, then remonetization would be its proper and effectual cure. But other causes, beyond our control, have been far more potentially operative than the simple fact that Congress prohibited its further coinage. As legislators we are bound to take cognizance of these causes. The demonetization of silver in the German Empire and the consequent partial, or well-nigh complete, suspension of coinage in the governments of the Latin Union, have been the leading causes for the rapid decline in the value of silver. I do not think the over-supply of silver has had, in comparison with these other causes, an appreciable influence in the decline of its value, because its over-supply with respect to gold in these later years has not been so great as was the over-supply of gold with respect to silver for many years after the mines of California and Aus- tralia were opened ; and the over-supply of gold from those rich sources did not affect the relative positions and uses of the two metals in any European country. I believe then, if Germany were to remonetize silver and the kingdoms and states of the Latin Union were to re-oj^en their mints, silver would at once resume its former relation with gold. The European countries when driven to full remonetization, as I believe they will be in the end, must of necessity adopt their REMOXETIZATIOX OF SILVER. 165 old ratio of fifteen and a half of silver to one of gold, and we shall then be compelled to adopt the same instead of our former ratio of sixteen to one. If we fail to do tins we shall, as before, lose our silver, which like all things else seeks the highest market ; and if fifteen and a half pounds of silver will buy as much gold in Europe as sixteen pounds will buy in America, the silver, of course, will go to Europe. But our line of policy in a joint movement with other nations to remonetize is simple and direct. The difficult problem is what we shall do when we aim to re-establish silver Avithout the co-operation of Eu- ropean powers, and really as an advance movement to coerce those powers into the same policy. Evidently the first dictate of prudence is to coin such a dollar as will not only do justice among our citizens at home, but will prove a protection — an absolute barricade — against the gold mono-metallists of Europe, who, whenever the opportunity offers, Avill quickly draw from us the one hundred and sixty millions of gold coin which we now hold. If Ave coin a silver dollar of full legal-tender, obvi- ously below the current value of the gold dollar, we are simply opening our doors and inviting Europe to take our gold. With our gold floAving out from us Ave shall be forced to the single silver standard and our relations Avith the leading commercial countries of the Avorld Avill be not only embarrassed but crippled. The question before Congress then — sharply defined in the pending House bill — is, Avhether it is noAv safe and expedient to offer free coinage to the silver dollar of 412^ grains, Avith the mints of the Latin Union closed and Germany not permit- ting silver to be coined as money. At current rate's of silver, the free coinage of a dollar containing 412^ grains, Avorth in gold about ninety-tAvo cents, gives an illegitimate profit to the oAvner of the bullion, enabling him to take ninety-tAvo cents' Avorth of it to the mint and get it stamped as coin and force his neighbor to take it for a full dollar. This is an unfair advantage Avhich the Government has no right to give to the OAvner of silver bullion, and Avhich defrauds the man Avho is forced to take the dollar. It assuredly folloAvs that if Ave give free coinage to this dollar of inferior value and put it in circu- lation, we do so at the expense of our better coinage in gold; 166 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. and unless we expect the invariable experience of other nations to be in some mysterious way suspended for our peculiar bene- fit, we inevitably lose our gold coin. It will flow out from us with the certainty and with the force of the tides. Gold has indeed remained with us in considerable amount during the circulation of the inferior currency of the legal tender; but that was because there were two great uses reserved by law for gold, — the collection of customs and the payment of interest on the public debt. But if the inferior silver coin is also to be used for these two reserved purposes, then gold has no tie to bind it to us. What gain, therefore, should we make for the circulating medium, if on opening the gate for silver to flow in, we open a still wider gate for gold to flow out? If I were to venture upon a dictum on the silver question, I should declare that until Europe remonetizes silver we cannot afford to coin a dollar as low as 412^ grains. After Europe remonetizes on the old standard, we cannot afford to coin a dollar above 400 grains. If we coin too low a dollar before general remonetiza- tion our gold will leave us. If we coin too high a dollar after general remonetization our silver will leave us. It is only an equated value before and after general remonetization that will preserve both gold and silver to us. Consider further what injustice would be done to every holder of a legal-tender or national-bank note. That large volume of paper money — in excess of seven hundred millions of dollars — is now worth between ninety-eight and ninety-nine cents on the dollar in gold coin. The holders of it, who are indeed our entire population from the poorest to the richest, have been promised from the hour of its issue that their paper money would one day be as good as gold. To pay silver for the green- back is a full compliance with this promise and this obligation, provided the silver is made as it always has been hitherto, as good as gold. To make our silver coin even three per cent less valuable than gold inflicts at once a loss of more than twenty millions of dollars on the holders of our paper money. To make a silver dollar worth but ninety-two cents precipitates on the same class a loss of nearly sixty millions of dollars. For whatever the value of the silver dollar is, the whole paper issue of the country will sink to its standard when its coinage REMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 167 is authorized and its circulation becomes general in the chan- nels of trade. Some one in conversation with Commodore Vanderbilt during one of the many freight competitions of the trunk lines said, " It cannot be that the Canadian Railroad has sufficient carrying capacity to compete with your great line ? " — " That is true," replied the Commodore, " but they can fix a rate and force us down to it." Were Congress to pass a law to-day declaring that every legal-tender note and every national- bank note shall hereafter pass for only ninetj^-six or ninety- seven cents on the dollar, there is not a constituency in the United States that would re-elect a man who supported it, and in many districts the representative would be lucky if he es- caped merely with a defeat at the polls. Yet it is almost mathematically demonstrable that the same effect will follow from the coinage of an inferior silver dollar. Assurances from empirics and scientists in finance that remone- tization of the former dollar will at once and permanently advance its value to par with gold, are worth little in the face of opposing and controlling facts. The first effect of issuing any silver dollar that will pay customs dues and inter- est on the public debt, will undoubtedly be to raise it to a prac- tical equality with gold ; but that condition will last only until the amount needful for customs shall fill the channels of its use ; and the overflow going into general circulation will rapidly set- tle to its normal and actual value, and then the discount will come on the volume of the paper currency, which will sink, pari passu, with the silver dollar in which it is made redeem- able. That remonetization will have a considerable effect in advancing the value of the silver dollar is very probable, but not enough to overcome the difference now existing, — a differ- ence resulting from causes independent of our control in the United States. The responsibility of re-establishing silver in its ancient and honorable place as money in Europe and America, devolves really upon the Congress of the United States. If we act here with wisdom and firmness, we shall not only successfully re- monetize silver, and bring it into general use as money in our own country, but the influence of our example will be potential among European nations, with the possible exception of Eng- 168 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. land. Indeed, our annual indebtment to Europe is so great that, if we have the right to pay it in silver, we necessarily coerce those nations, by the strongest of all forces, self-interest, to aid us in upholding the value of silver as money. But if we attempt the remonetization on a basis which is obviously below the fair standard of value as it now exists, we incur all the evil consequences of failure at home, and the certainty of successful opposition abroad. We are, and shall be, the greatest produ- cers of silver in the world, and we have a larger stake in its complete monetization than any other country. The difference to the United States, between the general acceptance and the general destruction of silver as money in the commercial world, will possibly within the next half-century equal the entire bonded debt of the Nation. But, to gain this advantage, we must make it actual money, the accepted equal of gold in the markets of the world. Remonetization here, followed by gen- eral remonetization in Europe, will secure to the United States the most stable basis for its currency that we have ever enjoyed, and will effectually aid in solving all the problems by which our financial situation is surrounded. On the much-vexed and long-mooted question of a bi-metallic or mono-metallic standard, my own views are sufficiently indi- cated in the remarks I have made. I believe the struggle now going on in this country, and in other countries, for a single gold standard, would, if successful, produce disaster in the end throughout the commercial world. The destruction of silver as money, and the establishment of gold as the sole unit of value, must have a ruinous effect on all forms of property except those investments which yield a fixed return in money. These would be enormously enhanced in value, and would gain a dispropor- tionate, and therefore unfair, advantage over every other species of property. If, as the most reliable statistics affirm, there are nearly seven thousand millions of coin or bullion in the world, not very unequally divided between gold and silver, it is impos- sible to strike silver out of existence as money without results which will prove distressing to millions, and utterly disastrous to tens of thousands. Alexander Hamilton, in his able and invaluable report in 1791 on the establishment of a mint, de- clared that " to annul the use of either gold or silver as money REMOXETIZATION OF SILVER. 169 is to abridge the quantity of circulating medium, and is liable to all the objections which arise from a comparison of the bene- fits of a full circulation with the evils of a scanty circulation." I take no risk in saying that the benefits of a full circulation, and the evils of a scanty circulation, are both immeasurably greater to-day than they were when jNIr. Hamilton uttered these weighty words, always provided that the circulation is one of actual money, and not of depreciated " promises to pay." In the report from which I have already quoted, J\Ir. Hamil- ton argues at length in favor of a double standard, and all the subsequent experience of ninety years has brought out no clearer statement of the case, or developed a more complete comprehension of this subtle and difficult subject. " On the whole," says Mr. Hamilton, " it seems most advisable not to attach the unit exclusively to either of the metals, because this cannot be done effectually without destroying the office and character of one of them as money, and reducing it to the situ- ation of mere merchandise." Mr. Hamilton wisely concludes that this reduction of either of the metals to mere merchandise (I again quote his exact words) " would probably be a greater evil than occasional variations in the unit from the fluctuations in the relative value of the metals, especially if care be taken to regulate the proportion between them, with an eye to their ave- rage commercial value." I do not think that this country, hold- ing so vast a proportion of the world's supply of silver in its mountains and its mines, can afford to reduce the metal to the "situation of mere merchandise." If silver ceases to be used as money in Europe and America, the mines of the Pacific slope will be closed and dead. Mining enterprises of the gigan- tic scale existing in this country cannot be carried on to provide backs for mirrors, and to manufacture cream-pitchers and sugar- bowls. A source of incalculable wealth to this entire country is destroyed the moment silver is permanently disused as money. It is for us to check that tendenc}^ and bring the continent of Europe back to the full recognition of the value of the metal as a medium of exchange. The question of beginning anew the coinage of silver dollars has aroused much discussion as to its effect on the public credit. The senator from Ohio [Mr. Matthews] placed this phase of 170 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. the subject in the very forefront of the debate — insisting, pre- maturely and illogically, I think, on a sort of judicial construc- tion in advance, by concurrent resolution, of a certain law in case that law should happen to be passed by Congress. My own view on this question can be stated very briefly. I believe the public creditor can afford to be paid in any silver dollar that the United States can afford to coin and circulate. We have forty thousand millions of property in this country, and a wise self-interest will not permit us to overturn its relations by seek- ing for an inferior dollar wherewith to settle the honest demands of any creditor. The question might be different from a merely selfish point of view if, on paying the dollar to the public cred- itor, it would disappear after performing that function. But the trouble is that the inferior dollar you pay the public creditor remains in circulation, to the exclusion of the better dollar. That which 3'ou pay at home will stay here ; that which you send abroad will come back. The interest of the public cred- itor is indissolubly bound up with the interest of the whole people. Whatever affects him affects us all ; and the evil that Ave might inflict upon him by paying an inferior dollar would recoil upon us with a vengeance as manifold as the aggre- gate wealth of the Republic transcends the comparatively small limits of our bonded debt. Remember that our aggregate wealth is always increasing, and our bonded debt steadily grow- ing less ! If paid in a good silver dollar, the bondholder has nothing to complain of. If paid in an inferior silver dollar, he has the same grievance that will be uttered still more plaintively by the holder of the legal-tender note and of the national-bank bill, by the pensioner, by the day laborer, and by the count- less host of the poor, whom we have with us always, and on whom the most distressing effect of inferior money will be ultimately precipitated. But I must say, Mr. President, that the specific demand for the payment of our bonds in gold coin, and in nothing else, oomes with an ill grace from certain quarters. European criti- cism is leveled against us, and hard names are hurled at us across the ocean, for simply daring to state that the letter of our law declares the bonds to be payable in standard coin of July 14, 1870; explicitly declared so, and declared so in the REMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 171 interest of the j)ublic creditor, and the declaration inserted in the very body of the eight hundred millions of bonds that have been issued since that date. Beyond all doubt, the silver dollar was included in the standard coins of that public act. Payment at that time would have been as acceptable and as undisputed in silver as in gold dollars, for both were equally valuable in the European as well as in the American market. Seven-eighths of all our bonds owned out of the country are held in Germany and in Holland. Germany has demonetized silver, and Holland has been forced thereby to suspend its coin- age, since the subjects of both powers purchased our securities. The German Empire, the very year after we made our specific declaration for paying our bonds in coin, passed a law destroy- ing, so far as lay in its power, the value of silver as money. I do not say that it was specially aimed at this country, but it was passed regardless of its effect upon us, and was followed, according to public and undenied statement, by a large invest- ment on the part of the German Government in our bonds, with a view, it was understood, of holding them as a coin reserve for drawing gold from us to aid in establishing their new gold standard at home. Thus, by one move the German Govern- ment destroyed, so far as lay in its power, the then existing value of silver as money, enhanced consequently the value of gold, and then got into position to draw gold from us at the moment of their need, which would also be the moment of our own sorest distress. I do not say that the German Govern- ment, in these successive steps, did a single thing which it had not a perfect right to do, but I do say that the subjects of that Empire have no reason to complain of our Government for the initial step which has impaired the value of one of our standard coins. The German Government, by joining with us in the re- monetization of silver, can place that standard coin in its old position, and make it as easy for this Government to pay and as profitable for their subjects to receive the one metal as the other. When we pledged the public creditor in 1870 that our obli- gations should be paid in the standard coin of that date, silver bullion was worth in the London market a fraction over sixty pence per ounce ; its average for the past eight months has 172 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. been about fifty-four pence ; tlie price reckoned in gold in both cases. But the large difference is due in part to the rise of gold as well as to the fall of silver. Allowing for both causes and dividing the difference, it will be found, in the judgment of many of the wisest men in this country, perfectly safe to issue a dollar of 425 grains standard silver ; as one that, anticipating the full and legitimate influence of remonetization, will equate itself with the gold dollar, and effectually guard against the drain of our gold during the time necessary for international conference in regard to the general re-establishment of sil- ver as money. When that general re-establishment shall be effected with a coinage of fewer grains, the dollar which I am now advocating will not cause loss or embarrassment to any one. The miner of the ore, the owner of the bullion, the holder of the coin, and the Government that issues it, will all in turn be benefited. It Avill yield a profit on recoinage and will be advantageously employed in our commercial relations with foreign countries. Meanwhile it will insure to our labor- ers at home a full dollar's pay for a dollar's worth of work. I think we owe this to the American laborer. Ever since we demonetized the old dollar we have been running our mints at full speed, coining a new silver dollar for the use of the Chinese cooly and the Indian j^ariah — a dollar containing 420 grains of standard silver, with its superiority over our ancient dollar ostentatiously engraved on its reverse side. To these " outside barbarians " we send this superior dollar, bearing all our national emblems, our patriotic devices, our pious inscrip- tions, our goddess of liberty, our defiant eagle, our federal unity, our trust in God. This dollar contains 7^ grains more silver than the famous " dollar of the fathers," proposed to be recoined by the pending bill, and more than four times as many of these new dollars have already been coined as ever were coined of all other silver dollars in the United States. In the exceptional and abnormal condition of the silver market now existing throughout the world we have felt compelled to in- crease the weight of the dollar with which we carry on trade with the heathen nations of Asia. Shall we do less for the American laborer at home? Nay, shall we not do a little better and a little more for those of our own blood and our REMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 173 own fireside ? If you remonetize the dollar of the fathers your mints will be at once put to work on two different dollars, — different in Aveight, different in value, different in prestige, dif- ferent in their reputation and currency throughout the com- mercial world. It will read strangely in history that the weightier and more valuable of these dollars is made for an ignorant class of heathen laborers in China and India, and that the lighter and less valuable is made for the intelligent and educated laboring-man who is a citizen of the United States. Charity, the adage says, begins at home. Charity, the inde- pendent American laborer scorns to ask, but he has the right to demand that justice should begin at home. In his name and in the name of common sense and common honesty, I ask that the American Congress will not force upon the American laborer an inferior dollar which the naked and famishing labor- ers of India and China refuse to accept. The bill which I now offer as a substitute for the House bill contains three very simple provisions: — 1. That the dollar shall contain four hundred and twenty-five grains of standard silver, shall have unlimited coinage, and be an unlimited legal tender. 2. That all the profits of coinage shall go to the Government, and not to the operator in silver bullion. 3. That silver dollars or silver bullion, assayed and mint- stamped, may be deposited with the Assistant Treasurer at New York, for which coin certificates may be issued, the same in denomination as United States notes, not below ten dollars, and that these shall be redeemable on demand in coin or bullion. We shall thus secure a paper circulation based on an actual deposit of precious metal, giving us notes as valuable as those of the Bank of England and doing away at once with the dreaded inconvenience of silver on account of bulk and weight. I do not fail, Mr. President, to recognize that the committals and avowals of senators on this question preclude the hope of my substitute being adopted. I do not indeed fail to recognize that on this question I am not in line with either extreme, — with those who believe in the single gold standard or with those who by premature and unwise action, as I must regard it, 174 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. would force us to the single silver standard. Either will be found, in my judgment, a great misfortune to our country. We need both gold and silver, and we can have both only by making each the equal of the other. It would not be difficult to show that, in the nations where both have been fully recog- nized and most widely diffused, the steadiest and most continu- ous prosperity has been enjoyed, — that true form of prosperity which reaches all classes, but which begins with the day-laborer whose toil lays the foundation of the whole superstructure of wealth. The exclusively gold nation like England may show the most massive fortunes in the ruling classes, but it shows also the most helpless and hopeless poverty in the humbler walks of life. The gold and silver nation like France can exhibit no such individual fortunes as abound in a gold nation like England, but it has a peasantry Avhose silver savings can pay a war indemnity that would have beggared the gold bankers of London, and to which the peasantry of England could not have contributed a pound sterling in gold or even a shilling in silver. The effect of paying the labor of this country in silver coin of full value, as compared with irredeemable paper, — or as compared, even, with silver of inferior value, — will make itself felt in a single generation to the extent of tens of millions — perhaps hundreds of millions — in the aggregate savings which represent consolidated capital. It is the instinct of man from the savage to the scholar — developed in childhood and remain- ins: with aofe — to value the metals which in all lands are counted " precious." Excessive paper money leads to extrava- gance, to waste, to want, as we painfully witness to-day. With abounding proof of its demoralizing and destructive effect, we hear it proclaimed in the Halls of Congress, that " the people demand cheap money." I deny it. I declare such a phrase to be a total misapprehension — a total misinterpreta- tion of the popular Avish. The people do not demand cheap money. They demand an abundance of good money, which is an entirely different thing. They do not want a single gold standard that will exclude silver and benefit those already rich. They do not want an inferior silver standard that will drive out gold and not help those already poor. They want both metals, REMOXETIZATIOX OF SILVER. 175 in full value, in equal honor, in whatever abundance the boun- tiful earth will yield them to the searching eye of science and to the hard hand of labor. The two metals have existed side by side in harmonious, honorable companionship as money, ever since intelligent trade was known among men. It is well-nigh forty centuries since " Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of, silver, current money with the merchant." Since that time nations have risen and fallen, races have disappeared, dialects and languages have been forgotten, arts have been lost, treas- ures have perished, continents have been discovered, islands have been sunk in the sea, and through all these ages and through all these changes, silver and gold have reigned supreme as the representatives of value — as the media of exchange. The dethronement of each has been attempted in turn, and sometimes the dethronement of both ; but always in vain ! And we are here to-day, deliberating anew over the problem which comes down to us from Abraham's time — the weight of the silver that shall be " current money with the merchant." 176 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. THE HALIFAX AWARD. [On the 26th of February. 187S, Mr. Blaine submitted the following resolu- tion for the consideration of the Senate : — Resolved, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to communicate to the Senate at the earliest practicable da^', if not in his judgment incompatible with the public interest, copies of all correspondence between our Government and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in regard to the selec- tion of M. Maurice Delfosse, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from Belgium, as the third commissioner under the twenty-third article of the treatj' of Washington on the question of the fisheries. Objection was made and the resolution went over. On the 11th of March Mr. Blaine called up the resolution, and made the following speech: — ] Mr. President, — The resolution of inquiry, which I offered a fortnight ago, was met with objection and was hiid over. I call it up now to explain my reasons for desiring its adoption. For some time past there have been rumors of an unpleasant character touching the mode in which M. Delfosse, the Bel- gian minister accredited to this country, was urged by the British Government as the third commissioner under the treaty of Washington on the question of the Fisheries. These rumors come in a form that enforces attention, and while I do not pretend to vouch for their entire accuracy, I think they are sufficiently grave to call for authentication or denial. It appears by these reports that during the conference of the Joint High Commission in April, 1871, Lord Ripon, speaking for the English Government, said in relation to the several proposed arbitrations which were under discussion, that it would not be a proper thing for England to offer Belgium or Portugal as arbitrators ; and he especially spoke of Belgium as being incapacitated for the function by reason of her peculiar rela- tions with England. This declaration was promptly assented to by the American commissioners. With the understanding THE HALIFAX AWARD. 177 thus volunteered by Lord Ripon, the Halifax commission of three arbitrators on the fisheries was agreed to — our Government to name one, the British Government to name one, and the two Governments conjointly to name the third. It was stipu- lated that if the two Governments could not agree on the third commissioner within three months, the Austrian ambassador at London should name him. As soon as the fishery clause of the treaty went into effect in July, 1873, the Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, formally invited the British minister. Sir Edward Thornton, to confer with him in regard to the appoint- ment of the third commissioner. He found Sir Edward without instructions from his Government, and after delaying for some days Mr. Fish took the initiative and submitted a number of names for his consideration. Among these, selected fi'om a large field, were Mariscal, minister from Mexico ; Offenberg, minister from Russia ; Borges, from Brazil ; Polo, from Spain ; the Count de Noailles, from France; Westenberg, from Hol- land, and others. INIr. Fish did not include ^l. Delfosse among these, as he thought that his name had been fairly excluded by the understanding of the Joint High Commission. Sir Edward Thornton made no response for several weeks and then answered Mr. Fish, declining to accept any of the names submitted by him and proposing in turn the single name of M. Delfosse. It was understood, I believe, that Sir Edw^^ird was acting under the direct instructions of Lord Granville, British Secretary of Foreign affairs. Mr. Fish peremptorily declined to accept M. Delfosse and quoted Lord Ripon's reniArk in regard to Belgium, and again urged Sir Edward to accept one of the names proposed by him or else to propose some names himself. In answer to this Sir Edw^ard stated that Lord Dufferin, tlie Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada, speaking for the Canadians, objected to taking as the third commissioner any one accredited to our Government. Immediately after this declara- tion Sir Edward appeared at the State Department wqth fresh instructions from Lord Granville to insist on M. Delfosse, though at that very moment M. Delfosse was accredited to our Government. The only alternative presented by Sir Edw^ard was that his Government would accept some " Dutch gentle- man " that might be chosen at the Hague by the American and 178 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. British ministers. This mode of selection was at once rejected by Mr. Fish as not being within tlie terms of the treaty. The three months within wliicli the two Governments were to act conjointly having been thus exhausted, apparently by the design of the British Government, the matter was by the treaty re- manded to the Austrian ambassador at London. A delay of some years then ensued in consequence of the negotiations for a reciprocity treaty which, if secured, would have precluded the necessit}^ of arbitrating the fishery question. The correspond- ence was not renewed until 1876. The result of the whole was that in February, 1877, the Austrian ambassador at London nominated ]\L Delfosse as the third commissioner. It is now reported on the authority of an interview recently published in the Neiv - York Herald that Mr. Fish finally assented to the appointment of ^L Delfosse by the Austrian ambassador. This may or may not be true, but it is not material to the issue ; for the matter had lapsed absolutely into the hands of the ambassador, and as he was resident in London, in easy communication with the British ministry, they had means of influencing the decision that were not within our power. Mr. Fish may well have thought that as the appoint- ment of M. Delfosse was inevitable it was prudent and expedient to submit to it gracefully and in such a way as not to incur the personal ill-will of the third commissioner. I can well see how a wise secretary, like Mr. Fish, might in the end have been thus influenced after having exhausted every effort, as he so ably and fearlessly did, to keep M. Delfosse off the commission. I do not intend in any remarks I am making to cast reflec- tions on M. Delfosse, who is known as an honorable representa- tive of his Government. I only mean to impl}'' and to assert that, if Lord Ripon is to be credited, M. Delfosse was not in a position to be an impartial arbitrator; and that in my judgment Great Britain never should have proposed him. Mr. Fish was therefore justified in resisting his appointment as long as resist- ance promised to be effectual. Nor do I mean to impute to Sir Edward Thornton any proceeding that was not strictly honor- able. The highly esteemed representative of the British Gov- ernment at this Capital, in all he did was simply following the THE HALIFAX AWARD. 179 instructions of Lord Granville. But I do mean to say, if I am correctly informed, that the correspondence for Avhich my reso- lution calls will disclose a designed and persistent effort on the part of the British Government to secure an advantage in the selection of the third commissioner on the question of the fish- eries. It is but just to remark that the Dominion of Canada had no more right to interpose in the matter than had the States of Massachusetts and Maine ; and that the governors of those States had the same right to speak for their people in regard to selecting a third commissioner as had Lord Dufferin to speak for the people of the Dominion. The negotiation "was between two great nations, and subordinate States and provinces had no right to dictate, or even to suggest, unless called upon by the two principals. It may be somewhat premature to speak of the award made by the Halifax conmiission, but as it is already discussed in the press of both countries, a brief reference to it may not be out of place. The extraordinary nature of that award can only be appreciated when the surrounding facts are understood. In the original discussion of the fishery question b}'^ the Joint High Commission in 1871, the American commissioners could be in- duced to offer only -$1,000,000 for all the fishing privileges sub- sequently embodied in the treaty. The British commissioners declined this offer, and would enter into no negotiation that did not include the admission of the products of the Canadian fish- eries into the American market free of duty. This conces- sion, highly advantageous to Canada and highly injurious to our fisheries, was finally inserted in the treaty. It was further agreed to decide by arbitration what amount of additional compensation should be paid by us for the right to use the inshore fisheries of Nova Scotia for twelve 3'ears. The Halifax commission took the subject into consideration, and tw^o com- missioners (both in effect selected by Great Britain) determined that we should pay her five and a half millions of dollars in gold coin, or at the rate of nearly half a million dollars per annum. The duties on the products of Canadian fisheries im- ported into this country (all remitted by the treaty) would be almost another half million dollars per annum ; so that under this award we should be actually paying nearly a million of 180 rOLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. dollars per annum in gold coin for the privilege of inshore fish- ing on the coast of Nova Scotia, where the total catch by American fishermen, beyond what we had the right to take without this treaty, would not amount to much over 8300,000 per annum. In other words, we are paying to Great Britain a million of dollars per annum for the privilege of catching less than four hundred thousand dollars' worth of fish. Such is a mere outline of the facts of the case, and the injustice of the award is so palpable that it is difficult to treat it with the respect due to all subjects involving international relations. The question as to the binding force of the award is naturally and necessarily one of the gravest interest, not only on account of the large amount involved but on account of the very peculiar circumstances under which the decision against us was reached. The award was signed only by Sir Alexander Gait, the British commissioner, and by M. Delfosse. The American commissioner, Mr. Kellogg, refused to sign it, and affirmed his dissent in writing ; declaring it to be his deliberate opinion that '' the advantages accruing to Great Britain under the treaty were greater than those conferred on the United States;" and he further declared that he deemed it his duty to state that " it is questionable whether it is competent for the board to make an award under the treaty except with the unanimous consent of all the arbitrators." Mr. Dwight Foster, the agent of our Government, stated that he " had no instructions as to what he should do under the circumstances, but he could not keep silent, and give ground for the inference that our Government would consider the award a valid one." I mention these facts to show that objections to the validity of the award were not the result of afterthought, but were incorporated as part of the proceed- ings before the arbitrators. The ground on which iNIr. Kellogg questioned the competency of two of the arbitrators to make an award is that found in all the legal authorities on arbitration. Tlie articles in the treaty of Washington creating the Halifax Board of Arbitration gave no authority to a majority of the Board to make an award, nor was the third commissioner empowered to act as umpire. Both in the tribunal at Geneva and in the Claims Commission at Washington, it was expressly stipulated that a majority of the THE HALIFAX AWARD. 181 arbitrators shoukl decide. In the Halifax commission no such stipuLation was made, and the inference therefore is strong, if not irresistible, that their award should be made according to the general law of arbitration. What that law is, upon English authority, may be briefly stated. Redman on " Arbitration and Awards," considered one of the highest authorities in England, says : — " On a reference to several arbitrators with no provision that less than all shall make an award, each must act ; and all must act together ; and every stage of the proceedings must be in the presence of all ; and the award must be signed by all at the same time." Francis Russell, another English authority of eminence, says : — " On a reference to several arbitrators together, when there is no clause providing for an award made by less than all being valid, each of them must act personally in performance of the duties of his office as if he were sole arbitrator; for as the office is joint, if one refuse or omit to act, the others can make no valid award." Stewart Kyd, an earlier but not less authoritative writer, enforces the same doctrine. After alluding to the Roman law and to its permission for the majority of arbitrators to decide, Mr. Kyd makes the following statement: — " In this respect the law of England is somewhat different ; for unless it be expressly provided in the submission that a less number than all the arbitrators named may make the award, the concurrence of all is necessary." If these eminent English authors are to be accepted, it is quite apparent that the Halifax award has no binding effect in law. As to the equity of the case, I have already given the undeniable facts that govern it. I am not now discussing, much less presuming to define, the action which our Government should ultimately take in regard to the award. If we should follow what I believe would be the inevitable course of Great Britain under similar circumstances we should utterly refuse to pay a single penny, and ground our refusal both on the law and the equity of the case. The treaty as it stands is a mockery of justice, and will work the certain destruction of a great American interest. It is in fact noth- ing else than asking us to pay a million dollars per annum to 182 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. Great Britain for destroying the entire fishing interest of America and still further crippling and weakening us as a com- mercial power. For the utter abrogation of the treaty I should be willing to pay the annual indemnity for the years we have used the inshore fisheries, during which years the Canadians have had free access to the markets of forty-five millions of people ; or I should be willing to pay double the award to be rid of the treaty. We might by this course anticipate by a period of seven years a return to that policy which alone can insure the prosperity or even save the life of a great and impor- tant trade, indissolubly associated with our commercial develop- ment and absolutely essential to our success and prestige as a naval power. Paying thus even an unfair price for the inshore fisheries as long as we shall have used them, we remove all possible ground for imputation, even by the ignorant and the hostile, upon the honor of our Government and the good faith and fair dealing of our people. When we were poor and weak as a nation, we so highly esteemed the value of the fisheries that we encouraged their development by rewards and bounties. These were abandoned some years ago, but still we preserved to our fishermen a pref- erence in our own markets. Even that is given away by the provisions of this treaty. By the Halifax award, if we accept it, and continue the treaty, we pay to Great Britain one mil- lion dollars per annum for destroying a school of commerce, which, properly nurtured, will be her great rival in the future. Against such a policy T enter my protest, if I stand alone. I believe that the products of American industry, on land and sea, should have the first and best chance in the American markets. I believe the American fisherman should be preferred by us to the Canadian fisherman. If we cannot pay him a bounty to encourage and sustain him, let us at least not pay a bounty to Great Britain to destroy him. Mr. Hamlin. Mr. President, I interpose no objection to the passage of this resolution, while on the other hand I think it wise and well that we shall have all the facts in relation to this matter before us. I agree entirely with my colleague, with the senator from Massachusetts, and with the gentleman whose letter has been read at the table by the Clerk, that we get no THE HALIFAX AWARD. 183 compensation for that award in any equivalent granted by the inshore fisheries along the coast of Nova Scotia. I have no hesitation in declaring that an equivalent in the receipt of the fish caught in the provinces in our market is far beyond any thing which we receive in return under that treaty. There can be no doubt about it. And yet we are living to-day under a treaty negotiated here in this city ; and while it is the law of the land and a contract existing between the two high contract- ing parties, the honor of this Government demands that we maintain all the obligations tliat are imposed upon us. If it be true that we were overreached or that in the selection of the arbitrator an improper person was taken we must remember that he was finally taken by the assent of this Government; and when we come to the consideration of the subject it will be one which involves the honor of our Government and one which I need not undertake to say will demand of us that we meet promptly and fully what shall be required. Mr. Blaine. I quite agree with my colleague upon that, and I think our merit will be all the greater if we pay an award of five and a half millions when we have proved to the world that we did not get any thing for it. Paying one's debt for full value received is considered a proper and upright course for upright men ; but paying a large sum for which we get nothing in return ought to be accounted to us for a good deal more of righteousness. [The correspondence between the two Governments was sent to the Senate on the 26th of March, and on moving that it be printed Mr. Blaine spoke as follows : — ] Mr. President, — I move that the correspondence between the American and British Governments in regard to the appoint- ment of M. Delfosse on the Halifax commission be taken from the table and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I beg at the same time to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the correspondence more than justifies all I said in regard to the very extraordinary efforts of Lord Granville to force M. Delfosse upon our Government. I would particularly direct attention to the letter of Sir Edward Thornton, of Aug. 19, 1873, and to Mr. Fish's reply on the 21st of the same month. 184 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. When the resolution calling for this correspondence was be- fore the Senate, I agreed with my honorable colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, that the award would be paid, not because it was just or was founded upon any fact or evidence submitted to the Halifax commission, but simply because it was an award which for honor's sake we might pay though we got nothing for the large sum required. If the pajnnent of five and a half millions were the end of the matter I should be willing to vote it in silence and bury the whole matter out of sight. But the truth is that this award is only the beginning of trouble. The period for which it pays will be ended in five years and then our privilege for inshore fishing must be negotiated afresh. It was well known at Hali- fax during the session of the Commission that the Canadian authorities were striving not simply for the large sum in hand but for the fixing of a rate by which to assess the price of the inshore fisheries in future. It is our duty to show that the rate fixed by the Halifax Commission has no foundation whatever in truth or in fact and that no evidence was before the commission to justify the award. I hold in my hand some statistics of very great interest bearing on the question, from which it appears that the total value of the catch in the inshore fisheries by American fishermen during the four years the treaty has been in operation was only $435,170, on which the profit was probably ^$100,000. This covers the entire catch for which we obtained the right under the treaty. During the same four years the duties on Canadian fish and oil remitted by our Government amounted to a million and a half of dollars in gold, and now under this treaty we are compelled to pay half a million per annum in addition or two millions of dollars in gold coin for the four years. In other words, by remission of duties and the payment of cash from the Treasury our Gov- ernment is called upon to pay three and a half millions of dollars in gold coin for the privilege of permitting our fisher- men to make a profit of $100,000 on the inshore fisheries of Nova Scotia. Considerable comment has been made in the country on the point suggested by me that the Washington treaty required the unanimous verdict of the Halifax commissioners before a THE HALIFAX AWARD. 185 legally valid award could be made. I quoted some eminent English authorities in support of tliis position. Since then a friend has shown me a copy of the London Times of July 6, 1877, containing an elaborate editorial article in regard to the fishery commission then about to assemble in Halifax. In discussing the powers of the commission the Times said : — " On every point that comes before the fishery commission for decision the unanimous consent of all its members is, by the terms of the treaty, necessary before an authoritative verdict can be given." The Times then points out the difference between the Geneva tribunal and the Halifax commission, showing that a majority could decide at Geneva but affirming that the United States would have a perfect right to demand unanimity in the verdict at Halifax. It is also well known that the Halifax commission was dis- cussed by the Canadian ministry in 1875, after the negotiations for a Reciprocity treaty had failed. On that occasion Mr. Blake, the Minister of justice, remarked that the " amount of compensation we shall receive must be an amount unanimously agreed upon by the commissioners." I mention these facts to show that I spoke with full authority when I suggested that the verdict rendered at Halifax was not legally binding under the terms of the treaty. Its payment must be justified on other grounds, and I have already intimated more than once that considerations entirely outside of the legality or the jus- tice of the award might constrain us to respect it. But it should never be paid without such protest as will forever pre- vent its being quoted as a precedent or accepted as a standard to measure the value of the inshore fisheries in future negoti- ations. 186 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. TRADE WITH SOUTH AMERICA. [On the 5th of June, 1878, Mr. Blaine addressed the Senate on the question of granting the aid of the Governmeut in estabUshing a line of American mail- steamers to Brazil.] Mr. President, — This discussion is taking a much wider range than the simple granting of a subsidy to INIr. John Roach, as the senator from Michigan [Mr. Christian cy] seems to sup- pose. The last phase of the question propounded by the senator from Kentucky in an amendment, which is now being printed I believe, declares that hereafter ships of foreign construction shall be imported free into the United States and be entitled to American registry. From a variety of indications which I have observed in Congress, at both ends of the Capitol, for the last three or four years, it is soon, I think, to become a practical question, to be submitted to the test of legislative judgment whether on the whole we shall maintain our navigation laAvs, or whether, after having stood by them for eighty years, we shall conclude now to surrender them and become tributary to Great Britain. In plain truth that is what the amendment of the senator from Kentucky means. It means that with all our wealth, with all our advancement in skill and capital and prestige and power, here in the last quarter of the nineteenth century we shall confess ourselves incompetent to do what the founders of the Government considered themselves able to accomplish in the days of our National infancy. It is an instructive lesson that the first Congress which assembled under the Federal Constitution, when tlie popu- lation of this country was short of four millions, when our coast line began at the eastern end of the District of Maine and was limited by the southern end of Georgia, when we did not touch the Gulf of Mexico and did not even dream of the TRADE WITH SOUTH AMERICA. 187 Pacific Ocean, Avhen we could not manufacture the tools neces- sary to build a ship, when all things in the shape of mechanical contrivance and adaptation were in their veriest infancy in this country, that the wise founders of our Government decreed in the navigation laws, Avhich have stood from that day to this, that we would lay the foundations of a great naval and com- mercial power. The men of that day knew that we never could have a naval or commercial power unless we could secure the skill and the art of the ship-builder at home. Our fathers ordained to this end two great things : in the first place, that no ship but one built and owned by Americans should ever engage in the coastwise trade of the United States ; that this privilege should be for our own citizens absolutely and exclu- sively and for all time ; and, in the second place, that as re- spected the foreign trade, no ship should float the American flag or have an American register that was not built and owned in the United States. Gentlemen think this policy was a failure. The senator from Kentucky [Mr. Beck] has talked heretofore, and his amend- ment now speaks more plainly than his words, to the effect that this policy has been a failure. Let us see for a moment what ground there is for his conclusion. _ Down to the time of the rebellion, measuring seventy years from the foundation of the Government, we had been steadily gaining in the commercial contest with Great Britain, until in the year 1857 we stood abreast of her in ocean tonnage. More than that. In the year 1857 our foreign commerce amounted to a little over $700,000,000, counting both Avays, imports and exports, and American vessels carried $500,000,000 of it, and vessels of all other nations carried but a shade over -$200,000,000 of it. Twenty years afterward, taking the statistics of 1877, what is the lamentable picture that is shown us? Our foreign com- merce has increased to between eleven and twelve hundred millions annually, and the American vessels carry less than $300,000,000 of it, while vessels of foreign nationalities carry over $800,000,000 of it. I maintain, sir, that if our Government had not met with the incalculable obstruction that was thrown against us by the war, and had been willing to uphold her shipping as stifBy as Great 188 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. Britain has upheld hers on all the lines of commerce, we should have outrun her. We had outrun her in sailing-vessels. We were ahead of her or at least equal to her in 1857. If I remem- ber the figures aright, the tonnage stood about 5,700,000 tons for each country, and I grieve to say that it is over eight millions for Great Britain and only three millions for America to-day. We may stand here and talk about the wrongfulness of subsidies and the impolicy of granting them until doomsday ; and Great Britain will applaud every speech of that kind made in the American Congress, and will quietly subsidize her steamers and take pos- session of the carrying-trade of the world. Great Britain to- day makes annually out of the commerce of the United States a larger sum than the interest on our public debt. She receives more in the way of net profits on the carrying-trade which America gives her, than the interest on the vast national debt with which we are burdened to-day. I submit this statement as a statistical fact capable of being illustrated and j^roved.j Let me now recount a few facts that in this conne'ction are valuable ; namely, that in the last six years, including 1877, Brazil exported five hundred and forty million dollars' worth of merchandise. How much did we take of it? We took two hundred and fifty millions of it. We took almost half. Brazil imported nearly the same amount that she exported — about ninety million a year out and in. How much did we send to Brazil in those six years? In the entire six years we sent forty-two million dollars' worth. They do not really know in Brazil what we have to sell and what we are able to manufac- ture and offer them. The senator from New York labored to show the other day that we had failed under what was called the Garrison subsidy. The Garrison Company ran a line of steamers to Rio, which in the first place was not a first-class one, not a line that was in any degree a competing line with the British and French. Nobody wanted to embark on them when they were lying side by side with the British steamers in the port of Rio Janeiro. This is a fact which the Senate ought not to forget : that the line was started at the close of the war, when the prices of all our manufactured articles were very high, and we could not export fabrics of any kind. TRADE WITH SOUTH AMERICA. 189 Mr. Eaton. If my friend will permit me, I would remind him that half the butter and cheese Brazil imports (every pound of which we can furnish from Ohio alone), nearly all the boots and shoes, which can be furnished by Massachusetts, and nearly all the agricultural implements went from Great Britain. Mr. Blaine. I thank my friend from Connecticut for call- ing my attention to the fact. I was coming to some details of that kind. I was pointing out, though, that the ten years of the Garrison subsidy were years of remarkably high prices in the United States, so that we were in no condition to be an exporting nation. The fall in prices in this country within the last five years, however, has been most extraordinary, quite as extraordinary as the previous rise, and on a veiy large num- ber of articles we are able not only to compete fairly, but to undersell other nations. But the pressing question is, how can you bring seller and buyer together? To apply the homely phrase, the first* thing you must do to induce a man to trade with you is, get him in your store. This applies to a nation as well as to a country merchant. You must do that before you can sell him any thing. He is not going to buy when he is on the other side of a ten-acre lot or in the next township. The merchants on the River La Plata and in Rio Janeiro and all over the kingdom of Brazil desire a speedy and comfort- able Avay of reaching the United States. To-day all the desir- able lines of travel that run from the city of Rio Janeiro run to Europe, and the steamers that run there are just as good as the steamers that run from New York to Europe ; and, of course, the merchants and travelers will go in that direction. This little bit of a Merchants' line between New York and Rio Janeiro runs vessels in which nobody would wish to go to sea. It is not a comfortable vessel, aside from any peril that may be involved in going to sea in a nine-hundred-ton sliip. It is a very different thing to go to sea in a three or four thou- sand ton ship. It is the difference between riding on land in a freight-car and in a Pullman palace-car. When they present that as the competing line, it is simply to shut us out of Brazil and keep Brazilians from coming to us. The very first thing to connect us in any commercial relations whatever with Brazil is to enable Brazilians to come here, and to come here with 190 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. comfort, to make a journey both of pleasure and of business. They go by the thousands and the tens of thousands to Europe, and they will continue to go there just as long as there is no opportunity to come this way with equal speed and com fort.! ) Mr. President, there is not a more enlightened sovereign in the world than the eminent man who governs Brazil to-day. He is an imperial democrat or a democratic emperor, whichever you choose to call him. He is thoroughly devoted to the inter- ests of his people. He illustrated in his last journey over the world the fabled tour of Peter the Great in the seventeenth century, going into the ship-yards and dock-yards and factories to find out how every thing was done. He came here ; he went over this country, I venture to say, in a much more thorough manner than any gentleman on this floor has ever done. I venture to say that Dom Pedro can tell more — I do not know about the individual localities which we all know about — but taking the country as a whole, I venture to say that the impe- rial head of that government can tell more about the United States from personal observation than any senator on this floor. He went back profoundly impressed with the idea that Brazil had been made altogether too much a tail to the kite of the European monopolists, and that Brazilians had never had an op- portunity to enter into the markets of the United States. He found that he was selling nearly half of all that he had to sell from his empire to this country, and almost literally buying nothing from us ; and he said the very first thought that struck him was, " There is no way of coming to your country ; we cannot get to you. We may come up to Carthagena and ship there, and come over to Havana and ship there, and thus get to New York." That will take five or six weeks. There is occasionally a stray steamer that runs, but it cannot be de- pended on. The first thing therefore to be done in order to establish trade between this country and Brazil, as that wise Emperor said, is to establish a good line of communication between the two. The Emperor while he was in the United States met John Roach. He conversed on this subject with Mr. Roach just as he stood in his own ship-yard in the active discharge of his daily business. He measured his intelligence and his energy. TRADE WITH SOUTH AMERICA. 191 After the Emperor had returned to his dominions Mr. Roach sent an agent to Rio Janeiro. He found the Emperor still zealous and eager for the line of steamers. His Majesty's Gov- ernment contracted with jNIr. Roach to put on a line of first- class steamers between Rio and New York that people might go back and forth, that mail-matter might go back and forth freely, that there should be luxurious accommodations if they chose to pay for them, and ample accommodations for all those who chose to avail themselves of them ; and the Emperor of Brazil did that in the undoubted belief that America would respond with at least equal liberalit3^ He made the tender. He said, " We need to come closer together ; we cannot get to each other now ; let us build up a line of first-class steamships, and I will pay half." That is the plain truth of it : "I will pay half if you will pay the other half. Let us try it and see what will come of it." Forthwith, as one of the results of it, a meeting was held in the city of New York, in the expectation that this line Avould be established, and merchants and manu- facturers have taken the preliminary steps to establish a maga- zine in Rio in which every variety of American fabric shall be exhibited — our textiles, our metals, our products of all kinds — that a great American bazaar shall be opened there in which every thing we have to sell shall be exhibited with the price attached, and the advantages of shipments shall be made known to all buyers. This may be an unwise waste of money. I do not myself think so. It may be a very wise thing for us to fold our hands and say to Great Britain, " Take the seas ; they are yours. To be sure we have seventeen thousand miles of coast running from Behring's Straits down to the Gulf of California ; we take in all the Gulf of Mexico, all the North Atlantic. We have timber, lumber, hemp, and iron, and every possible material that can make sliips, but we are not equal to it. You must come forward and do our carrying-trade." That is what England is contending for to-day. She does not intend that any European nation shall ever become a great naval and commercial power. There is no rival left to her in the commercial world, and if she can buy us out, or bully us out of a tariff that shall protect American industries, and bluff us out of enterprises that shall 192 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. stimulate lines of American steamships, she will have done all she desires to do for her factories and for her commerce. The honorable senator from Maryland said that every one of these attempts to build up commerce by means of subsidies had been utter and ignominious failures, and he cited especially the Pacific mail, out of which there grew much scandal. The senator from California [Mr. Sargent], in the very debate of last year, in which my honorable friend from Michigan Avas willing to give half a million for old and inferior ships, while he is not willing now to give one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for a line of new and superior steamships, said, and I quote this for the benefit of the senator from Maryland, — " AYe have now to a very great extent, by means of this policy pursued by the Government, control of the commerce of the Pacific Ocean. The Atlantic is an English or European lake, and nothing more. We scarcely venture out upon it with our own American lines. The case, however, is reversed in regard to the Pacific, and there the enterprise of our people, aided in this manner by our Government, has been able to seize upon the prominent lines of communication, and commerce is extended tliere on every hand. We have nearly as much control of the Pacific as England or any European power has of the Atlantic. The statistics show that there has been an increase of duties paid into the Treasury of the United States on account of the commerce built up by the Chinese mail-line greater by a million and a half of dollars than the amount of subsidy which lias been paid out by the Government to aid iu maintaining that line. The Government has made money by it." Even with all the mishaps and scandals which attached to that unfortunate line, so great has been its success, that it has given to us the lead in the commerce of the Pacific and lias yielded back a larger revenue, aside from the indirect benefits, than the sum paid out of the Treasury of the United States to maintain the line. Mr. WriYTE. May I ask the senator from Maine — jNIr. Blaine. Ask the senator from California. Mr. Whyte. No, I will ask the senator from Maine. He is addressing me, and in reply I will ask him the question whether the building of the Pacific Railroad has not increased the duties rather than the Pacific mail-line ? Mr. Blaine. The duties were not decreased on the Atlantic side. That very same question was asked the senator from California at the time by the senator from Vermont [Mr. Morrill], and the senator from California answered that there TRADE WITH SOUTH AMERICA. 193 was no corresponding decrease to be shown here. The senator means, I suppose, that it merely transferred the point of collec- tion ; but there was no corresponding decrease anywhere, and more than that, as the senator from California intimated — I am really borrowing his argument — the effect was largely to decrease — decrease indeed by a million dollars — the cost of tea to the consumers in this country. I do not come from a steamship State. I come from a State that builds wooden ships and has sold them and will continue to do it, for the day of wooden ships has not gone by ; they will remain for long voyages and for freights whose value is not de- pendent upon a particular date of delivery. They will remain I suppose as long as the tides rise and the winds blow. In that field the State I represent is without any rival in this country to-day. But is this country willing calmly to resign the sceptre of the ocean to Great Britain ? Are we not ready to make one struggle, not for the North Atlantic — that is so entirely pos- sessed by others that we are crowded out of it — but a struggle to hold, at all events, some sort of tenure of the trade in South America and on the Pacific Ocean? I shall vote for this bill. I did not vote for the bill of last winter. I did not think it was a wise bill. I differed from my friend from Michigan, and I especially differed from my honored colleague from whom I rarely part and when I do always with the impression that I may be in the wrong; but for this bill, which offers more and asks less than any other subsidy that has ever been proposed in this country, I shall most cheerfully give my vote. One word more. I always think, in homely phrase, that it is wise and safe to do the thing which your rival does not want you to do. I am sure that you could get a unanimous vote in the British House of Commons against the grant of this aid by the American Congress. I am sure that a policy for which the British House of Commons would vote unanimously, it is not for the interest of the American Government to uphold. 194 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. THE PROGRESS OF THE NORTH-WEST. [Address of James G. Blaine at the Minneapolis Fair, Minnesota, Tuesday, Sept. 3, 1878.] Mr. President, — An assemblage of the citizens of Minne- sota, coming together to rejoice over abundant harvests, and to view the bountiful products of their State, is well calculated to inspire recollections which are of interest beyond the limits of the audience that now honor me with their attention. Near the borders of your State, on the banks of the great river now flowing in our sight, there resides a man in the full vigor of an honorable old age, long my acquaintance and my friend, whose career calls vividly to mind the wonderful prog- ress of the North-West. In the last two years of General Jackson's Presidency, George W. Jones was the delegate in Conscress from that vast area now forming the States of Miclii- gan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, together with that part of the Territory of Dakota north of the Missouri River and east of the White Earth. In the last preceding Federal census the total civilized population of the entire territory of Michigan was less than thirty-two thousand — adventurous men standing on the outposts of civilization, and accepting and conquering the hardships of the frontier. At that time — forty-three years ago — there were but two newspapers of any kind whatever published in the whole country of which I have spoken, and not one of these west of Lake Michigan. To-day the same country has eight senators, twenty-nine representatives, and one delegate in Congress ; has railroads aggregating eleven thousand miles in length and five hundred millions in cost ; has seventy-seven daily newspapers, and more than eleven hundred weekly or monthly publications; has great cities larger than THE PROGRESS OF THE NORTH-WEST. 195 Philadelphia or New York when the United States had taken its second census and chosen its third President ; has a popu- lation as great, excluding the slaves of that day, as had the whole country when we met Great Britain for the second time in war ; produces a larger amount of breadstuffs than the entire Union produced when General Jones entered Congress ; con- tains more wealth than was owned in the eighteen States that divided their electoral votes between James Madison and DeWitt Clinton for the Presidency in 1812. Such facts as these may well cause us to give thanks to God and to a vir- tuous ancestry for the blessings of liberty and good government which have made all this progress possible. Geographically the State of Minnesota is a land of singular and surpassing interest. Lying about equi-distant from the great oceans on the east, on the west, on the north, and on the south, her situation, as compared with her sister States, is alto- gether peculiar, and in one respect is Avithout parallel on any continent. Her surface forms the central water-shed of North America ; and not far from where we stand streams have their modest sources which finally lose themselves in one direction through Hudson's Bay in the Arctic waters, in another through the chain of the great lakes in the Atlantic Ocean, and a third through the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico. To the westward, nature has raised an insurmountable barrier to the water-course, but the invention of man has found a more rapid transit ; and through the power of steam and over the road of iron there is already projected and partly achieved the great commercial highway to the Pacific foretold by La Salle when, standing on the banks of the St. Lawrence, by the rapids whose name perpetuates his prophecy, pointing to the untrodden West, whither he had already turned his face, he pronounced to his doubting companions the inspiring word, " La Chine I " Viewed historically, that which now constitutes the State of Minnesota has undergone as many and as rapid changes in its sovereignty as any disputed territory in Europe which has been fought over by armed hosts set in motion by the ambition of kings or the jealousy of rival nationalities. This fair land was under the dominion of France during the reigns of Louis XIV. and his great-grandson. Iberville, who led the French 196 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. colony to Louisiana, was its first Governor, and Bienville, who founded New Orleans, was its second. It was pawned by the Regent Orleans in his scheme with John Law for creating value out of moonshine, and was made with other territory the basis of that fraudulent scheme projected by the Mississippi Company — in which real estate in Minnesota, still in the undisputed possession of the savage and the wild beast, became the shadowy foundation in Paris, one hundred and sixty years ago, of a far greater monetary credit than it could command to-day in the same financial market, with all its improvements and its great intrinsic value. It was in part under the dominion of George III. of England, until he was compelled to yield his right to your soil by the treaty of 1783, and to withdraw the last Red Coat by the treaty of 1795. For thirty-seven years, all on the west side of your dividing river was attached to the crown of Spain during the reigns of the Third and Fourth Charles, and given up by the latter in 1800 to France, when for a period of three brief years Napoleon Bonaparte was the sovereign ruler of the larger half of Minnesota. The First Consul always did business on a basis of hard cash, and he transferred the French possessions in America to the United States for fifteen millions of dollars, eighty years after John Law and his spec- ulating partner, the Duke of Orleans, had made the same possessions the basis for an issue of paper money amounting to nearly three thousand millions of francs. Some reflections are naturally suggested by these facts which would perhaps not be entirely pertinent to an address before an Agricultural Society. I may be pardoned, however, for the inference that the " resources of a great country " do not afford a sound and secure basis for an enlarged paper currency. But these changes of European sovereignty over the soil of Minnesota are not more striking or more strange than the rapid transformation of its government since it came under the sovereignty of the United States. It is almost forgotten his- tory, that the eastern half of your State was claimed during the Revolutionary struggle as part of Virginia, by no less a Governor than Thomas Jefferson ; that as part of the North- west Territory the gallant but unfortunate Arthur St. Clair was its chief Executive; that as part of Indiana, William THE PROGRESS OF THE XORTH-WEST. 197 Henry Harrison, frontiersman, soldier, statesman, was made its Governor at the age of twenty-seven years ; that as part of Illinois the large-framed and large-hearted Ninian Edwards ruled over it, appointed thereto by President Madison at the personal request of " a 3"oung senator named Clay " as he is sig- nificantly stjded in a certain record ; that as part of Michigan Territory, General Cass was its efficient and careful Executive ; that as part of Wisconsin, the chivalrous and courageous Henry Dodge was its popular Governor — and also its delegate in Congress from one-half its domain, while his worthy and still living son, as delegate at the same time from Iowa, represented the other half, — a striking coincidence, rendered still more remarkable by the meeting again of father and son as Senators from the States which they represented in the House when Territories. Nor of the section of your State west of the Mississippi does it read less strangel3% that when sold to the National Govern- ment by Napoleon Bonaparte it became part of the organized Territory of Louisiana ; was soon changed to Missouri, and had for long j^ears as its Governor the brave, adventurous Wil- liam Clarke, who in company with Meriwether Lewis, under the direction of President Jefferson, made that extraordinary jour- ney from ocean to ocean — the first white men who crossed the continent on soil belonging to the United States, leaving tlieir names forever associated with a great achievement, familiar to all who have read the hardships and conquests of the " Lewis and Clarke " expedition. Minnesota afterwards formed part of the magnificent and rapidly growing Territory of Iowa, which soon took on the stature of a full-grown, vigorous Com- monwealth. Iowa and Wisconsin having been admitted as States, their joint remainders naturally formed one government, and in 1849 the Territory of Minnesota was organized. Thus Min- nesota, east and west of the Mississippi fell under the same government for the first time since the United States had acquired Louisiana from France, with the exception of a brief period under the old territorial organization of Michigan, and an equally brief one under that of Wisconsin. That seems but 3^esterday ; yet the sowing of the next crop will mark full 198 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. rounded thirty years since the organic Act was passed by Con- gress, and President Zachary Taylor appointed Alexander Ram- sey first Governor of the new Territory. His Excellency is among you to-day, after enjoying the highest honors of your Territory and your State, looking as fresh and as vigorous as when in the administrations of John Tyler and James K. Polk he represented a Pennsylvania district in the Congress of the United States. He might pass still as a young man, if his lu- minous record, made in two States and in both branches of Congress, did not enable us to measure the threescore years that crown his honored head. To trace the history and development of Minnesota from its organization in 1849 would far transcend the proprieties or even the possibilities of this occasion. But whoever will enter into the details of the progress here made will find one of the most remarkable advances of civilization, and in a period so brief that it does not comprehend the life of one generation. In 1849 your Territory contained but forty-six hundred inhabit- ants ; to-day your State has seven hundred thousand. In 1849 you raised fourteen hundred bushels of wheat ; last year you raised thirty-three million bushels. These figures are but an index to your increase in all forms of material wealth. The jDages of your census tables seem like a romance, the statistics of your progress dazzle the reader with their proportions and almost challenge his credulity at every column. I am addressing an agricultural community. During all the depression of trade and commerce and manufactures in these past five years, you have steadily advanced in comfort and independence. While thousands elsewhere have lacked employment, and man}^ I fear, have lacked bread, no able- bodied man in Minnesota has been without remunerative labor and no one has gone to bed hungry. Your pursuits and their results form the basis of the ideal Republic — happily realized within your own borders. The tendency of all your industry is toward the accumulation of individual competency, and does not favor the upbuilding of colossal fortunes. You are dealing daily with the essential things of life, and are not warped in your judgment or deflected from your course by speculative and illusory schemes of gain. You are land-owners. THE PROGRESS OF THE NORTH-WEST. 199 free-holders, proud titles that come to us with centuries of civ- ilization and strength — titles that every man in this country should make it his object to acquire and to honor. Self-gov- ernment among the owners of the soil in America is an in- stinct, and where that ownership is widely distributed good government is the rule. Whatever disturbances therefore may threaten the peace and order of society, whatever wild theories, transplanted from other climes, may seek foot-hold here, the Republic of the United States rests securely on that basis of agriculture where the farmers of the Revolution and the framers of the Constitution placed it. The man who possesses broad acres which he has earned by the sweat of his own face, is not apt to fall in with the doctrine of the Communist, that no one has a right to ownership in the soil. The man who has the product of his labor in wheat and in corn, in pork and in beef, in hides and in wool — commanding gold and silver as they always have done and always will do in the markets of the world — is not to be led astray with theories of fiat paper and absolute money, but instinctivel}^ consigns such wild vagaries to the appropriate domain of fiat folly and absolute nonsense. The farmers of the Republic will control its destiny. Agri- c\ilture, commerce and manufactures are the three pursuits that enrich a nation — but the greatest of these is agriculture — for without its products the spindle cannot turn and the ship will not sail. Agriculture furnishes the conservative ele- ment in society and in the end is the guiding, restraining, con- trolling force in government. Against storms of popular fury ; against frenzied madness that seeks collision with established order; against theories of administration that have drenched other lands in blood ; against the spirit of anarchy that would sweep away the landmarks and safeguards of Christian society and Republican government, the farmers of the United States will stand as the shield and the bulwark — themselves the will- ing subjects of law and therefore its safest and strongest administrators. Gradually the Government of the Republic is passing under the control of the farmers of the Mississippi valley. Indeed it is practically there to-day. The swelling and on-rushing tide of population is towards the broad plains and the rich acres 200 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. that lie between the two mountain rangfes of the continent. The soil is so fertile, the land so inviting, the area so broad, that no man may dare calculate the possibilities of this great region either as respects production or population. Your own State, peopled no more densely than New York, would have a population of nine millions ; peopled as densely as Massachu- setts, it would have a population of sixteen millions. With the transfer of political control from the old States to the new, there is also transferred a vast weight of responsibility. It is yours to-day ; it will be yours still more to-morrow. Take it ; use it wisely and well for the advancement of the whole — for the honor of all. The patriotic traditions of the " old thirteen " that fought the battles of the Revolution, formed the Union of the States, and planted Liberty in the organic Law, will be your safest guide, your highest inspiration. Many of you to-day mingle with your love for Minnesota, your earlier affec- tion for the old home and the old State far to the East, where an honored ancestry lie buried, and where the tenderest memo- ries cluster around the familiar scenes of days long past. It is this kinship of blood, these ties of memory, that make us indeed one people — uniting the East and the West, the North, and the South, in the indissoluble bonds of a common, and I trust, always beneficent Government. SOUTHER.^ ABUSE OF ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 201 SOUTHERN ABUSE OF ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. [On the 2d of December, 1878, Mr. Blaine submitted the following resolution to the Senate : — Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary he instructed to inquire and report to the Senate whether at the recent elections the Constitutional rights of American citizens were violated in any of the States of the Union; whether the right of suffrage of citizens of the United States, or of any class of such citizens, was denied or abridged by the action of the election officers of any State in refus- ing to receive their votes, in failing to count them, or in receiving and counting fraudulent ballots in pursuance of a conspiracy to make the lawful votes of such citizens of none effect; and whether such citizens were prevented from exercis- ing the elective franchise, or forced to use it against their wishes, by violence or threats, or hostile demonstrations of armed men or other organizations, or by any other unlawful means or practices. Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be further instructed to inquiro and report whether it is within the competency of Congress to provide by addi- tional legislation for the more perfect security of the right of suffrage to citizens of the United States in all the States of the Union. Resolved, That in prosecuting these inquiries the Judiciary Committee shall have the right to send for persons and papers. On Wednesday, Dec. 11, Mr. Blaine addressed the Senate as follows: — ] Mr. President, — The pending resolutions were offered by me with a twofold purpose in view : — First, to place on record, in a definite and authentic form, the frauds and outrages by which certain recent elections for representatives in Congress were carried by the D^nocratic party in the Southern States. Second, to find if there be any method by which a repetition of these crimes against a free ballot may be prevented. The newspaper is the channel through which the people of the United States are informed of current events, and the accounts given in the press represent the elections in some of the Southern States to have been accompanied by violence, in not a few cases reaching the destruction of life ; to have been controlled by threats that awed and intimidated a large 202 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. class of voters ; to have been manipulated by fraud of the most shameless and shameful description. Indeed in South Carolina there seems to have been no election at all in any proper sense of the term. There was a series of skirmishes over the State, in which the polling-places were regarded as forts to be cap- tured by one party and held against the other ; and where this could not be done with convenience, frauds in the count, and tissue-ballot devices were resorted to in order effectually to destroy the voice of the majority. These in brief are the accounts given in the non-partisan press, of the disgraceful outrages that attended the recent elections ; and so far as I have seen, these statements are without serious contradiction. It is but just and fair to all parties, however, that an impartial investigation of the facts shall be made by a committee of the Senate, proceeding under the authority of law and representing the power of the Nation. Hence my resolution. But we do not need investigation to establish certain facts already of official record. We know that one hundred and six representatives in Congress were recently chosen in the States formerly slave-holding, and that the Democrats elected one hundred and one or possibly one hundred and two and the Republicans four or possibly five. We know that thirty-five of these representatives were assigned to the Southern States by reason of the colored population, and that the entire politi- cal power thus founded on the numbers of the colored people has been seized and appropriated to the aggrandizement of its own strength by the Democratic party of the South. The issue thus raised before the country, Mr. President, is not one of mere sentiment for the rights of the negro — though far distant be the day when the rights of any American citizen, however black or however poor, shall form the mere dust of the balance in any controversy. Nor is the issue one that involves the waving of the "bloody shirt," to quote the elegant vernacu- lar of Democratic vituperation ; nor still further is the issue as now presented only a question of the equality of the black voter of the South with the white voter of the South. The issue, Mr. President, has taken a far wider range, one indeed of portentous magnitude ; viz., whether the white voter of the North shall be equal to the white voter of the South in shaping SOUTHERN ABUSE OF ELECTIVE FRANCHISE, 203 the policy and fixing the destiny of this country ; or whether, to state it still more baldly, the white man who fought in the ranks of the Union Army shall have as weighty and influential a vote in the Government of the Republic as the white man who fought in the ranks of the Rebel Army. The one fought to uphold, the other to destroy, the Union of the States, and to-day he who fought to destroy is a far more important factor in the Government of the Nation than he who fought to uphold. Let me illustrate my meaning by comparing groups of States of the same representative strength North and South. The States of South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana send seven- teen representatives to Congress. Their aggregate popula- tion is composed of one million and thirty-five thousand whites and one million two hundred and twenty-four thousand col- ored; the colored being nearly two hundred thousand in ex- cess of the whites. Of the seventeen representatives, it is evident that nine were apportioned to these States by reason of their colored population, and only eight by reason of their white population ; and yet in the choice of the entire seven- teen representatives the colored voters had no more voice or power than their remote kindred on the shores of Sene- gambia or on the coast of Guinea. The one million and thirty-five thousand white people had the sole and absolute choice of the entire seventeen representatives. In contrast, two States in the North, Iowa and Wisconsin, with seventeen representatives have a white population of two million two hundred and forty-seven thousand, considerably more than double the entire white population of the three Southern States I have named. In Iowa and Wisconsin, therefore, it takes one hundred and thirty-two thousand white population to send a representative to Congress, but in South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana every sixty thousand white people send a representative. In other words, sixty thousand white people in those Southern States have precisely the same politi- cal power in the government of the country that one hun- dred and thirty-two thousand white people have in Iowa and Wisconsin. Take another group of seventeen representatives from the 204 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. South and from the North. Georgia and Alabama have a white population of eleven hundred and fifty-eight thousand and a colored population of ten hundred and twenty thousand. They send seventeen representatives to Congress, of whom nine were apportioned on account of the white population and eight on account of the colored population. But the colored voters are not able to choose a single representative, the white Demo- crats choosing the whole seventeen. The four Northern States, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and California, have seventeen representatives, based on a white population of two and a quarter millions, or almost double the white population of Georgia and Alabama, so that in these relative groups of States we find the white man in the South exercising by his vote double the political power of the white man in the North. Let us carry the comparison to a more comprehensive gener- alization. The eleven States that formed the Confederate gov- ernment had by the last census a population of nine and a half millions, of which in round numbers five and a half millions were white and four millions colored. On this aggregate popu- lation seventy-three representatives in Congress were appor- tioned to those States, forty-two or three of which were by reason of the white population, and thirty or thirty-one by reason of the colored population. At the recent election the white Democracy of the South seized seventy of the seventy- three districts, and thus secured a Democratic majority in the next House of Representatives. Thus it appears that through- out the States which formed the late Confederate Government, sixty-five thousand whites — the very people that rebelled against the Union — are enabled to elect a representative in Congress, while in the loyal States it requires one hundred and thirty-two thousand of the white people that fought for the Union to elect a representative. In levying every tax, therefore, in making every appropriation of money, in fixing every line of public policy, in decreeing what shall be the fate and for- tune of the Republic, the Confederate soldier South is enabled to cast a vote that is twice as influential and twice as powerful as the vote of the Union soldier North. But the white men of the South did not acquire and do not hold this superior power by reason of law or justice, but in SOUTHERN ABUSE OF ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 205 disregard and defiance of botli. Tlie Fourteenth Amendment to tlie Constitution was expected to be and was designed to be a preventive and corrective of all such possible abuses. The reading of the clause applicable to the case is instructive and suggestive. Hear it : — *' Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for par- ticipation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." The patent, undeniable intent of this provision was that if any class of voters should be denied or in any way abridged in their right of suffrage, then the class so denied or abridged should not be counted in the basis of representation ; or, in other words, that no State or States should gain a large in- crease of representation in Congress by reason of counting any class of population not permitted to take part in electing such representatives. But the construction given to this provision is that before any forfeiture of representation can be enforced the denial or abridgment of suffrage must be the result of a law specifically enacted by the State. Under this construction every negro voter may have his suffrage absolutely denied or fatally abridged by the violence, actual or threatened, of irre- sponsible mobs, or by frauds and deceptions of State officers from the governor down to the last election clerk, and then, unless some State law can be shown that authorizes the denial or abridgment, the State escapes all penalty or peril of reduced representation. This construction may be upheld by the courts, ruling on the letter of the law, " which killeth," but the spirit of justice cries aloud against the evasive and atro- cious conclusion that deals out oppression to the innocent and shields the guilty from the legitimate consequences of willful transgression. The colored citizen is thus most unhappily situated; his 206 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. right of suffrage is but a hollow mockery ; it holds to his ear the word of promise but breaks it always to his hope, and he ends only in being made the unwilling instrument of increasing the political strength of that party from which he suffered ever-tightening fetters when he was a slave and contemptuous refusal of civil rights since he was made free. He resembles indeed those unhappy captives in the East who, deprived of their birthright, are compelled to yield their strength to the aggrandizement of the monarch from whose tyrannies they have most to fear, and to fight against the power from which alone deliverance might be expected. The franchise intended for the shield and defense of the negro has been turned against him and against his friends and has vastly increased the power of those from whom he has nothing to hope and every thing to dread. The political strength thus unjustly seized by Southern Demo- crats by reason of the negro population is equal to thirty-five representatives in Congress. It is massed almost solidly and offsets the great State of New York ; or Pennsylvania and New Jersey together ; or the whole of New England ; or Ohio and Indiana united ; or the combined strength of Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas, California, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oregon. The seizure of this power is wanton usurpation ; it is flagrant outrage ; it is violent perversion of the whole theory of Republican government. It inures solely to the apparent advantage and yet, I believe, to the permanent dis- honor of the Democratic party. It is by reason of this tram- pling down of human rights, this ruthless seizure of unlawful power, that the Democratic party holds the popular branch of Congress to-day and will in less than ninety days have control of this body also, thus grasping the entire Legislative depart- ment of the Government tlirough the unlawful capture of the Southern States. If the proscribed vote of the South were cast as its lawful owners desire, the Democratic party could not gain control. Nay, if the ballot of the colored man were not counted on the other side, against the instincts and the interests, against the principles and the prejudices, of its law- ful owners. Democratic success would be hopeless. It is not enough, then, for modern Democratic tactics that the negro vote shall be silenced; the demand goes farther and insists SOUTHERN ABUSE OF ELECTIVE FP.AXCHISE. 207 that it shall be counted on the Democratic side, that all the representatives in Congress and all the Presidential electors apportioned by reason of the negro vote shall be so cast and so controlled as to insure Democratic success — regardless of justice, in defiance of law. This great wrong is wholly unprovoked. I doubt if it be in the power of the most searching investigation to show that in any Southern State during the period of Republican control^ any legal voter was ever debarred from the freest exercise of his suffrage. Even the revenges which would have leaped into life with many who despised the negro were buried out of sight with a magnanimity which the " superior race " fail to follow and seem reluctant to recognize. I know it is said in reply to such charges against the Southern elections as I am now review- ing, that unfairness of equal gravity prevails in Northern elec- tions. I hear it in many quarters and read it in the papers that in the late exciting election in Massachusetts intimidation and bulldozing, if not so rough and rancorous as in the South, were yet as wide-spread and effective. I have read and yet I refuse to believe that the distinguished gentleman, who made an energetic but unsuccessful canvass for the governorship of that State, has indorsed and approved these charges, and I have accordingly made my resolution broad enough to include their thorough investigation. I am not demanding fair elections in the South without demanding fair elections in the North also. But venturing to speak for the New England States, of whose laws and customs I know some- thing, I dare assert that in the late election in Massachusetts, or any of her neighboring Commonwealths, it will be impossible to find even one case where a voter was driven from the polls, where a voter did not have the fullest, fairest, freest opportunity to cast the ballot of his choice and have it honestly and faith- fully counted in the returns. Suffrage on this continent was first made universal in New England, and in the administra- tion of their affairs her people have found no other appeal necessary than that which is addressed to their honesty of con- viction and to their intelligent self-interest. If there be any thing different to disclose I pray you show it to us that we may amend our ways. 208 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. But whenever a feeble protest is made against such injustice as I have described in the South, the response we receive comes to us in the form of a taunt, " What are you going to do about it ? " and " How do you propose to help yourselves ? " This is the stereotyped answer of defiance which intrenched wrong always gives to inquiring justice. Those who imagine it to be conclusive do not know the temper of the American people. For let me assure you that against the complicated outrage upon the right of representation lately triumphant in the South there will be arrayed many phases of public opinion in the North not often hitherto in harmony. Men who have cared little, and affected to care less, for the rights or the wrongs of the negro suddenly find that vast monetary and commercial interests, great questions of revenue, adjustments of tariff, investments in manufactures, in railways, and in mines, are under the control of a Democratic Congress whose majority was obtained by depriving the negro of his riglits under a com- mon Constitution and common laws. Men who have expressed disgust with the waving of bloody shirts and have been offended with talk about negro equality are beginning to perceive that the question of to-day relates more pressingly to the equality of white men under this Government, and that however care- less they may be about the rights or the wrongs of the negro, they are jealous and tenacious about the rights of their own race and the dignity of their own firesides and their own kindred. I know something of public opinion in the North. I know a great deal about the views, wishes, and purposes of the Repub- lican party of the Nation. Within that entire great organiza- tion there is not one man, whose opinion is entitled to be quoted, that does not desire peace and harmony and friendship and a patriotic and fraternal union between the North and the South. This wish is spontaneous and universal throughout the Northern States ; and yet, among men of character and sense, there is surely no need of attempting to deceive ourselves as to the precise truth. First pure, then peaceable. Gush will not remove a grievance, and no disguise of State rights will close the eyes of our people to the necessity of correcting a great National wrong. Nor should the South make the fatal SOUTHERX ABUSE OF ELECTIVE FRAXCHISE. 209 mistake of concluding tliat injustice to the negro is not also injustice to the white man ; nor should it ever be forgotten that for the wrongs of both a remedy will assuredly be found. The war, with all its costly sacrifices, was fought in vain unless equal rights for all classes be established in all the States of the Union. In words which are those of friendship, however they may be accepted, I tell the men of the South here on this floor and beyond this Chamber, that even if they could strip the negro of his Constitutional rights they can never perma- nently maintain the inequality of white men in this nation. They can never make a white man's vote in the South doubly as powerful in the administration of the Government as a white man's vote in the North. In a memorable debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Macaulay reminded Daniel O'Connell, when he was moving for Repeal, that the English Whigs had endured calumny, abuse, popular fury, loss of position, exclusion from Parliament rather than that the great agitator himself should be less than a British subject ; and Mr. Macaulay warned him that they would never suffer him to be more. Let me now remind you that the Gov- ernment, under whose protecting flag we sit to-day, sacrificed myriads of lives and expended thousands of millions of treas- ure that our countrymen of the South should remain citizens of the United States, having equal personal rights and equal political privileges with all other citizens. I venture, now and here, to warn the men of the South, in the exact words of Macaulay, that we will never suffer them to be more ! [Note. — The resolution offered by Mr. Blaine was amended by assigning the work of investigation to a siiecial committee instead of the Judiciary. The report of the well-known " Teller Committee " was the result of the movement.] 210 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. SPEECH OF MR. BLAINE AT THE DINNER OF THE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, DEC. 23, 1878. [The President of the Society, Mr. D, F. Appleton, called on Senator Blaine to respond to the following toast, introducing him, not as a native, but as a representative man from New England : — "New England Character — adapted to every requirement: it fits her sons not only to fill, but to adorn every station." Mr. Blaine's response is given below.] Gentlemen of the New England Society, — Your President has kindly relieved me from a personal explanation. I am only a brother-in-law, so to speak. Brothers-in-law are useful in families occasionally, and in a New-England family, where modesty is the prevailing fault, and where you can rarely induce one of the direct blood and descent to say any thing in praise of his race, it is, perhaps, fortunate that, unem- barrassed by personal prudery, I can speak my mind freely about you. I never saw New England until after I was a man grown, but I have lived more than half my life on its soil, and I have six children, who represent the ninth generation in descent from ancestors who belonged to the old Massachusetts colony. I am ready to say, Mr. President, in any presence, recollecting, as I always do, with pride, my Pennsylvania birtli and my Scotch and Scotch-Irish ancestry — I am ready to say, that in the settlement of this continent and the shaping and moulding of its free institutions, the leading place belongs to New England. Every chapter of its stalwart history is weighty with momentous events. A small number of immi- grants came in 1620 ; there was no appreciable increase of immi- gration until after 1630 ; there was none after 1640. The twenty-one thousand men who came in those brief years are the progenitors of a race that includes one-third of the people ADDRESS BEFORE THE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY. 211 of the United States of America. They are the progenitors of a race of people twice as numerous as all who spoke the Eng- lish language when they came to these shores. The tyrannical father of Frederick the Great said to his tutor, " Instruct this young boy in history ; do not dwell much on the ancients, but let him know every thing that has hap- pened in the last hundred and fifty years." I submit to you, Mr. President, that the great event which has happened in the last hundred and fifty years has been the progress of the Eng- lish-speaking race. Not seven millions of people spoke the tongue when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth; not seventeen millions spoke it when the American Revolution was born. In this hundred years the progress of other nations has been great. The German empire has been re-formed, and is stronger and firmer than it ever existed before ; Russia, springing from semi-barbarism, has come to be a first-class power; Italy has been born again, and promises something of its ancient grandeur; France has fallen and risen, and fallen and again risen under the aid and inspiration of Republican energy and patriotism. Yet with all this progress of all these countries, the one great fact of the last hundred years is that when the revolution of the American colonies was fought, the English-speaking people of the world were not 17,000,000, and to-day they are 100,000,000 in number. Another fact — I pray you will excuse my reviewing history. We are in the habit of deploring the hardships of the men who settled New England, and in deploring their hardships we are in the habit of alluding to them as a poor and friendless and downcast race of men. They were any thing else. They had the nerve and courage to endure hardship. They were a class of men, the like of whom never before and never since emigrated from any land. They were men of intelligence and learning: they were men of property. The twenty-one thou- sand men that came to New England and settled the five colo- nies of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, New Haven, Connecticut, and Providence, brought with them according to authentic his- tory, five hundred thousand pounds — two and a half millions of our dollars. Reckoning money as worth then six times what it is now, this property represents, in its power to purchase, at 212 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. least fifteen millions of our money of to-day. Show me any other twenty-one tliousand emigrants in this world that ever carried fifteen millions of property with them — anywhere ! How few towns in the United States of twenty-one thousand people to-day represent more than fifteen millions of property! These Puritan emigrants were men as I have already said of property and education and large experience in affairs ; they were men who were accomplished in the literature of Milton and Locke and Lightfoot ; they were men in whose ministry were John Robinson and Brewster and Davenport ; they were men in whose statesmanship were Cromwell and Hampden and Pym ; they were men who, in all the great departments of civil polity and in all the great features of personal and individual character, led the van of the English race. When we wonder at what has been done in New England we wonder without due reflection, for those men brought with them all the elements of the great success that has since crowned their efforts. They brought one thing which has endured well, and that was the belief that if you set in motion a principle founded on truth, it will go through. [Applause.] They sturdily believed, in the language of one of their most eloquent men, that an army of principles will penetrate where an army of men cannot enter. The Rhine cannot stop it or the ocean arrest its progress. It will march to the horizon of the world, and it will conquer. And the conquest is permanent ! That this strong race has been abused and reviled, is, of course, inevitable. You remember the old fellow in London, fumbling with his watch-chain, who replied to some one complimenting him on its strength, " Of course it is strong. There isn't a pick- pocket in London as hasn't taken a tug at it in his day." There is hardly any one outside of New England who has not taken a hand in abusing the Yankee race. I never heard it abused in quite so eloquent a manner as by our friend of the Central Rail- road this evening when speaking for the West. Assuredly I agree with liim that New-Englanders ought to remember the influence which the West has had upon New England, and by the West you must remember New England means all of the North American continent outside of her own borders. We are constantly telling the Western people how much New Eng- ADDRESS BEFORE THE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY. 213 land has done for them, and in sober truth it has done a great deal. But let me frankly acknowledge that the "West has moulded and modified and developed and advanced New Eng- land in a degree which New England does not perhaps fully appreciate. Just as New England has re-acted upon Old Eng- land, so the New-Englanders who have gone West have re-acted upon the New-Englanders who have remained at home. The New England of fifty years ago of which our reverend friend. Dr. Storrs, spoke so eloquently, does not exist to-day. The New England of which my friend Dejoew has spoken of as swarming into New York is a thing of the past. They have taken possession. The current has practically been equal- ized, and by action and re-action, New-England ideas, potent always in the West and throughout the country, have become still more potent by the fact that the original source of the influence has been largely affected by the streams which have returned to fructify and enrich at home. Another feature. We forget that when the Pilgrim Fathers came to this country they left a state of affairs in England which boded revolution, and which in effect wrought out two revolu- tions before the English people achieved the rights for which they were contending. Yet, in 1620, the Pilgrim Fathers planted in this country the exact rights which those at home in England obtained by the beheading of Charles I. and the expulsion of his son, James II., from the throne. They brought with them the abandonment of feudalism ; they brought the abolition of primogeniture ; they brought the annulment of the entail law ; they brought the destruction of the privileges of the nobility ; they brought and founded here sixty-eight years before it was realized in England, all the great reforms for which two bloody revolutions were fought — revolutions which cost one king his head and another his crown in Old England. Mr. President, I should like to see this brilliant company seated at a typical New England feast of the olden time, — a feast spread on tables that came over in the Mayfloiver^ — you can find plent}'' of them at home ; the guests seated on chairs that belonged to John Alden and Miles Standish, — and no well-regulated New-England family is without a broken assortment of them. It would be extremely edifjang to see a 214 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. feast that should reproduce as far as might be the harder times and the coarser fare which they endured in order that we might enjoy the more bounteous and more sumptuous repast with which we are indulged to-day by the New England Society of New York — and I almost catch my breath when I say the New England Society of New York — you do not know how we regard it in New England ! There are a great many men in New England who aspire to a seat in Congress, first in the House, and then in the Senate, and thence forward or backward to tiie Cabinet, and then, under the inspiration of the strong air and the mountain scenery of Vermont aspire still higher [turning round to Mr. Evarts — a movement which provoked loud laughter]. But that is only the few. The one thing which every boy, as he grows up in New England, looks forward to as the crowning glory of his life, is to dine on some auspicious day with the New England Society of New York. Without this, his sum of human happiness is incom- plete. I have received your invitation for many years past, but it has been my misfortune never to have been able to be present until now, and I am here this evening to acknowledge all the pleasure I enjoy in the present, and to exj)ress my regret for all that I have missed in the past ! And while we are enjoying this dinner and complimenting ourselves — or I am compli- menting you — I should like, Mr. President, to impress upon every New-Englander, whether seated at the primitive table of coarse fare or the modern table of costly luxury, that with one voice we should echo the declarations of our distin- guished friend, the Secretary of the Treasury [Mr. Sherman], in favor of an honest dollar, and declare with equal earnestness our faith in an honest ballot ! The principles of our Fathers demand that we should supplement the j)eaceful and prom- ising picture drawn by the eloquent Secretary of State (Mr. Evarts) with the resolution that wherever an honest dollar cir- culates, an honest ballot shall sustain it. I could wish that in this respect the habit and the practice of the New England States might spread rapidly and succeed completely through- out the whole country. For I am reminded, with a citizen of Massachusetts on one side of me and a native of Massa- chusetts on the other, that in that great Commonwealth, in a ADDRESS BEFORE THE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY. 215 hotly-contested election, in which the passions and pride and prejudices of men were enlisted, there was a contest so close that the party in power, having, as we would saj', all the counters in their possession, in a total poll of more than one hundred thousand votes were beaten by a majority of one, — and Edward Everett the Whig walked out and Marcus Morton the Democrat walked in. None but the English-speaking peo- ple have yet been fully educated in the belief that a majority of one is as good as a majority of one hundred thousand, but we do believe it and we practice it and abide by it in New England. I need not say that a majority going even into the millions, if it be founded on force or on fraud, will never bring contentment or peace or honor or profit to the people of the United States. Mr. President, I thank you very sincerely, I thank you all, gentlemen of the New England Society, for the cordiality of your welcome. In this inspiring scene, in this brilliant assem- blage, surrounded with every thing that gives comfort and grace and elegance to social life, in this meeting, protected by law, itself representing law, let me recall one sad memory, — the memory of those who in 1620 landed on the Plymouth shore, and did not survive the first year. Of all the men engaged in heroic contests, those deserve our tenderest remem- brance who, making all the sacrifice and enduring all the hardship, are not permitted to enjoy the triumph. Quincy died before the first shot was fired in the Revolution which he did so much to create ; Warren was killed at the first clash of arms in defense of the cause which was so sacred to his patriotic heart ; Reynolds, rallying his corps for the critical battle of Gettysburg, fell while yet its fate was doubtful ; McPherson, in the great march to the sea, lost his life before the triumphant close of that daring and romantic expedition. For these and all like unto them, from Plymouth Rock to the last battle- field of the civil war, Avho perished in their pride, and perished before they could know that they were dying not in vain but for a cause destined to victory, I offer, and I am sure you will join with me in offering, our veneration and our homage J 216 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. CHINESE IMMIGRATION TO THE PACIFIC SLOPE. [The question of abrogating so ranch of the Bnrlingame Treaty as permitted the free immigration of Chinese was before the Senate of the United States in February, 1879. On the 14th of that month Mr, Blaine addressed the Senate as follows : — ] Mr. President, — In the remarks made yesterday b}'- the honorable senator from Ohio [Mr. Matthews] he intimated, if he did not directly assert, that the Government of the United States had solicited from the Chinese Empire the treaty now under consideration. The statement is I think, though of course not so intended, the exact reverse of the historic fact. What is known as the Reed Treaty had given to the merchants of the United States, and to all who desired to trade in China, the facilities they desired. The Burlingame Treaty involving other points was certainly asked from the United States in the most impressive manner by a Chinese embassy. The eminent gentleman who had gone to China as our minister, had trans- ferred his services to the Chinese Empire, and returning to us with great prestige at the head of a special embassy from China, with a great number of friends at home, was able to do what perhaps no other man then living could have done for China. He was often spoken of during his lifetime as merely a stump speaker. He has been ten years in his grave ; and I desire, now that his name is before us, to refer to him as a man of great address and great ability, a man who showed his power by the commanding position which he acquired in the Chinese Empire and by the influence which he exerted in his own country in its relations to China. This subject divides itself naturally into two parts, one of form and one of substance. The one of form is whether we may rightfully adopt this mode of terminating the treaty. CHINESE IMMIGRATION". 217 The second and graver question is whether it is desirable to exclude Chinese immigration from this country. I noticed that the senator from Ohio yesterday in discussing the first of these questions called the attention of the Senate to the gravity of the obligation which exists between the two countries, but he stopped reading at a very significant point. He read the following paragraph or part of a paragraph from the fifth article of the treaty : — " The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigra- tion of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents." Here the honorable senator from Ohio stopped, and it was well for his argument that he did, for directly after the words that he read are the following : — " The high contracting parties, therefore, join in reprobating any other than an entirely voluntary emiyration for these purposes. They consequently agree to pass laws making it a penal offense for a citizen of the United States or Chinese subjects to take Chinese subjects either to the United States or to nay other foreign country, or for a Chinese subject or citizen of the United States to take citizens of the United States to China or to any other foreign country without their free and voluntary consent respectively. " I maintain that the latter clause of the treaty has been per- sistently violated by China from the hour it was made. In the sense in which we receive immigration from Europe not one Chinese immigrant has ever come to these shores. The qualify- ing words were understood at the time to have been penned by Mr. Seward. They are worth repeating ; and as my honorable friend from Ohio did not read them yesterday, I will read them again in his hearing : — " The high contracting parties, therefore, join in reprobating any other than an entirely voluntary emigration for these purposes." The words are worth emphasizing ; not merely " voluntary," it must be " entirely voluntary," and then each nation is to make laws to secure this end. I am informed by those who are more familiar with this subject than I am, that no notice has been received at the State Department showing that China has ever complied with that provision of the treaty requiring 218 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. her to make laws regulating emigration. Still less has slie atteniiDted to enforce a law on the subject. The mere mak- ing of a law and not enforcing it would be no compliance with the treaty. The Chinese agree, in other words, to enforce the provision that there should be nothing else than "voluntary" emigration, an "entirely voluntary" emigration. They have never done as they agreed, they have been absolutely faithless on that point. The treaty stands as broken and defied by China from the hour it was made to this time. Its terms have never been complied with. We have been compelled to legislate against it. We legislated against it in the Cooly law. The Chinese were so flagrantly violating it that statutes of the United States were enacted to contravene the evil the Chinese were doing. The evil has gone on, probably not so grossly since these laws were passed as before, but in effect the same. The point which the senator makes in regard to our Punic faith in attempting to break this treaty, is therefore answered by the fact that the treaty has been broken continuously by the other power. The senator from Ohio asked what we should do in a similar case if the other contracting party were Great Britain or Ger- many or France or any power that was able to make war. I ask the honorable senator what he would advise us to do if Great Britain or France or Germany should locate six commer- cial companies in New York, whose business it should be to bring to this country the worst class and the lowest class of the population of those three kingdoms ? What would the honorable senator from Ohio say to that? or does he hesitate to declare what we should say to it ? Mr. Matthews. Does the senator desire an answer ? Mr. Blaine. Yes, if the senator pleases. Mr. Matthews. Then, Mr. President, I would say this, that instead of inaugurating an arbitrary and ex 'parte act of legislation on our own part, giving our own construction to the treaty and the conduct of the other party under it, I would, through the usual diplomatic representative of this countrj'-, make representations to that Government making complaints of the alleged breach of the treaty, and ask what answer could be made to that ; and only in the event, as a last resort, of a CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 219 contumacious refusal to obey the plain requisitions of the treaty- obligation, would I resort to a repudiation of our own obliga- tions under it. Mr. Blaine. Ah ! I asked him what he would do in case the contracting parties had themselves broken the treaty and we were the victims of the breach. He answers me that he would take hat in hand and bow politely before them, and ask them if they would not behave better ! What are we to do as a measure of self-defense when they have broken it, and taken the initiative ? I say that this country and this Senate would not hesitate to call any European power to account. The argu- ment the senator meant to employ was that we were doing toward a helpless power, not able to make war against us, that which we would not do if a cannon were pointed toward us by a strong power. Does the senator doubt that if any one of these countries should locate six commercial companies here to import the worst portion of their population and put it upon our shores (and you cannot find so bad a population in all Europe as that of which I am speaking), that we would hesitate in our course towards the offending power ? In regard to this treaty, the senator says we should give notice. It has been stated many times in the hearing of the Senate, that nearly one year ago we called the attention of the Executive to this matter. Certainly it must be the presump- tion of Congress that the President did his duty in the prem- ises. It is not for any senator here to speak of what he has done or what he has not done. The presumption is that all departments have done their duty ; and the plain duty of the Executive was to bring this resolution by way of notice to the attention of the Chinese Government. There is another fea- ture to which I beg the honorable senator from Ohio to direct his attention. I hold in my hand a book which contains all the treaties which have been made by the United States with for- eign powers from the organization of the Government to the year 1873. The treaties are about two hundred and thirty in number, I think ; about one-half of them with European powers, the remainder with South American, Central American, Mexi- can, Asiatic, and African countries. I believe I could say, although I am a little modest about universal affirmations, I 220 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. believe it is almost true as a universal affirmation, that you cannot find, with the exception of the Burlingame Treat}^ any- one in that whole list relating to a commercial connection, which does not either terminate itself by a certain date or provide the mode of its termination. Almost all of them have a given date upon which they expire. Some of them have a time within which either party may give notice, but there is a clause in almost every one of them providing that by a certain process either country may free itself from the obligations that it assumed. The Burlingame Treaty is peculiar ; it relates to a commercial and personal connection of trade and of emigration, but it does not say that it shall last ten years or twenty years, or any other period ; it is interminable in its provisions ; it does not provide that we shall give notice in a certain way, or that China shall give notice in a certain way. There is no provision in the world by which it can be terminated unless one of the parties shall take the initiative, as is now proposed. It is, " I repeat," evident that one party or the other must take the initiative. The senator from Ohio says he would go to the Emperor and make certain representations. Then I ask the honorable senator. Suppose the Emperor should refuse, what would he do? Suppose the Emperor should say, "You have entered into a treaty with my Government for all time ; its very terms show that there was to be no limit to it." I ask the honorable senator from Ohio what he would then do? Suppose we are unanimously of opinion here that the treaty ought not to continue, what would the honorable senator do in case the Emperor should say, "I desire to stand by that treaty"? What then? Mr. Matthews. Does the senator wish an answer ? Mr. Blaine. Yes, if it be agreeable to the honorable senator from Ohio. Mr. Matthews. I should take it into consideration. [Laugh- ter.] Mr. Blaine. That is a very exact and executive way of doing things. The honorable senator would consider. That is just about as definite a point as I supposed the sena- tor would come to. If the Senate unanimously determine that this treaty ought to be ended and we send an embassy, CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 221 as he suggests, to the Emperor and the Emperor says, " No, I thmk it ought not to be ended," the senator says he would come back and sit down and take it into serious considera- tion. Tlie learned senator from Ohio, eminent in the law as he is known to be, read us a lesson upon the great obligations that rest upon us as a nation of honorable people, as if indeed we were about to do something in the way of terminating a treaty that would give us a bad name and fame among the nations of the earth. In answer to the honorable senator, without attempting to defend all that has been done by various nations in regard to the termination of treaties, let me say that it has been the usual habit and is laid down in the very principia of the law of nations (which I need not quote), that when a people find a treaty " pernicious to the nation," — the very words of Vattel, — they may terminate it. We took advantage of this French authority on a very memorable occasion. The treaty which we made with France in 1778^ a treaty that was considered to be the origin of our strength in the Revolutionary war, contained this article : — " Xeither of the two parties shall conclude either truce or peace with Great Britain without tlie foi'inal consent of the other, first obtained." The French afterward said that the Americans, without giv- ing them the slightest notice, " stealthily precipitated " a peace, and left them open either to war or negotiation ; and when we were accused of it, we quoted their own author and replied that this action was absolutely essential to the life of our 3"oung Nation. We were compelled to do it, and we did it. Self- preservation is the first law of nations, as well as of nature, and we resorted to it. I proceed, Mr. President, to the second branch of my sub- ject. The Chinese question is not new in this body. We have had it here very often, and have had it here in important rela- tions, and I wish to lay down this principle, that, so far as my vote is concerned, I will not admit a man by immigration to this country whom I am not willing to place on the basis of a citizen. Let me repeat that we ought not to permit in this 222 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. country of universal suffrage the immigration of a great people, great in numbers, whom we ourselves declare to be utterly unfit for citizenship. What do we say on that point? In the Senate of the United States, on the fourth day of July, 1870, a patriotic day, we were amending the naturalization laws. We had practically made all the negroes of the United States voters ; at least we had said they should not be deprived of suffrage by reason of race or color. We had admitted them all, and we then amended the naturalization laws so that the emigrant from Africa could be- come a citizen of the United States. Then Senator Trumbull moved to add : — " Or persons born in the Chinese Empire." He said : — " I have offered this amendment so as to bring the distinct question before the Senate, whether they will vote to naturalize persons from Africa, and vote to refuse to naturalize those who come from China. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment." The yeas and nays were as follows on the question of whether we would ever admit a Chinaman to become an American citi- zen. The yeas were : — "Messrs. Fenton, Fowler, McDonald, Pomeroy, Rice, Robertson, Sprague, Sunmer, and Trumbull. — 9." The nays were : — "Messi-s. Bayard, Boreman, Chandler, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Gilbert, Hamilton of Maryland, Hamlin, Harlan, Howe, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Osborn, Ramsey, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Scott, Stewart, Stockton, Thayer, Thurman, Tipton, Vickers, Warner, Willey, Williams, and Wilson. — 31." It will thus be seen that the vote was thirty-one against nine in a Senate three-fourths Republican, declaring that the Chinaman never ought to be made a citizen. I think this set- tles the whole question, if the position assumed by that vote was a correct one, because in our system of Government as it is to-day you cannot, with safety to all, permit a large immi- gration of people who are not to be made citizens. The senator from California [Mr. Sargent] tells us that already the male adult Chinese in California are as numerous as the white CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 223 voters. I take him as an authority from his own State, as I should expect him to take my statement as authority about my own State. It seems to me that if we adopt as a permanent policy the free immigration of those who, by overwhelming votes in both branches of Congress must forever remain political and social pariahs in a great free Government, we have introduced an element that we cannot control. We cannot stop where we are. We are compelled to do one of two things — either ex- clude the immigration of Chinese or if we admit them, include them in the great family of citizens. The argument is often put forward that there is no special danger that large numbers of Chinese will come here ; that it is not a practical question ; and as the honorable senator from' Ohio is free to answer, I ask him if the number should mount up into the millions, what would be his view? Mr. Matthews. The senator seems to expect a reply to his inquiry. I would say that when there was a reasonable appre- hension by the United States of the immigration mounting up to such numbers, then I would take that into consideration. Mr. Blaine. Take that into consideration also ! The sena- tor is definite ! If the Chinese should amount to millions in the population of the Pacific slope, he would begin to take it into consideration ! That is practical legislation ! That is legislating for an evil which is upon us to-day ! The senator's statesmanship is certainly of a considerate kind. A word now about the question of numbers. Did it ever occur to my honorable friend from Ohio that the large numbers, the incalculable hordes in China, are much nearer to the Pacific coast of the United States, in point of money and transit, in point of expense of reaching it, than the people of Kansas ? A man in Shanghai or Hong-Kong can be delivered at San Fran- cisco more cheaply than a man in Omaha. I do not speak of the Atlantic coast, where the population is still more remote ; but you may take the Mississippi Valley, Illinois, Iowa, Ne- braska, Kansas, Missouri, all the great commonwealths of that valley, and they are, in point of expense, farther off from the Pacific slope than the population of China and Japan. I am told by those who are familiar with the commercial 224 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. affairs of the Pacific slope that a person can be sent from any of tlie great Chinese ports to San Francisco for about thirty dol- lars. I suppose in an emigrant train over the Pacific Railroad from Omaha, not to speak of the expense of reaching Omaha, but from that point alone, it would cost fifty dollars per head. So that in point of cheap transportation to California the Chinaman to-day has an advantage over an American laborer in any part of the country, except in the case of those who are already on the Pacific coast. Ought we to exclude them? The question lies in my mind thus : Either the Caucasian race will possess the Pacific slope or the Mongolian race will possess it. Give IMongolians the start to-day, with the keen thrust of necessity behind them, and with the ease of transportation and the inducement of higher wages before them, and it is entirely probable if not demonstrable that while we are filling up the other portions of the continent, they will occupy the great space of country between the Sierras and the Pacific coast. The Chinese are themselves to-day estab- lishing steamship lines; they are themselves to-day providing the means of transportation ; and when gentlemen say that we admit from all other countries, where do you find the slightest parallel? In a Republic especially, in any Government that maintains itself, the linit of order and of administration is in the family. The emigrants that come to us from all portions of the British Isles, from Germany, from Norway, from Denmark, from France, from Spain, from Italy, come here with the idea of the family as much engraven on their minds and on their cus- toms and habits as ours. The Asiatic cannot live with our population and make a homogeneous element. The idea of comparing European immigration with an immigration that has no regard to family, that does not recognize the relation of hus- band and wife, that does not observe the tie of parent and child, that does not feel in the slightest degree the humanizing and the ennobling influences of the hearth-stone and the fireside ! When gentlemen talk loosely about emigration from European countries as contrasted with that, they certainly are forgetting history and forgetting themselves. My honorable colleague [Mr. Hamlin] and the senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] voted that the Chinaman ought not to CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 225 be a citizen of this country, voted that he ought not to become a voter in this countr}'. My honorable friend from Wisconsin now says, sotto voce, tliat he did not vote that the Chinaman never shoukl be enfranchised ; but he is like the honorable sena- tor from Ohio ; he voted " no," and then proceeded to take the question "into consideration" — leisurely, and he has been leisurely considering it for ten years. When the question was before us, whether the Chinaman should be a subject of natu- ralization, the senator from W^isconsin said "no," and he said "no" at a time when he said the negro directly from Africa might come in and be naturalized. He said " no " at a time when every other immigrant from every portion of the habitable globe was the subject of naturalization. I think the Chinaman in California, if he is to be forced upon us in great numbers, would be safer as a voter, dangerous as that would be, than as a political pariah. Mr. Howe. Why not apply that remed}' ? Mr. Blaine. You do not remedy one evil b}" precipitating another evil. I wish to remove both. You only present me another evil. I am opposed to the Chinese coming here ; I am opposed to making them citizens ; I am opposed to making them voters. But the senator from Wisconsin must contemplate the fact that with the ordinary immigration now going on, if the statistics given by the honorable senator from California are correct, we shall soon have a large majority of the male adults of California non-voters ; and with the Republic organ- ized as it is to-day, I do not believe that you can maintain a non-voting class in this country. Negro suffrage was a neces- sity. Abused as suffrage has been in the South, curtailed unfairly, it is still the shield and defense of that race ; and with all its imperfections and all its abuses and all its short- comings by reason of his own ignorance or by the tyranny of others, the suffrage of the negro has wrought out, or has pointed the wa}^ by which shall be wrought out, his personal liberty, his political salvation. I have talked with a great many gentlemen on the opposite side of this question, and I never jQi have seen one who did not, like the honorable senator from Ohio, desire to escape present responsibility, and take the subject into consideration 226 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. when it came to the point of how far this immigration shall be permitted to go? The honorable senator declined to tell me where he would limit it. I have never yet found any one who would say that he would allow it to be illimitable. I have never yet found an advocate of Chinese immigration, who was willing to name a point where he would fix it and restrain it. Is there any senator on this floor — and I ask to be answered if there is — who will say that under the operation of the Burlingame Treaty, as it is now administered, he is willing that the Chinese should come in and occupy the three Pacific States to the exclusion of the whites ? I will repeat my question in another form : Should we be justified in sitting still here in the administration of this Government and permitting this treaty to remain in force and the immigration which it allows, to go forward until those three States of the Pacific side should be overridden by that population ? That is what I ask every senator. Mr. Hamlik. If my colleague wants an answer, I will give him one for myself. I will come a little nearer my colleague than the senator from Ohio ; I will take it into consideration now. I will meet every question as it shall arise, and I will state to my colleague how I would meet it when it shall arise. It has not arisen now. When the time shall come that I become satisfied that the population of China will overrun our country, and there shall be danger or imminent peril from that immigra- tion, I will join with my colleague in abrogating all treaties with them ; not one single little paragraph of a treaty, while we ask them to maintain it in its integrity for all the commer- cial advantages that the treaty bestows upon us, and all the protection that that treaty gives us to the right of trial by jury under our own laws. I will not meet it by an attempt to abro- gate a treaty upon a little point, while we are the beneficiaries in the great and substantial points. I am indifferent to all the danger that shall come away down into the stillness of ages from the immigration of the Chinese. Treat them, I will not say like pagans, because Confucius would shame us if we go to his counsel — treat them like Christians, and they will become good American citizens. [Applause in the gal- leries.] CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 227 Mr. Blaine. But my colleague voted that they should not become American citizens. Mr. Hamlin. I do not want to intei-rupt my colleague, but I will state before the debate shall close, the reasons which were satisfactory to my mind for my vote then, and I am half inclined to believe that I will so state them that my colleague himself will see that I then voted right. Mr. Blaine. I would have voted with my colleague on that question, as I have already stated. Mr. Sargent. Will the senator from Maine [Mr. Blaine] allow me to justify a statement he has made ? I will take but a moment. I understood his colleague [Mr. Hamlin] to say that the average importation of Chinese during the last twenty years had been four thousand a year. Mr. Hamlin. Between four and five thousand. I think it is utterly impossible to state with precise accuracy what is the number of Chinese in this country at this time. I think, how- ever, it can be approximated very closely. The senator from California has stated the basis of his conclusions. Now I will give from the Alta Californian Almanac^ published in San Francisco, the calculation, and I will read it to the Senate. It may be they have made an under-estimate, but they would not be very likely to do it in that community. Mr. Sargent. That paper is very strongly pro-Chinese, and the only one on the Pacific coast. Mr. Hamlin. The only one ! I think there are five in the city of San Francisco which favor the immigration of Chinese. I have two or three of them here. In thirty years, according to the official report, the gain in the arrivals over departures has been 130,863, or at the rate of 4,662 per annum. The deaths, according to the Alta Almanac, page 43, number about 20 for every 1,000 per annum ; but taking the largest number given for arrivals, 233,000, and taking the official figure of returns, 93,000, and deaths of 20 in every 1,000 per annum, and you have 128,000 deducted from the 233,000, leaving the number on this continent at the present time the enormous number of about 100,000 I The Alta Almanac further gives, on page 43, the number in California at 78,000, while I under- stand the official record of the Chinese themselves places the 228 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. number in California at but 60,000. Now, I say to my col- league, it was upon that information that I said the arrivals beyond the departures had been between four and five thousand. Mr. Blaine. Still the wonder grows with me that if the aggregate immigration is so small and will remain so small, as my colleague states, he should still have thought and have voted that they ought not to be citizens, and could not be safely trusted with the elective franchise. All that my honor- able colleague has said makes me wonder still more at that vote, although, as I state, I would have given the same vote with him ; but I would have given it on entirely different con- siderations and with an entirely different view. I am sure, even if I repeat myself in so saying, that no gentleman can justify an indefinite immigration from China who is not willing to assume and justify all the responsibilities of making the immigrants citizens of the United States, because we cannot continue to expose the Pacific coast to that immigration with a non-voting class largely outnumbering the voting class. The senator from Ohio [Mr. Matthews] made light of the race trouble. I supposed if there be any part of the world where a man would not make light of a race trouble it was the United States. I supposed if there were any people in the world that had a race trouble on hand it was the American people. I supposed if the admonitions of our own history were any thing to us, we should regard the race trouble as the one thing to be dreaded, the one thing to be avoided. We are not through with it yet. It has cost us a great many lives ; it has cost us a great many millions of treasure. Does any man feel that we are safely through with it now ? Does any man here to-day assume that we have so entirely solved and settled all the troubles growing out of the negro-race trouble that we are prepared to invite a similar one ? If so, he learns a lesson from history which I have not been taught. If anj^ gentleman, look- ing into the future of this country, sees, for certain sections of it at least, peace and good order and absolute freedom from any trouble growing out of race, he sees with more sanguine vision than mine. With this trouble already upon us, it would, in my judgment, be the last degree of recklessness deliberately CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 229 to invite or permit another and possibly a far more serious one to be tlirust upon us. Treat them like Christians, my colleague says ; and yet I be- lieve the Christian testimony from the Pacific coast is that the conversion of Chinese is largely a failure ; that the demoraliza- tion of the white race is a much more rapid result of the contact than the conversion of the Chinese race, and that up to this time there has been little progress made in the one direction while much evil has been done in the other. I heard the honorable senator from California who sits on this side of the Chamber [Mr. Booth] say that there is not, as we under- stand it, in all the one hundred and twenty thousand Chinese (whether I state the exact number does not matter in this point of view), there does not exist among the whole of them the relation of family. There is not a peasant's cottage in- habited by a Chinaman ; there is not a hearth-stone, as it is found and cherished in an American home, or an English home, or a German home, or a French home. There is not a domestic fireside in that sense ; and yet you say that it is en- tirely safe to sit down and quietly permit that mode of life to be fastened upon our country. A half-century ago this ques- tion could not have been made a practical one. Means of communication, ease of access, cheapness of transportation, have changed the issue, and forced it upon our attention. I believe now that if the Congress of the United States should in effect confirm the treaty and the status of immigration as it now is, law and order could not be maintained in California without the interposition of the military five years hence. Do I overstate that? Mr. Sargent. I am sorry to say that I think the senator does not overstate it. Mr. Blaine. I do not justify the brutality of the treatment of those Chinese who are here. That is greatly to be regretted and greatly to be condemned. But you must deal with things as you find them. If you foresee a conflict upon that coast by reason of an immigration that calls for the interposition of the military, I think it is a great deal wiser and more direct way to avoid the trouble by preventing the immigration. I have heard much of late about their cheap labor. I do not 230 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. myself believe in clieap labor. I do not believe cheap labor should be an object of legislation, and it cannot be in a Republic. The wealthy classes in a Republic where suffrage is universal, cannot safely legislate for cheap labor. I repeat it. The wealthy classes in a Republic where suffrage is universal, must not legislate in favor of cheap labor. Labor should not be cheap, and it should not be dear ; it should have its share, and it will have its share. There is not a laborer on the Pacific coast to-day — I say that to my honorable colleague whose whole life has been consistent and uniform in defense and advocacy of the interests of the laboring classes — there is not a laboring- man on the Pacific coast to-day who does not feel wounded and grieved by the competition that comes from this immigra- tion. Then the answer is, "But, are not American laborers equal to Chinese laborers?" I answer that question by asking another. Were not free white American laborers equal to African slaves in the South? When you tell me that the Chinaman driving out the free American laborer only proves the superiority of the Chinaman, I ask you if the African slave driving out the free white labor from the South proved the superiority of slave labor ? The conditions are not unlike : the parallel is not complete, and yet it is a parallel. Chinese labor is servile labor. It is not free labor such as we intend to develop and encourage and build up in this country. It is labor that comes here under a mortgage. It is labor that comes here to subsist on what the American laborer cannot subsist on. You cannot work a man who must have beef and bread, and would like beer, in competition with a man who can live on rice. In all such conflicts and in all such struggles the result is not to bring up the man who lives on rice to the beef and bread standard, but it is to bring down the man living on beef and bread to the rice standard. Slave labor degraded free labor. It took out its respectability, it put an odious caste upon it. It throttled the prosperity of one of the fairest portions of the Union ; and a worse tlian slave labor will throttle and impair the prosperity of a still finer and fairer sec- tion of the Union. We can choose here to-day whether our legislation shall be in the interest of the American free laborer or in favor of the servile laborer from China. CHINESE IMMIGRATIOX. 231 I rose, Mr. President, to speak briefly. I have had many interruptions or I should have long since taken my seat. In conclusion, I maintain that the legislation now proposed is in strictest accord with international obligation on these two grounds : First we have given notice ; and second the Chinese Empire has persistently violated the treaty. Whether you take it on the one ground or the other, we are entirely justified in adopting the pending measure. The Chinese have never lived for one year or even one month by the terms of the treaty. A treaty, I repeat, which is interminable, so far as its own lan- guage is involved, must be terminated if either party desires its termination, by just such action as this bill proposes. The question of form being disposed of, the question of substance is whether on full consideration we shall devote that interesting and important section of the United States which borders on the Peaceful Sea to be the home and the refuge of our own people and our own blood, or whether we shall leave it open, not to the competition of other nations like ourselves, but to those who, degraded themselves, will inevitably degrade us. We have this day to choose whether we shall have for the Pacific coast the civilization of Christ or the civilization of Confucius. 232 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. [The day following the preceding speech Mr. Blaine delivered the following, in answer to a speech from Senator Eustis of Louisiana: — ] Mr. President, — I have heard nothing in the debate, — I believe I have listened to all of it, — that could possibly give the honorable senator from Louisiana a justification for saying that there was any defense made of outrages perpe- trated in California against the Chinese who are already there. I think the human race on all continents would join in execrat- mg any cruelty or injustice toward those foreigners who are in California in pursuance of treaty stipulations, and who are entitled to the protection of the law. Nor can the senator adduce from any thing that I said, nor do I think he can adduce from what any other senator has said, a shadow of plea in behalf of extending lenity toward those in the South who abuse the colored race. The senator from Louisiana forgets a great distinction in the matter. The colored race in Lou- isiana are differently related to us from the Chinese who have not yet left China. I beg the honorable senator to observe that this legislation is aimed at the Chinese who have not yet left China. I beg him further to observe that the great majority of the colored race in Louisiana had rights there when his own honored ancestry were still living in New England. The problem is wholly different. If birth, if nativity, if long settle- ment, if domicile, give any rights so far as Louisiana is con- cerned, the senator himself is but a carpet-bagger of the second generation, as compared with the negroes, who have been in Louisiana for eight generations. I do not deny that a race trouble springs from the situation and surroundings of the negro. I spoke of it freely yester- CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 233 day. There is a trouble, but that trouble is not to be healed by the remedy which I understand the honorable senator from Louisiana to advocate, viz. : that National authority and the National protection shall be withdrawn, and that the negroes shall be given up to the government of what the senator from Louisiana calls the superior race. But I think the senator errs in speaking of the Anglo-Saxon as specially in conflict with the negro in Louisiana. He is better versed in the history of Louisiana than I, but I have heard that a vast deal of the trouble in Louisiana comes not from the Anglo-Saxon race, but from descendants of the Latin race ; and when he speaks of the Anglo-Saxon race, he probably applies the term to the race which, by numbers, has the least right to dominate in the State of Louisiana. Do not let us confuse the issue. Let me admit the honorable senator's argument to its full extent. Let me admit the race trouble of the South as strongly as he will paint it, and then I ask, with that before our eyes and imprinted on our history, to be dealt with in a future generation, whether we shall deliber- ately invite another race trouble of perhaps more serious char- acter? Do not let the senator from Louisiana confound all distinctions of justice and all rules of logic, by telling us that a negro whose ancestors have been here for nine generations is to be treated by the laws of the United States in the same manner as a Cooly who wants to ship to-day from Hong-Kong to our coast on the Pacific. As a nation we owe nothing to the Cooly. We owe much to the negro. I will here read a paragraph which can never be read too often : — "Yet, if God wills that the "war continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid with another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'" Nothing truer or more sublime in diction was ever pro- nounced from the days of the prophet Ezekiel to the death of Abraham Lincoln. I regret that I do not see the junior senator from Massachu- setts [Mr. Hoar] in his seat. When I was absent from the 234 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. Senate last night, he made some remarks, from which I read the following : — " The argument of the senators from California, and of the junior senator from Maine, and the senator from Nevada, is the old argument of the slave-holder and the tyrant over and over again with which the ears of the American people have been deafened, and which they have over- thrown." I think here is another confounding of distinctions. I thought I was arguing for free labor against servile labor. The trouble in the South, in the era of slavery, was an unequal and un- fair partition of land. There were vast estates on which the slaves worked ; and yet in all the opulence of the wealthiest days of slavery, the largest plantations paled before the magnifi- cent dukedoms of California on which Coolies are imported to labor. When the senator from Massachusetts says that I am using the language of the slave-holder, he is arguing in favor of these grants of ten, twenty, forty, sixty, seventy, eighty, one hundred thousand acres, larger than some of the German prin- cipalities, wrought and cultivated by Cooly labor, — labor con- tracted for before the consul signs the certificate at Hong-Kong, and delivered at San Francisco according to order from the deck of the steamer. Does he wish to place American free labor against that which is mere slave labor ? It is a slight confound- ing of distinctions which the honorable senator from Massa- chusetts has made. That is all. I would say more if he were in his seat. My colleague (Mr. Hamlin) certainly will not think I mean any thing except the utmost kindness to him when I refer to the votes that were given on this question, especially when I say again, as I said yesterday, that had I been here I should have voted with him. But in the record of the case, as read by the honorable senator from Massachusetts, something was left out. Pending the discussion of the naturalization question, the white amendment did come up, just as my colleague states. At a later period of the same day, instead of merely striking the word " white " out of the naturalization laws, it came up in the form of an amendment to admit Africans to naturalization. For that, disembarrassed from all the considerations to which my colleague has referred, he voted. Then it was that Senator CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 235 Trumbull moved to include " or persons born in the Chinese Empire." On that question the vote was given of which I spoke yesterday. So that the question came just as palpably and as directly as it could come before the Senate, whether or not we should admit the Chinaman to citizenship in the United States. I repeat, perhaps I re-repeat, that the effect of that vote must be regarded as a settlement against Chinese immi- gration to this country, on the simple ground that in a Re- public where suffrage is universal, we cannot permit a large immigration of people who are to be forbidden the elective franchise. I must not forget that my honorable colleague also referred to the fact, in speaking of this question as one of competi- tion in labor, that the same competition was made in labor- saving machinery. I beg to differ from him, for the history of labor-saving machinery from the beginning, and especially under the magnificent progress which has been made since the steam-engine was invented, has been continually to advance the rank, dignity, and emolument of labor. The price of free labor and the pay for it has risen steadily in the world ac- cording to the development of the mechanical and scientific arts, by reason of the simple fact that if by an invention you decrease the number of laborers in one field, you increase the want and require the development of labor in another field. I point to an unbroken history of two and a half centuries, in which the most splendid development of the inventive talent of any age has been accompanied step by step with a steady advance in the wages of the laborer. I also point to the fact that nowhere on earth has free labor been brought in competi- tion with any form of servile labor, in which the free labor did not come down to the level of the servile labor. It has been tried against the African slave in the South ; it has been tried against the Peons in Mexico and Peru ; it has been tried against the Chinaman in California ; the universal result is the same. The lower strata pull down the upper. The upper never elevate the lower. 236 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. [Letter from Mr. Blaine answering certain objections.] United States Senate Chamber, Washington, D.C, Feb. 21, 1879, To THE Editor of the New- York Tribune. The reflections of Mr. William Lloyd Garrison upon the senators who voted for the bill restricting Chinese immigration are made, I think, without the thorough examination which that gentleman usually brings to the discussion of public questions. Permit me, with plainness of speech, and yet with no abate- ment of my sincere respect for Mr. Garrison, to state the grounds on which I cast my vote for the measure. Up to Oct. 1, 1876, the records of the San Francisco custom- house show that 233,136 Chinese had arrived in this country and that 93,273 had returned to China. The immigration since has been large, and allowing for returns and deaths, the bes^ statistics I can procure show that about 109,000 Chinese are in California and from 20,000 to 25,000 in the adjacent States and Territories — in all 130,000 to 135,000 on the West coast. Of this large population fully nine-tenths are adult males. The women have not in all numbered over seven thousand, and, according to all accounts, they are impure and lewd far beyond the Anglo-Saxon conception of impurity and lewdness. One of the best-informed Californians I ever met, says that not one score of decent and pure women could ever have been found in the whole Chinese immigration. It is only in the imagined, rather I hope the unimagined, feculence and foulness of Sodom and Gomorrah that any parallel can be found to the atrocious nastiness of the Chinese quarter of San Francisco. I speak of this from abounding testimony — largely from those who have CHIXESE IMMIGRATION. 237 had personal opportunity to study the subject in its revolting details. In the entire Chinese population of the Pacific coast scarcely one family is to be found ; no hearthstone of comfort, no fireside of joy ; no father or mother, or brother or sister ; no child reared by parents ; no domestic and ennobling influ- ences ; no ties of affection. The relation of wife is degraded beyond all description, the females who hold and dishonor that sacred name being sold and transferred from one man to another, without shame and without fear ; one woman being at the same time the wife to several men. Many of these women came to San Francisco under written contracts for prostitution, openly entered into. I have myself read the translation of gome of these abominable documents. If as a nation we have the right to keep out infectious diseases, if we have the right to exclude the criminal classes, we surely possess the right to exclude that immigration which reeks with im- purity and which cannot come to us without plenteously sow- ing the seeds of moral and physical disease, of destitution, and of death. The Chinese immigration to California began with the Ameri- can immigration in 1848. The two races have been side by side for more than thirty years, nearly an entire generation, and not one step toward assimilation has been taken. The Chinese occupy their own peculiar quarter in the city, adhere to their own dress, speak their own language, worship in their own heathen temples, and inside the municipal law and independent of it, administer a code among themselves, even pronouncing the death penalty and executing it in criminal secrecy. If this were for a year only, or for two or five or even ten years, it might be claimed that more time is needed for domestication and assimilation ; but this has been going on for an entire gen- eration, and the Chinaman to-day approaches no nearer to our civilization than he did when the Golden Gate first received him. In sworn testimony before an investigating Committee of Congress, Dr. Mears, the health officer of San Francisco, (described as "a careful and learned man"), testified that the condition of the Chinese quarter is " horrible, inconceivably horrible ! " He stated that the Chinese as a rule " live in large tenement-houses, large numbers crowded into individual rooms, 238 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. 'without proper ventilation, with bad drainage, and underground, with a great deal of filth, the odors from which are horrible." He described their "mode of takinsr a room ten feet hicrh and putting a flooring half way to the ceiling, both floors being crowded at night with sleepers. In these crowded dens cases of small-pox were concealed from the police." " They live underground in bunks. The topography of that portion of Chinadom is such that you enter a house sometimes and think that it is a one-story house and you will find two or three stories down below on the side of the hill, where thev live in sneat filth." Another close and accurate observer, long a resident of California, says " the only wonder is that desolating pestilences have not ensued. Small-pox has often been epidemic, and could always be traced to Chinese origin. The Chinese quarter was once occupied by shops, churches, and dwellings of Americans. Now these are as thoroughly Mongolian as any part of Canton. All other races flee from the contact." Dr. Mears further testi- fied and gave many revolting details in proof that the Chinese *' are cruel and indifierent to their sick." He described cases of Chinese lepers at the city hospital : " Their feet dropped off by dry gangrene and their hands were wasted and attenuated. Their finger-nails dropped off." He said " the Chinese were gradually working Eastward and would by and by crowd into Eastern cities, where the conditions under which they live in San Francisco would produce in the absence of its climatic ad- vantages, destructive pestilences." Perhaps a Chinese quarter in Boston, with forty thousand Mongolians located somewhere between the south end and the north end of the city and sepa- rating the two, would give Mr. Garrison some new views as to the power and right of a nation to exclude moral and physical pestilence from its borders. In San Francisco there is no hot weather, the thermometer rarely rising above sixty-five degrees. One of the most intelligent physicians in the United States says that the Chinese quarter of San Francisco transferred to St. Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati, or any Eastern city would in a hot summer breed a plague equal to the " black death " that has so often alarmed the ci^-ilized world. A^Tien Mr. Garrison says the immigration of Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, Frenchmen, CniXESE IMMIGRATIOX. 239 Germans, and Scandinavians must be put on the same footing as the Chinese coolies, he confounds all distinctions, and, of course, without intending it, libels almost the entire white population whose blood is inherited from the races he names. All the immigration from Europe to-day assimilates at once with its own blood on this soil, and to place the Chinese coolies on the same footing is to shut one's eyes to all the instincts of human nature and all the teachings of liistory. Is it not inevitable that a class of men livincr in this degfraded and tilthy condition, and on the poorest of food, can work for less than the American laborer is entitled to receive for his daily toil ? Put the two classes of labor side by side and the cheap servile labor pulls down the more manly toil to its level. The free white laborer never could compete with the slave labor of the South. In the Chinaman the white laborer finds only another form of servile competition — in some aspects more revolting and corrupting than African slavery. "Whoever con- tends for the unrestricted immigration of Chinese coolies con- tends for that system of toil which blights the prospects of the white laborer — dooming him to starvation wages, killing his ambition by rendering his struggle hopeless, and ending in a plodding and pitiable povert}'. Xor is it a truthful answer to say that this danger is remote. Remote it may be for Mr. Garrison, for the city of Boston, and for Xew England, but it is instant and pressing on the Pacific Slope. The late Caleb Cushing, who had carefully studied the Chinese question ever since his mission to Peking in 1842, maintained that unless resisted by the United States the first general famine in China would be followed by an immigration to California that would swamp the white race on the Pacific Slope. I observe that a Xew England newspaper — I especially regret that such igno- rance should be shown in Xew England — says it is only '• a strip " on the Pacific that the Chinaman seeks for a home. The Chinese are already scattered over three States and two adjacent Territories whose area is larger than the original thirteen colo- nies. California alone is larger than Xew England, Xew York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and is capable of maintaining a vast population of Anglo-Saxon freemen if we do not surrender it to Chinese coolies. 240 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. Before the same Committee of Investigation from whose report I have already quoted, Mr. T. W. Jackson, a man of high character, who had traveled extensively in the East, testi- fied that his strong belief was "that if the Chinese felt that they were safe and had a firm footing in California they would come in enormous numbers, because the population of China is practically inexhaustible." Such, indeed, is the unbroken testi- mony of all who are entitled to express an opinion. The decision of Congress on this matter therefore becomes of the very last importance. Had it been in favor of Chinese immi- gration, with the encouragement which such a decision would have implied, it requires no vivid imagination to foresee that the great slope between the Sierras and the Pacific would become the emigrating ground for the Chinese Empire. I do not exaggerate therefore when I say that on the adoption or rejection of the policy passed upon by Congress, hangs the fate of the Pacific Slope — whether its labor shall be that of American freemen or servile Mongolians. If Mr. Garrison thinks the interests of his own countrymen, his own Govern- ment, and, in a still larger sense, the interests of humanity and civilization will be promoted by giving up the Pacific Coast to Mongolian labor, I beg respectfully but firmly to differ from him. There is no ground on which we are bound to receive them to our own detriment. Charity is the first of Christian graces. But Mr. Garrison would not feel obliged to receive into his family a person that would physically contaminate or morally corrupt his children. As with a family so with a nation : the same instinct of self-preservation exists, the same right to prefer the interest of our own people, the same duty to exclude that which is corrupting and dangerous to the Republic ! The outcry that we are violating our treaty obligations is without foundation. The article on emigration in the treaty has not been observed by China for a single hour since it was made. All the testimony taken on the subject — and it has been fall and direct — shows conclusively that the entire emi- gration was " under contract ; " that the coolies had been gathered together for export and gathered as agents in our Western States would gather live-stock for shipment. A very CniXESE IMMIGRATIOX. 241 competent witness in California, speaking to this point, says that — " On the arrival of the Chinese in California they are consigned like hogs to the different Chinese companies, their contracts are vised, and the cooly commences to pay to the companies fees to insure care if he is taken sick and his return home dead or alive. His return is prevented until after his contract has been entirely fulfilled. If he breaks his contract the spies of the six companies hunt hiin to pirevent his returning to China by arrange- ments with the steamship company or their agents in the steamship emj^loy to prevent his getting a ticket. The agents of the steamship companies testified to this same fact. If a ticket is obtained for him by others he is forcibly stopped on the day of sailing by the employes of the six companies, called 'high-binders,' who can always be seen guarding the coolies." Mr. Joseph J. Ray, a Philadelphia merchant, long resident in China, and a close observer of its emigration, says " that iWo ^^ ^^^® Chinese who have reached our shores were not free agents in their coming. Files of the Hong-Kong newspapers from 1861 would supply information regarding the ' barra- coons ' at that port, and when the system had become too great a scandal, their removal to Macao (a Portuguese colony, forty miles distant), in which ' barracoons,' the Chinese, in every sense prisoners, were retained until their shipment to San Francisco, Callao, Havana, and other ports. These, called by courtesy immigrants, were collected from within a radius of two or three hundred miles from Canton, and consisted of the abjectly poor, who, Avillingly or not, were sold to obtain food for their families, or for gambling debts (the Chinese, as you are aware, being inveterate gamblers), or the scapegraces of the country fleeing to avoid punishment." It is of course a mere misuse of terms to call this an " en- tirely voluntary emigration," and yet none other was permissi- ble under the Burlingame Treaty. Our Government would be clearly justified in disregarding the treaty on the single ground that the Chinese Government had never respected its provis- ions. But without reference to that, our Government pos- sesses the right to abrogate the treaty if it adjudges that its continuance is "pernicious to the State." Indeed, the two pending propositions in the Senate differ not in regard to our own right to abrogate the treaty, but simply as to whether we should do it in July, 1879, by the exercise of our power with- out further notice to China, or whether we should do it in 242 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. January, 1880, after notifying China that we had made up our minds to do it. Nearly a year ago Congress by joint resolution expressed its discontent with the existing treaty, and thus clearly gave notice to the civilized world, — if notice were need- ful, — of the desire and intention of our people. In the late action of Congress the opposing proposition — moved as a sub- stitute for the bill to which I gave my support — requested the President to notify the Emperor of China that Chinese immi- gration is " unsatisfactory and pernicious," and in effect if he would not modify the treaty as we desired, then the President should notify the Emperor that after Jan. 1, 1880, the United States will "treat the obnoxious stipulations as at an end." Both propositions — the bill that we passed and the substitute that we rejected — assumed alike the full right to abrogate the treaty. Whether it were better to abrogate it after last j-ear's joint resolution, or to inform the Emperor of China directly that if he will not consent to the change " we shall make it anyhow," must be relegated for decision to the schools of taste and etiquette. The first proposition resting on our clear Constitutional power seems to me a better mode of proceed- ing than to ask the Emperor of China to consent to a modi- fication and inform him at the same time that, whether he consents or not, we shall on next New Year's Day treat " the obnoxious stipulations as at end." As to the power of Con- gress to do just what has been done no one Avill entertain a doubt who examines the whole question. An admirable sum- mary of the right and power is found in an opinion delivered by that eminent jurist, Benjamin R. Curtis, when he was a judge of the United States Supreme Court. Judge Curtis said : — "It cannot be admitted that the only method of escape from a treaty is by the consent of the other party to it or a declaration of war. To refnse to execute a treaty for reasons which approve themselves to the conscien- tious judgment of a nation is a matter of the utmost gravity; but the power to do so is a prerorjative of which no nation can be deprived without deeply affect- inc) its independence. That the people of the United States have deprived their Government of this power I do not believe. That it must reside some- where, and be applicable to all cases, I am convinced, and I feel no doubt that it belongs to Congress." A great deal has been said about the danger to our trade if China should resor.t to some form of retaliation. The natural CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 243 and pertinent retaliation is to restrict American immigration to Cliina. Against that we will enter no protest, and should have no right to do so. The talk about China closing her ports to our trade is made only by those who do not understand the question. Last year the total amount of our exports to all Chinese ports outside of Hong-Kong was but $692,000. I have called Hong-Kong a Chinese port, but every one knows that it is under British control, and if we were at war with China to-day Hong-Kong would be as open to us as Liverpool. To speak of China punishing us by suspending trade is only the suggestion of ignorance. We pay China a large balance in coin, and probably we always shall do it. But if the trade question had the importance which some have erroneously attributed to it, I would not seek its continuance by permit- ting a vicious immigration of Chinese coolies. The Bristol merchants cried out that commerce would be ruined if Eng- land persisted in destroying the slave trade. But England did not sacrifice her honor by yielding to the cry. The enlightened religious sentiment of the Pacific coast views with profound alarm the tendency and effect of unre- stricted Chinese immigration. The "pastors and delegates of the Congregational churches of California" a year since ex- pressed their " conviction " that " the Burlingame treaty ought to be so modified by the General Government as to restrict Chinese immigration." Rev. S. V. Blakeslee, editor of the oldest religious paper on the Pacific coast, spoke thus in an official address: — " ]\Toreover, wealthy Enolish and American companies have organized great money-making plans for bringing millions — it is true — even millions — of these Chinese into our State, and into all parts of the Union; and they have sent out emissaries into China to induce the people, by every true and false story, to migrate here. Already two hundred and fifty thousand have come, of whom one hundred thousand remain. " The tendency of all this is tremendously toward evil ; toward vice and abomination; toward all opposed to the true spirit of Americanism, and is very dangerous to our morality, to our stability, and to our success as a people and a nation. Millions more of these Chinese must come if not prevented by any legal, or moral, or mobocratic restraint, increasing in- calculably by numbers the evils already existing; while a spirit of race prejudices and clanship jealousies and a conflict of interests must be devel- oped, portending possible evil beyond all description." 244 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. In regard to the process of converting and Christianizing this people, a missionary who has been in the field since 1849, testifies that not one in a thousand has even nominally pro- fessed a change from heathenism, and that of this small number nearly one-half has been taught in missionary schools in China. The same missionary says, " as they come in still larger num- bers they will more effectually support each other in their national peculiarities and vices, become still more confirmed in heathen immoralities, with an influence in every respect in- calculably bad." Under what possible sense of duty any Ameri- can can feel that he promotes Christianity by the process of handing California over to heathenism, is more than I am able to discover. This question connects itself intimately and inseparably with the labor question. Immigration of the Chinese is encour- aged by some openly, by many secretly, because their labor is cheap. The experiment is a most dangerous one. In a Republic where the man who works carries a ballot in his hands, it will not do for capitalized wealth to legislate for cheap labor. We do not want cheap labor : we do not want dear labor. We want labor at fair rates, — at rates that shall give the laborer his fair share, and capital its fair share. If more is sought by capital, less will in the end be realized. There is not a laboring-man from the Penobscot to the Sacramento who would not feel aggrieved, outraged, burdened, crushed, by be- ing forced into competition with the labor and the wages of the Chinese cooly. For one, I will never consent by my vote or my voice to drive the intelligent workingmen of America to that competition and that degradation. Mr. Garrison spent the best years of an honored life in a courageous battle for the freedom and dignity of labor, and for its emancipation from thraldom. I trust he will not lessen the gratitude which the workingmen of America owe him for his noble lead in the past by an effort now to consign them to the humiliation and the poverty inevitably resulting from the competition of Chinese coolies. Years ago, Mr. Carlyle said to an American friend, "You will have no trouble in your country so long as you have few people and much land; but when you have much people and little CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 245 land, your trials will begin." No one connected in any manner with the government of the Republic can view the situation without grave concern. At least nine large States of the South are disturbed by a race trouble, of which no man is yet wise enough to see the end ; the central and largest and wealthiest of our Territories is seized by a polygamous population which flaunts defiance in the face of the General Government: dis- content among unemployed thousands has already manifested a spirit of violence, and but recently arrested travel between the Atlantic and the Mississippi by armed mobs which defied three States and commanded great trunk-lines of railway to cease operations. Practical statesmanship would suggest that the Government of the United States should avoid the increase of race troubles, and that nothing but sheer recklessness will force upon the American population of the Pacific slope the odious contamination of the lowest grade of the Chinese race. It may be attempted ; but, in my judgment, it will lead to direful results, in which violence and murders and massacres will be terribly frequent. Let it be proclaimed here and now that the General Government will maintain unrestricted immi- gration of Chinese coolies, and in less than five years a larger military force than the existing Army of the United States will be required to keep peace on the Pacific slope. I feel that I am pleading the cause of the free American laborer, and of his children and of his children's children — the cause in short of " the house against the hovel ; of the comforts of the freeman against the squalor of the slave." 246 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. FALSE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. [On the 25th of February, 1865, Congress, largely Republican in both branches, enacted the following Law which was approved by President Lincoln. " No militaiy or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil, military or naval service of the United States, shall order, bring, keep or have under his authority or control, any troops or armed men at the place where any general or special election is held in any State, unless it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States, or to keep the peace at the polls." Sinc& the revision of the United States Statutes this law has been known as Section 2002. Under this power " to keep the peace at the polls " Southern elections during the reconstruction period were fairly regular and honest. The Democratic party made the repeal of the law an issue and agitated it for years, creating the popu- lar impression that the Republican National Administration kept large bodies of troops in the South to control elections. In the Forty-sixth Congress both Senate and House were under the control of the Democratic party. The part of the law offensive to the Democratic party was contained in the closing words which are Italicized above. Instead of striking those words out, the Democratic caucus of Senators and Representatives resolved to re-enact Section 2002 word for word with the exception of the Italicized words at the end. The caucus also determined to put the amendment on the Army Appropriation Bill and to make the passage of the Bill dependent on the President's approving it with the Amendment. Mr. Blaine delivered the following speech on the bill in the Senate of the United States on the 14th of April, 1879.] Mr. President, — The existing section of the Revised Statutes numbered 2002 reads thus : — " No military or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil, military or naval service of the United States, shall order, bring, keep or have under his authority or control, any troops or armed men at the place where any general or sj^ecial election is held in any State, unless it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States, or to keep the peace at ihe polls." The object of the proposed section, which has just been read at the clerk's desk, is to get rid of the eight closing words, namely, " or to keep the peace at the polls." The mode of legislation proposed in the army bill now before the Senate is FALSE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 24T therefore an unusual mode. It is an extraordinary mode. If it be desired to repeal a single sentence at the end of a section in the Revised Statutes the ordinary way is to strike off those words, but the mode chosen in this bill is to repeat and re-enact the whole section, leaving those few words out. While I do not wish to be needlessly suspicious on a small point, I am quite l^ersuaded that this did not happen by accident. It came by design. If I may so speak, it came of cunning, the intent being to create the impression that the Republicans in the administration of the General Government had been using troops right and left, hither and thither, in every direction, and that the Democrats as soon as they came into power enacted this section. I can imagine Democratic candidates for Congress in the next campaign all over the country reading this section to gaping audiences as one of the first offsprings of Democratic reform, whereas every word of it, every S3dlable of it, from its first to its last, is the enactment of a Republican Congress. I repeat that this unusual form presents a dishonest issue, whether so intended or not. It aims to make it appear that as soon as the Democrats got possession of the Federal Govern- ment they proceeded to enact the clause which is thus expressed. The law was passed by a Republican Congress in February, 1865. There were forty-six senators sitting in this Chamber at the time, of whom only ten or at most eleven were Demo- crats. The House of Representatives was overwhelmingly Republican. We were in the midst of a war. The Republi- can administration had a million or possibly twelve hundred thousand bayonets at its command. Thus situated, with the amplest possible power to interfere with elections had they so designed, with soldiers in every hamlet and county of the United States, the Republican party themselves placed that provision on the statute-book, and Abraham Lincoln signed it. I beg you to observe, Mr. President, that this is the first instance in the legislation of the United States in which any restrictive provision whatever was enacted in regard to the use of troops at the polls. The Republican party did it with the Senate and the House in their control. Abraham Lincoln signed it when he was Commander-in-Chief of an army larger than 248 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. ever Napoleon Bonaparte had at his command. So much by way of correcting an ingenious and studied attempt at mis- representation. Tlie alleged object is to strike out the few words that author- ize the use of troops "to keep peace at the polls." This country has been alarmed, perhaps I would better say amused, at the great effort made to create an impression that the Republican party relies for its popular strength upon the use of the bayonet. This Democratic Congress has attempted to give a bad name to this country throughout the civilized world, and to give it on a false issue — false in whole and in detail, false in the charge, false in all the specifications. The impression sought to be created, as I say, not only throughout the North American Continent but in Europe to-day, is that elections, at least in the Southern States of the Union, are controlled hy the bayonet. I denounce it here as a false issue. I am not at liberty to say that any gentleman making the issue knows it to be false. I trust he does not. But I shall prove to him that it is false, and that it has not a solitary inch of solid ground to rest upon. I have in my hand an official transcript of the location and the number of all the troops of the United States east of Omaha. By " east of Omaha," I mean all the United States east of the Mississippi River together with the belt of States that border the Mississippi River on the west. They include forty-one millions at least of the forty-five millions of people that this country is supposed to contain to-day. In that magnificent area, I will not pretend to state its extent, but with forty-one million people, I know officially the exact number of troops. Would any senator on the opposite side hazard a guess as to that number ? Would he like to state how many men with muskets in their hands there are in the vast area I have named ? Let me tell him ! There are two thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven ! Not one more. From the headwaters of the Mississippi River to the lakes, and down the great chain of lakes, and down the St. Lawrence, and down the valley of the St. John, and down the St. Croix, striking the Atlantic Ocean and following it down to Key West, around the Gulf, to the mouth of the Mississippi again, a frontier of eight thousand miles either bordering on the ocean FALSE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 249 or upon foreign territory is guarded by these 2,797 troops. Within this domain forty-five fortifications are manned and eleven arsenals protected. There are sixty troops to every million of people. In the South I have the entire number in each State and will give it. I believe the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] has been alarmed, greatly alarmed, about the overriding of the popular ballot by troops of the United States ! In Delaware there is not a single armed man, not one. The United States has not even one soldier in the State ! The honorable senator from West Virginia [Mr. Hereford] on Friday last lashed himself into a passion, or at least into a perspiration, over the wrongs of his State, trodden down as he pictured it by the iron heel of military despotism. There is not a soldier of the United States, not one on the soil of West Virginia, and there has not been one for years. I do not know whether my esteemed friend from Marj^and [Mr. Whyte] has been greatly disturbed or not ; but at Fort McHenry, guarding the entrance to the beautiful harbor of his beautiful city of Baltimore, there are one hundred and ninety- two artillery-men and not another soldier on the soil of his State from the Chesapeake to the crest of the Alleghenies. In Virginia there is a school of practice at Fortress Monroe. My honorable friend who has charge of this bill [Mr. Withers] knows very well, and if he does not I will tell him, that outside of that school of artillery practice at Fortress Monroe, which has two hundred and eighty-two men, there is not a Federal soldier on the soil of Virginia — not one. Are the senators from North Carolina frightened by the im- mediate and terrible prospect of being overrun by the Army of the United States? On the whole soil of North Carolina there are but thirty soldiers and they are guarding a fort at the mouth of Cape Fear River — just thirty. I do not see a senator on the floor from South Carolina. There are one hundred and twenty artillery -men guarding the approaches to Charleston Harbor — not another soldier on the soil of that State. Does my gallant friend from Georgia [Mr. Gordon], who knows better than I the force and strength of military organi- 250 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. zation, does he the senior senator, and does the junior also [Mr. Benjamin H. Hill] — does either of those senators feel alarm at the presence of twenty-nine I'ederal soldiers in Georgia? — There are just twenty-nine there — not one more I And they are guarding the entrance to the harbor of Savannah. Florida has one hundred and eighty-two at three separate posts, principally guarding the navy yard at Pensacola near which my friend on the opposite side [Mr. Jones] lives. Is the honorable senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bailey] op- pressed with fear at the progress of military despotism in his State? There is not a single Federal soldier on the soil of Tennessee, — not one. I see both the honorable senators from Kentucky here. They have equal cause with Tennessee to be alarmed, for there is not a Federal soldier in Kentucky — not one I In Missouri there are a half-dozen guarding some arsenal stores I There are fifty-seven soldiers in Arkansas, on the borders of the Indian Territory. I think my friend from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] is greatly excited over this question, and in his State there are thirty-two Federal soldiers, located at an arsenal of the United States., The State of Mississippi, that is in danger of being trodden under the iron hoof of military power, has not a Federal soldier on its soil. Louisiana has two hundred and thirty-nine guarding ap- proaches from the sea. Texas, apart from the regiments that guard the frontier on the Rio Grande and the Indian frontier, has not one. The entire South has eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers to intimidate, overrun, oppress, and destroy the liberties of fifteen million people, and rob them of freedom at the polls ! In the Southern States there are twelve hundred and three counties. If you distribute the soldiers by counties there is not quite one for each county ; and when I give the counties I give them from the census of 1870. If you distribute these soldiers territorially there is one for every seven hundred square miles, so that if you make a territorial distribution, I would remind the honor- able senator from Delaware, that the quota for his State would FALSE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 251 be three — "one ragged sergeant and two abreast," as the old song has it. That is the formidable force ready to descend upon Delaware and destroy the liberties of the State. Mr. President, the old tradition has it, that the soothsayers of Rome could not look one another in the face without smiling. There are not two Democratic senators on this floor who can go into the cloak-room and look each other in the face without smiling at this talk, or, more approj^riately, I should say without blushing — the whole thing is such a pro- digious and absolute farce, such a miserably manufactured false issue, such a pretense without the slightest foundation in the world, and talked about most and denounced the loudest in States that have not now and have not for years had a single Federal soldier within their boundaries. In New England we have three hundred and eighty soldiers. Throughout the South it does not run quite seventy to the million people. In New England we have absolutely one hundred and twenty soldiers to the million. New England is far more overrun to-day by the Federal soldiery, far more, than is the whole South. I never heard any one complain about it in New England, or express any great fear of his liberties being endangered by the presence of a handful of Federal troops. As I have said, the tendency of this talk is to give us a bad name in Europe. Republican institutions are looked upon there AVith jealousy. Every misrepresentiition, every slander is exaggerated and talked about to our discredit, and the Demo- cratic party of the country to-day stand indicted, and I here indict them, for public slander of their country, creating the impression in the civilized world that we are governed by a military despotism. How amazing it would be to any man in Europe, familiar as Europeans are with great armies, if he were told that in a territory larger than France and Spain and Portugal and Great Britain and Holland and Belgium and the German Empire all combined, there are but eleven hun- dred and fiftj^-five soldiers ! That this mad cry, this false issue, this absurd talk is based upon the presence of eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers on eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles of territory ! The whole number of soldiers thus complained of is not double the number of the Democratic 252 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. police in the city of Baltimore, or in the city of New Orleans, not a third of the police in the city of New York. I repeat, the number indicts the Democracy ; it shows the whole charge to be without foundation ; it derides the issue as a false, scan- dalous and partisan makeshift. What then is the real motive underlying this movement? Senators on that side. Democratic orators on the stump cannot make any sensible set of men at the cross-roads believe that there is danger in eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers dis- tributed over the South, one to each county. The moment you state it, everybody sees its palpable and laughable absurd- ity, and therefore we must go farther and find a motive for all this cry. It is not the troops ; that is evident. There are more troops by fifty per cent scattered through the Northern States east of the Mississippi to-day than through the Southern States east of the Mississippi, and yet nobody in the North speaks of it ; anybody would be laughed at for speaking of it ; and therefore the issue on the troops, being a false one, con- ceals the true issue, which is simply to get rid of the Federal presence at Federal elections, to get rid of the civil poiver of the United States in the election of representatives to the Congress of the United States. That is the whole of it ; and disguise it as you may there is nothing else in it or of it. The Democratic party simply wishes to get rid of the super- vision by the Federal Government of the election of repre- sentatives to Congress through civil means ; and therefore this bill connects itself directly with another bill, and you cannot discuss this military bill without discussing a bill which was before us last winter, known as the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill. I am well aware that it is not permissible for me to discuss a bill that is pending before the other House. I am aware that propriety and parliamentary rule forbid that I should speak of what is done in the House of Representatives ; but I know very well that I am not for- bidden to speak of that which is not done in the House of Representatives. I am therefore perfectly free to declare that neither this military bill nor the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill ever emanated from any committee of the House of Representatives ; they are not the work of any FALSE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 253 committee of the House of Representatives, and, although the present House of Representatives is almost evenly balanced in party division, no solitary suggestion has been allowed to come from the minority of that House in regard to the shaping of these bills. Where do they come from? We are not left to infer ; we are not even left to the Yankee privilege of guessing, because we know. The senator from Kentucky [Mr. BeckJ obligingly told us — I have his exact words here — " that the honorable senator from Ohio [Mr. Thurman] was the chairman of a committee appointed by the Democratic party to see how it was best to present all these questions before us." Therefore when I discuss these two bills together I am violating no par- liamentary law, I am discussing the offspring and the creation of the Democratic caucus of which the senator from Ohio is the chairman. We are told, too, a rather novel thing, that if we do not take these laws, we are not to have the appropriations. I be- lieve it has been announced in both branches of Congress, I suppose on the authority of the Democratic caucus, that if we do not take these bills as they are planned, we shall not have any of the appropriations that go with them. The honorable senator from West Virginia [Mr. Hereford] avowed it on Fri- day; the honorable senator from Ohio [Mr. Thurman] avowed it last session ; the honorable senator from Kentucky [Mr. Beck] avowed it at the same time, and I am not permitted to speak of the legions who proclaimed it in the other House. They say all these appropriations are to be refused — not merely the Army appropriation, for they do not stop at that. Look for a moment at the legislative bill that came from the Demo- cratic caucus. Here is an appropriation in it for defraying the expenses of the Supreme Court and the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, including the District of Columbia, " 12,800,000 : " " Provided " — provided what ? " That the following sections of the Revised Statutes relating to elec- tions [going on to recite them] be repealed." That is, you will pass an appropriation for the support of the Judiciary of the United States only on condition that something else, entirely disconnected from the Judiciary be 254 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. repealed. "We often speak of this Government being divided into three great departments, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial — co-ordinate, independent, equal! The Legis- lative, under the control of a Democratic caucus, now steps for- ward and says, "We offer to the Executive this bill, and if he does not sign it, we are determined to starve the Judiciary." That is carrying the thing somewhat farther than I have ever known to be attempted. You do not merely propose to starve the Executive if he will not sign the bill, but you propose to starve the Judiciary that has had nothing whatever to do with the question. This has been boldly avowed here ; this has been boldly avowed on the floor of the other House ; this has been boldly avowed in Democratic papers throughout the whole country. You propose not merely to starve the Judiciary but you declare that you will not appropriate a solitary dollar to take care of this Capitol. The men who take care of all this public property are provided for in the same bill. You say they shall not have a dollar of pay if the President will not agree to change the election laws. There is the public printing that goes on for the enlighten- ment of the whole country, and for printing the public docu- ments of every one of the Departments. You say they shall not have a dollar for public printing unless the President agrees to repeal these laws which regulate the election of representa- tives in Congress. There is the Congressional Library that has become the pride of the whole American people for its magnificent growth and extent ! You say it shall not have one dollar for its daily care, much less to add a new book, unless the President signs these bills. There is the Department of State which has been our pride throughout the history of the Government for the ability with which it has conducted our foreign affairs. It is also to be starved. You say we shall not have any intercourse with foreign nations, not a dollar shall be appropriated for ministers or consuls unless the President signs these bills. There is the Lighthouse Board that provides for the beacons and the warnings on seventeen thousand miles of sea and gulf FALSE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 255 and lake coast. You say those lights shall all go out, and not a dollar shall be appropriated for the Board if the President does not sign these bills, which a Democratic caucus has agreed upon, and demands that everybody else shall assent to. There are the mints of the United States at Philadelphia, New Orleans, Denver, San Francisco, coining silver and coin- ing gold. You declare not a dollar shall be appropriated for them if the President does not sign these bills. There is the Patent Office, the patents issued which embody the invention of the country — not a dollar for them. The Pension Bureau shall cease its operations unless these bills are signed, and patriotic soldiers may starve. The Agricultural Bureau, the Post-Office Department, every one of the great executive functions of the Government is threatened, taken by the throat, liighwayman style, commanded to stand and deliver in the name of the Democratic Congressional caucus. No com- mittee of this Congress in either branch has ever recommended this legislation — not one. Simply a Democratic caucus has done it. Of course this is new. We are learning something every day. I think you may search the records of the Federal Gov- ernment in vain ; it will take some one much more industrious in that search than I have ever been, and much more observant than I have ever been, to find any possible parallel or any possible suggestion in our history of such a thing. Many of the senators who sit in this Chamber can remember some extraordinary vetoes. The veto of the National Bank Bill by President Jackson in 1832, remembered by the oldest in this Chamber; the veto of the National Bank Bill in 1841 by President Tyler, remembered by those not the oldest, aroused a political excitement which up to that time had no parallel ; and it was believed, whether rightfully or wrongfully is no matter, it was believed by those who advocated those financial measures at the time, that they were of the very first and the very last importance to the well-being and prosperity of the people of the Union. It was so believed by men who were the great and shining lights of that day. It was so believed by that man of imperial character and imperious will, the illustrious senator from Kentucky. It was so believed by representative Whigs in 256 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. both branches of Congress. When Jackson vetoed the one, or Tyler vetoed the other, was there a suggestion that those bank charters should be put on appropriation bills, and that there should not be a dollar to support the Government until they were signed? So far from it that, in 1841, when temper was at its height, when the Whig party, in addition to losing their great measure, lost it under the sting and the irritation of what they believed was a desertion by the President whom they had chosen, and when Mr. Clay, goaded by all these considerations, rose to debate the question in the Senate, he repelled with anger the suggestion of Mr. William C. Rives of Virginia, who attempted to make upon him the point that he had indulged in some threat involving the independence of the Executive. Mr. Clay's re- sponse may be recalled and read here with profit to every one : — "I said nothing whatever of any obligation on the part of the President to conform his judgment to the opinions of the Senate and the House of Representatives, although the senator argued as if 1 had, and persevered in so arguing after repeated correction. I said no such thing. I know and I respect the perfect independence of each department, acting within its proper sphere, of the other departments." A leading Democrat from the South, a man who has courage and frankness and many good qualities, has boasted publicly that the Democracy are in power for the first time in eighteen years, and they do not intend to stop until they have wiped out every vestige of every war measure. "Forewarned is fore-armed," and you begin appropriately on a measure that has the signature of Abraham Lincoln. It is significant to hear these words from a man who was then in arms against the Government of the United States, doing his best to destroy it, exerting all his power in a bloody and terrible rebellion against the authority of the United States, while Abraham Lincoln was marching at the same time to martyrdom in its defense ! Strange times have fallen when those of us who had the great honor to be associated in higher or lower degree with Mr. Lincoln in the administration of the Government live to hear men in public life and on the floors of Congress, fresh from the battle-fields of the rebellion, threatening the peo- ple of the United States that the Democratic party, in power for the first time in eighteen years, proposes not to stay its FALSE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 257 hand until every vestige of the war measures has been wiped out ! The Vice-President of the late confederacy boasted — perhaps I would better say stated — that for sixty out of the seventy-two years preceding the outbreak of the rebellion, from the foundation of the Government, the South, though in a minority, had, by combining with what he termed the "anti- centralists " in the North, ruled the country ; and in 1866 the same gentleman indicated in a speech, I think before the Legis- lature of Georgia, that by a return to Congress the South might repeat the experiment with the same successful result. I read that speech at the time, but I little thought I should live to see so near a fulfillment of its baleful prediction. I see here to-day two great measures emanating, as I have said, not from a .committee of either House, but from a Democratic caucus in which the South has an overwhelming majority, two- thirds in the House, and out of forty-two senators on the other side of this Chamber professing the Democratic faith, thirty are from the South — twenty-three, a" positive aiid pronounced majority, having themselves been participants in the revolt against the Union either in military or civil station. As a matter of fact therefore the legislation of this country to-day, shaped and fashioned in a Democratic caucus where the con- federates of the South hold the majority, is the realization of Mr. Stephens's prophecy. Very appropriately the House under that control and the Senate under that control, embodying thus the entire legislative powers of the Government, deriving its political strength from the South, elected from the South, say to the President of the United States, at the head of the Ex- ecutive Department of the Government, elected by the whole people, but elected as a Northern man ; elected on Republican principles, elected in opposition to the party that controls both branches of Congress to-day — they boldly say, "You shall not exercise your Constitutional power to veto a bill." Some gentleman may rise and say, "Do you call it revolution to put an amendment on an appropriation bill?" Of course not. There have been a great many amendments put on appro- priation bills, some mischievous and some harmless ; but T call it the audacity of revolution for any senator or representative, or any caucus of senators or representatives, to get together and 258 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. say, " We will have this legislation or we will stop the great departments of the Government." That is revolutionary. I do not think it will amount to revolution ; my opinion is it will not. I think it is a revolution which will not revolve. But it is a revolution if persisted in, and if not persisted in, it must be retreated from with ignominy. The Democratic party in Congress have put themselves exactly in this position to-day, that if they go forward in the announced programme, they march to revolution. I think the}'' will, in the end, go back- ward in ignominious retreat. That is my judgment. I think it the judgment of all who observe the operation of general principles ! The extent to which they control the legislation of the country is worth pointing out. In round numbers, the South- ern people are about one-third of the population of the Union. I am not permitted to speak of the organization of the House of Representatives, but I can refer to that of the last House. In the last House of Representatives, of the forty-two standing committees the South had twenty-five. I am not blaming the honorable Speaker for it. He was hedged in by partisan forces, and / ihe Chilian autliorilies, to es- tablish a new Government in oi^position to that of Pierola [who is still at Tacna or Yareja]." From this date to April 13, 1881, Mr. Christiancy kept the Department informed of the probabilities of the establishment of the Calderon Government, so called from the name of the eminent Peruvian statesman who had been chosen President. On that date he wrote : — " In my own private opinion, however, if the provisional government had come up without any appearance of support from the Chilian authorities, it would have had many elements of popularity and would probably have suc- ceeded in obtaining the acquiescence of the people. This new Government realizes the imjiortance of an early peace with Chili, the necessity of which must be recognized by every thoughtful man; while that of Pierola professes to intend to carry on the war; but it has no means for the purpose at pres- ent, and my own opinion is that any effort to do so will end in still greater calamities to Peru." On May 23, the same minister, in a postscript to his dispatch of the 17th, says : — " Since writing the above it has become still more probable that the threat of 'indefinite occupation' was intended only to drive the Peruvians into the support of the provisional government, as two days ago they allowed the Government to send seventy-five soldiers to Tacna, Oroyo, etc., to control that part of the country, so as to allow the members of Congress to come to Lima; and it now begins to look as if Calderon might secure a quorum (two- thirds) of the Congress. If he does succeed, it will be some evidence that Peru acquiesces in that Government. And if he gets the two-thirds of the members, I think I shall recognize the provisional government, or that of the Congress and the President they may elect, unless in the mean time I shall receive other instructions." On the 9th of May, 1881, instructions had been sent to him from this Department, which crossed this dispatch, in which he was told : — " If the Calderon Government is supported by the character and intelli- gence of Peru, and is really endeavoring to restore constitutional govern- ment with a view both to order within and negotiation with Chili for peace, you may recognize it as the existing provisional government, and render what aid you can by advice and good offices to that end." 366 DiPLo:\rATic correspondence. Acting under these instructions, although with some ex- pressed doubt as to the probable permanence of its existence, Mr. Christiancy, on the 26th of June, 1881, formally recognized the Calderon Government. It is clear that this recognition was not an unfriendly intervention as far as the wishes and interests of Chili were concerned, for under date of May 7, 1881, two days before these instructions of the 9th were sent to Mr. Christiancy, INIr. Osborn, the United States minister to Chili, wrote from Santiago as follows : — " In my dispatch of April 5, regarding the war in this section, I men- tioned the fact that the minister of war, Mr. Vergara, who had been with the army at Lima, had been sent for, and was then on his way to Chili. Since his arrival tlie Government has labored to reach a conclusion touching the course to be pursued with Peru, and to that end numerous and extended discussions among the ministers and prominent citizens of the republic, who had been invited to pai'ticipate, have taken place. Three plans or proposi- tions were discussed : First, that spoken of by me in my No. 201, involving the withdrawal of the army to Arica ; second, the occupation of the entire Peruvian coast by the Chilian forces, and its government by Chilian author- ities ; and third, the strengthening of the (iovernment of Calderon, and the negotiation of a peace tiierewith. The propriety of entering into negotia- tions with Pierola was not even dignified witli a consideration. After much labor the Government reached the conclusion that the last proposition afforded the easiest way out of their complications, and it has been deter- mined to send INIr. Godoy to Peru, in charge of the negotiations. . . . The ministry has freely counseled with me regarding the difficulties of the situa- tion, and in view of their previous determination to have nothing to do with Pierola, I cannot but applaud the result of their deliberations. To vacate the country now would be to turn it over to anarchy, and to attempt to occupy the entire coast would, in time, involve both countries in ruin. The most feasible way to peace is, in my opinion, the one resolved upon. In fact it is the only one which offers any reasonable hope of a solution of the difficulties during the present generation." In giving the support of recognition to the Calderon Govern- ment, therefore, so far was this Government from doing what could be considered an unfriendly act to Chili, that it was, in fact, giving its aid to the very policy which Chili avowed, and which, in the opinion of competent judges, was the only method of reasonable solution. This conclusion of the Government was confirmed by the information which was transmitted to the Department by Gen- eral Kilpatrick, who succeeded Mr. Osborn as the United States Minister to Chili. General Kilpatrick was appointed after the recognition of the Calderon Government, and was furnished with instructions to which I have already referred. SPECIAL MISSION TO CHILI, PERU, AND BOLIVIA. 367 In his dispatch, under date August 15, 1881, he says: — " I have the honor to report that, so far as the assurance of public men can be relied upon, your instructions have been complied with ; your ideas of final peace accepted, not only by the present administration at Santiago, but still better of Seiior Santa Maria, the President elect, whose administra- tion will have begun when you receive this note." General Kilpatrick then proceeds to give a detailed account of a long interview with the leading and most influential members of the Chilian Government, in which he quotes the following as the final assurances given to him by the Chilian Secretary of State : — " You may therefore say to your Government that every effort would be given by Chili to strengthen the Government of President Calderon, giving to it the most perfect freedom of action, considering the Chilian occupation ; that no question of Chilian annexation would be touched luitil a constitu- tional government could be established in Peru, acknowledged and respected by the people, with full powers to enter into diplomatic negotiation for peace ; that no territory would be exacted unless Chili failed to secure ample and just indemnification in other and satisfactory ways, as also ample security for the future ; and that in no case would Chili exact territory save where Chilian enterprise and Chilian capital had developed the desert and where to-day nine-tenths of the people were Chilian." But after this recognition, made in entire good faith to both parties, three things followed : — 1. The presence of a United States minister at Lima ac- credited to the Calderon Government, and the reception in Washington of a minister from that Government, gave it, unquestionabl}^, increased strength and confidence. 2. The adherents of Pierola, realizing the necessity of peace and the existence of a stable Government to negotiate it, gradu- ally abandoned the forlorn hope of continued resistance, and gave their adhesion to the Calderon Government. 3. The Congress which assembled within the neutral zone set apart for that purpose by the Chilian authorities, and which was further allowed by the Chilian Government to provide for the military impositions by the use of the national credit, and was thus recognized as the representative of the Peruvian peoj)le, authorized President Calderon to negotiate a peace, but upon the condition that no territory should be ceded. As soon as these facts indicated the possibility of a real and independent vitality in the Constitution of the Calderon Gov- 3(38 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. ernment tlie Chilian military authorities issued an order for- bidding any exercise of its functions within the territory occupied by the Chilian army — that is, within the entire terri- tory west of the mountains, including the capital and ports of Peru. Unable to understand this sudden and, giving due regard to the professions of Chili, this unaccountable change of policy, this Government instructed its minister at Lima to continue to recognize the Calderon Government until more complete in- formation would enable it to send further instructions. If our present information is correct, immediately upon the receipt of this communication they arrested President Calderon, and thus, as far as was in their power, extinguislied his Government. The President does not now insist upon the inference which this action would warrant. He hopes that there is some ex- planation which will relieve him from the painful impression that it was taken in resentful reply to the continued recognition of the Calderon Government by the United States. If, unfor- tunately, he should be mistaken, and this motive be avowed, your duty will be a brief one. You will say to the Chilian Government that the President considers such a proceeding as an intentional and unwarranted offense, and that you will com- municate such an avowal to the Government of the United States, with the assurance that it will be regarded by the Gov- ernment as an act of such unfriendly import as to require the immediate suspension of all diplomatic intercourse. You will inform me immediately of such a contingency and instructions will be sent you. But I do not anticipate such an occurrence. From the infor- mation before the Department, of which you are possessed, it is more probable that this course will be explained by an allega- tion that the conduct and language of the United States minis- ter in Peru had encouraged the Calderon Government to such resistance of the wishes of Chili as to render the negotiation of a satisfactory treaty of peace Avith the Calderon Government impossible. Any explanation which relieves this action by the Chilian Government of the character of an intentional offense will be received by you to that extent, provided it does not require as a condition precedent the disavowal of Mr. Hurlbut. SPECIAL MISSION TO CHILI, PERU, AND BOLIVIA. 369 Whatever may be my opinion as to the discretion of all that may have been said or done by Mr. Hurlbut, it is impossible for me to recognize the right of the Chilian Government to take such action without submitting to the consideration of this Government any cause of complaint against the proceedings of the representative of the United States. The Chilian Gov- ernment was in possession of the instructions sent to our min- ister at the capital of Peru, as well as those to his colleague at Santiago. There was no pretense that the conduct of Gen- eral Kilpatrick was any thing but friendly. Chili was repre- sented here by a minister who enjoyed the confidence of his Government, and nothing can justify the assumption that the United States was acting a double part in its relations to the two countries. If the conduct of the United States minis- ter seemed inconsistent with what Chili had every reason to know was the friendly intention of the United States, a cour- teous representation through the Chilian minister here would have enabled this Government promptly to correct or confirm him. You are not therefore authorized to make to the Chilian Government any explanation of the conduct of General Hurlbut, if that Government, not having afforded us the ojiportunity of accepting or disavowing his conduct, insists upon making its interpretation of his proceedings the justification of its recent action. It is hoped, however, that you will be able, by communica- tion at once firm and temperate, to avoid these embarrassments. If you should fortunately reach the point where frank, mutual explanation can be made without the sacrifice of that respect which every Government owes to itself, you will then be at liberty, conforming your explanation to the recent instruction to Mr. Hurlbut, with a copy of which you are furnished, to show to the Government of Chili how much both his words and acts have been misconceived. It is difficult for me to say how far an explanation would be satisfactory to the President which was not accompanied by the restoration or recognition of the Calderon Government. The objects which he has at heart are, first, to prevent the misery, confusion, and bloodshed which the present relations between Chili and Peru seem only too certain to renew ; and, 370 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDEXCE. second, to take care that in any friendly attempt to reach this desirable end the Government of the United States is treated with the respectful consideration to which its disinterested ])u.v- pose, its legitimate influence, and its established position entitle it. The President feels in this matter neither irritation nor resentment. He regrets that Chili seems to have misconceived both the spirit and intention of the Government of the United States, and he thinks her course has been inconsiderate. He will gladly learn that a calmer and wiser judgment directs her counsels, and asks in no exacting spirit the 'correction of what were perhaps natural misunderstandings. He would be satisfied with the manifestation of a sincere purpose on the part of Chili to aid Peru, either in restoring the present provisional government or establishing in its place one which will be allowed the freedom of action necessary to insure internal order and to conduct a real negotiation to some substantial result. Should the Chilian Government, while disclaiming any inten- tion of offense, maintain its right to settle its difficulties with Peru without the friendly intervention of other Powers, and refuse to allow the formation of any Government in Peru which does not pledge its consent to the cession of Peruvian territory, it will be your duty, in language as strong as is consistent, with the respect due to an independent Power, to express the disap- pointment and dissatisfaction felt by the United States at such a deplorable policy. You will say that this Government recognizes without reserve the right of Chili to adequate indemnity for the cost of the war, and a sufficient guarantee that it will not again be subjected to hostile demonstration from Peru ; and further, that if Peru is unable or unwilling to furnish such indemnity, the right of con- quest has put it in the power of Chili to supply it, and the reasonable exercise of that right, however much its necessity may be regretted, is not ground of legitimate complaint on the part of other Powers. But this Government feels that the ex- ercise of the right of absolute conquest is dangerous to the best interests of all the Republics of this continent ; that from it are certain to spring other wars and political disturbances; and that it imposes, even upon the conqueror, burdens which are scarcely compensated by the apparent increase of strength which it SPECIAL MISSION TO CHILI, PERU, AXD BOLIVIA. 371 gives. This Government also holds that between two inde- pendent nations, the mere existence of war does not confer the right of conquest until the failure to furnish the indemnity and guarantee which can be rightfully demanded. The United States maintains, therefore, that Peru has the right to demand that an opportunity should be allowed her to find such indemnity and guarantee. Nor can this Government admit that a cession of territory can be properly exacted far ex- ceeding in value the amplest estimate of a reasonable indemnity. Already, by force of its occupation, the Chilian Government has collected large sums from Peru ; and it has been openly and officially asserted in the Chilian Congress that these mili- tary impositions have furnished a surplus beyond the cost of maintaining its armies in that occupation. The annexation of Tarapaca, which, under proper administration, would produce annually a sum sufficient to pay a large indemnity, seems not to be consistent with the execution of justice. The practical prohibition of the formation of a stable govern- ment in Peru, and the absolute appropriation of its most valu- able territory, is simply the extinction of a State which has formed part of the system of Republics on this continent, honorable in the traditions and illustrations of its past history, and rich in resources for future progress. The United States, with which Peru has for many years maintained the most cor- dial relations, has the right to feel and to express a deep interest in her distressed condition ; and while, cherishing equal friend- liness to Chili, we will not interpose to deprive her of the fair advantages of military success, nor put any obstacle to the attainment of future security, we cannot regard with unconcern the destruction of Peruvian nationality. If our good offices are rejected, and this policy of the absorption of an independent State be persisted in, this Government will consider itself dis- charged from any further obligation to be influenced in its action by the position which Chili has assumed, and will hold itself free to appeal to the other Republics of this continent to join it in an effort to avert consequences which cannot be con- fined to Chili and Peru, but which threaten with extreme danger the political institutions, the peaceful progress, and the liberal civilization of all America. 372 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. If, however, none of these embarrassing obstacles supervene, and Chili receives in a friendly spirit the representations of the United States, it will be your purpose — Firsts To concert such measures as will enable Peru to estab- lish a regular Government, and initiate negotiation. Second^ To induce Chili to consent to such negotiation with- out cession of territory as a condition precedent. Thirds To impress upon Chili that in such negotiation she ought to allow Peru a fair opportunity to provide for a reason- able indemnity ; and, in this connection, to let it be understood that the United States would consider the imposition of an extravagant indemnity, so as to make the cession of territory necessary in satisfaction, as more than is justified by the actual cost of the war, and as a solution tiireatening renewed difficulty between the two countries. As it is probable that some time will elapse before the com- pletion of all the arrangements necessary for a final negotiation, this Government would suggest a temporary convention, which, recognizing the spirit of our present friendly representation, would bring Peru and Chili into amicable conference and pro- vide for a meeting of plenipotentiaries to negotiate a permanent treaty of peace. If negotiation be assured, the ability of Peru to furnish the indemnity will be a matter of direct interest. Upon this sub- ject we have no information upon which definite instructions can now be based. While you will carefully abstain from any interposition in this connection, you will examine and report to this Department promptly any plans which may be suggested. You will not indicate any wish that the Government of the United States should act as umpire in the adjudications between the contending powers. Should an invitation to that effect be extended, you will communicate by telegraph for instructions. The single and simple desire of this Government is to see a just and honorable peace at the earliest day practicable, and if any other American Government can more effectively aid in pro- ducing this auspicious result, the United States will cordially sustain it and lend such co-operation as the circumstances may demand. OUR FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. 373 OUR FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. [Dispatch from Secretary Blaine to Mr. Morgan, Minister to Mexico,] Department of State, Washington, June 1, 1881. Sir, — As the relations between the Government of the United States and that of Mexico happily grow more amicable and intimate, it is but natural that a disposition should in like manner be developed between the citizens of the respective countries to seek new means of fostering their material inter- ests, and that the ties which spring from commercial inter- change should tend to grow and strengthen with the growing and strengthening spirit of good will which animates both peo- ples. That this spirit exists is the most grateful proof that the frank and conciliatory policy of the United States towards Mexico has borne and is bearing good fruit. This is especially visible in the rapidly extending desire on the part of the citizens of this country to take an active share in the prosecu- tion of those industrial enterprises for which the resources of Mexico offer so broad and promising a field, as well as in the responsive and increasing disposition which is manifest on the part of the Mexican people to welcome such projects. No fact in the historical relations of the two great Republics of the Northern Continent gives happier promise for both, and it is a source of especial gratification to this Government that the jealousies and distrusts whicfe have at times clouded the perfect friendship of the two Governments are thus 3'ielding to the more wholesome spirit of reciprocal frankness and confidence. It seems proper at this time, when a new administration has constitutionally and peacefully come into power in Mexico, devoted to fulfilling and extending the just policy of its prede- cessor, to call your attention to those general precepts which, 374 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPOXDENCE. in the judgment of the President, should govern the relations between the two Republics, and to bear testimony to which will be your most important duty as the diplomatic representa- tive of the United States. The record of the last fifteen years must have removed from the minds of the enlightened statesmen of Mexico every lin- gering doubt touching the policy of the United States toward her sister republic. That policy is one of faithful and impartial recognition of the independence and the integrity of the Mexi- can nation. At this late day it needs no disclaimer on our part of the existence of even the faintest desire in the United States for territorial extension south of the Rio Grande. The bound- aries of the two republics have been long settled in conformity with the best jurisdictional interests of both. The line of de- marcation is not conventional merely. It is more than that. It separates a Spanish-American people from a Saxon-American people. It divides one great nation from another with distinct and natural finality. The increasing prosperity of both Com- monwealths can only draw into closer union the friendly feel- ing, the political sympathy, and the varied interests which their history and neighborhood have created and encouraged. In all your intercourse with the Mexican Government and people it must be your chief endeavor to reflect this firm conviction of your Government. It is a source of profound gratification to the Government of the United States that the political condition of Mexico is so apparently and assuredly in the path of stability, and the ad- ministration of its Constitutional Government so regular, that it can offer to foreign capital that just and certain protection without which the prospect even of extravagant profit will fail to tempt the extension of commercial and industrial enterprise. It is still more gratifying that with a full comprehension of the political and social advantages of such a mode of developing the material resources of the country, the Government of INIexico cordially lends its influence to the spirit of welcome and en- couragement with which the Mexican people seem disposed to greet the importation of wealth and enterprise. The present progress in this direction by the National Government of Mexico is but an earnest of the great good OUR FRIEXDLY RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. 375 which may be accomplished when the intimate and necessary- relations of the two countries and peoples are better understood than now. To conduce to this better understanding must be your constant labor. "While, therefore, carefully avoiding all appearance of advocacy of any personal undertakings which citizens of the United States may desire to initiate in Mexico, you will take every opportunity which you may deem judicious to make clear the spirit and motive that control this movement in the direction of developing Mexican resources. You will impress upon the Government of Mexico the earnest wish and hope felt by the people and Government of this country that these resources may be multiplied and rendered fruitful for the primary benefit of the Mexican people themselves ; that the forms of constitutional and stable Government may be strength- ened as domestic wealth increases and as the conservative spirit of widely distributed and permanent vested interests is more and more felt; that the administration of the Mexican finances, fostered by these healthful tendencies, may be placed upon a firm basis ; that the rich sections of the great territory of the republic may be brought into closer intercommunication ; in a word, that Mexico may promptly and firmly assume the place toward which she is so manifestly tending as one of the most prosperous and well-ordered States in the harmonious system of Western republics. In future dispatches more detailed instructions will be given you touching certain points of interest to the two Governments in the direction of an enlarged reciprocal trade and interchange of commodities. It is my present design simply to acquaint you with the President's views and feeling toward Mexico and with the spirit which will animate his policy. You can read this dispatch to the minister of foreign affairs, and, if he desires, leave a copy of it with him. [Views of the United States Government touching the disturhed relations between Mexico and Guatemala. Dispatch from Secretary Blaine to Mr. Morgan, United States Minister to Mexico.] Department of State, Washington, June 16, 1881. Sir, — In my instruction of the 1st instant, I endeavored to set forth the spirit of good will which animates this Govern- 376 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPOXDENCE. ment toward Mexico. I trust no doubt can remain as to the sincerity of our friendship. Believing that this friendship, and the frankness which has always distinguished the policy of this country toward its neighbors, warrant the tender of ami- cable counsel when occasion therefor shall appear, and deeming such counsel due to our recognized impartiality, and to the position of the United States as the founder and, in some sense, the guarantor and guardian of Republican principles en the American continent, it seems proper now to call j^our attention to a subject touching which we feel some natural concern. I refer to the question of boundaries and territorial jurisdiction pending between Mexico and Guatemala, In the time of the Empire, the forces of Iturbide overran a large part of the territory of what now constitutes Central America, which had then recently thrown off the Spanish domi- nation. The chancrinff fortunes of war resulted in the with- drawal of Mexican forces from most of that region, except the important provinces of Soconusco and Chiapas, Avhich remained under their control. Since that time the boundaries between the two countries have never been adjusted upon a satisfactory basis. Mexico, becoming a Republic, did not forego claims based on the imperial policy of conquest and absorption, while Guatemala, resisting further progress of Mexican arms, and dis- puting, step by step, the conquests already made, has never been able to come to a decision with her more powerful neigh- bor concerning the relative extension of their jurisdiction in the disputed strip of territory lying between the Gulf of Tehuantepec and the Peninsula of Yucatan. Under these circumstances, the Government of Guatemala has made a formal application to the President of the United States to lend his good offices toward the restoration of a better state of feeling between the two Republics. This application is made in frank and conciliatory terms, as to the natural pro- tector of the rights and national integrity of the Republican forms of Government existing near our shores and to which we are bound by many ties of history and of material interest. This Government can do no less than give friendly and con- siderate heed to the representations of Guatemala, even as it would be glad to do were the appeal made by Mexico, in the OUR FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. 377 interest of justice and a better understanding. Events, fresh in the memory of the living generation of Mexicans, when the moral and material support of the United States, although then engaged in a desperate domestic struggle, was freely lent to avert the danger which a foreign empire threatened to the national life of the Mexican Republic, afford a gratifying proof of the unselfishness with which the United States regards all that concerns the welfare and existence of its sister republics of the continent. It is alleged, on behalf of Guatemala, that diplomatic efforts to come to a better understanding with Mexico have proved unavailing ; that under a partial and preliminary accord look- ing to the ascertainment of the limits in dispute, Guatemalan surveying parties, sent out to study the land, with a view to proposing a basis of definitive settlement, have been impris- oned by the Mexican authorities ; that Guatemalan agents for the taking of a census of the inhabitants of the territory in question have been dealt with in like summary manner ; and, in fine, that the Government of Mexico has slowly but steadily encroached upon the bordering country heretofore held by Guatemala, substituting the local authorities of Mexico for those already in possession, and so widening the area in contention. It is not the province of the United States to express an opinion as to the extent of either the Guatemalan or the Mexican claim to this region. This Government is not a self- constituted arbiter of the destinies of either country, or of both, in this matter. It is simply the impartial friend of both, ready to tender frank and earnest counsel touching any thing which may menace the peace and prosperity of its neighbors. It is, above all, anxious to do any and every thing which will tend to make stronger the natural union of the republics of the continent, in the face of the tendencies of other and distant forms of government to influence the internal affairs of Spanish America. It is especially anxious, in the pursuance of this policy, to see the Central American Republics more securely united than they have been in protection of their common interests, which interests are, in their outward relations, identi- cal in principle with those of Mexico and the United States. It feels that every thing which may lessen the good will and 378 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPOJs^DENCE. harmony earnestly to be desired between the Spanish-American Republics of the Isthmus must in the end disastrously affect their mutual well-being. The responsibility for the maintenance of this common attitude of united strength is, in the President's conception, shared by all, and rests no less upon the strong States than upon the weak. Without, therefore, in any way prejudicing the contention between Mexico and Guatemala, but acting as the unbiased counselor of both, the President deems it his duty to set before the Government of Mexico his conviction of the danger to the principles that Mexico has signally and successfully defended in the past, which would ensue should disrespect be shown for the boundaries that separate her from her weaker neigh- bors, or should the authority of force be resorted to in the es- tablishment of rights over territory which they claim, without the conceded justification of her title thereto. Especially would the President regard it as an unfriendly act toward his cherished plan of upbuilding strong Republican governments in Spanish America, if Mexico, whose power and generosity should be alike signal in such a case, should seek or permit any misunderstand- ing with Guatemala, when the path toward a pacific avoidance of trouble is an international duty at once easy and imperative. You are directed to request an interview with Senor Mariscal, in which to acquaint him with tlie purport of this instruction. In doing so, your judgment and discretion may have full scope to avoid any misunderstanding on his part of the spirit of friendly counsel which prompts the President's course. Should Senor Mariscal evince a disposition to become more intimately ac- quainted with the President's views after your verbal exposition thereof, you are at liberty to read this dispatch to him, and, should he so desire, to give him a copy. [Views of the Government of the United States touching disturbed relations of Mexico and Guatemala. Second dispatch from Secretary Blaine to Mr. Morgan, Minister to Mexico.] Department of Statk, Washington, June 21, 18 '^ ^' trade of the United States, by supplying those fabrics in which , ^"■^g^J" we are abundantly able to compete with the manufacturing nations of Europe^, /".. ^^ To attain the second object the first must be accomplished. ^ }^ It would be idle to attempt the development and enlargement of our trade with the countries of North and South America if that trade were liable at any unforeseen moment to be vio- lently interrupted by such wars as that which for three years has engrossed and almost engulfed Chili, Peru, and Bolivia ; as that which was barely averted by the friendly offices of the United States between Chili and the Argentine Republic ; as that which has been postponed by the same good offices, but not decisively abandoned, between Mexico and Guatemala; as that which is threatened between Brazil and Uruguay ; as that which is even now foreshadowed between Brazil and the Argentine States. Peace is essential to commerce, is the very life of honest _trade,. is the solid basis of international pros- perity ; yet there is no part of the world where a resort to arms is so prompt as in the Spanish-American Republics. Those Republics have grown out of the old Colonial divisions, formed from capricious grants to favorites by royal charter, 412 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. and their boundaries are in many cases not clearly defined and consequently afford the basis of continual disputes, breaking forth too often in open war. To induce the Spanish-American States to adopt some peaceful mode of adjusting their fre- quently recurring contentions was regarded by the late Presi- dent as one of the most honorable and useful ends to which the diplomacy of the United States could contribute — useful especiall}^ to those States by securing permanent peace within their borders, and useful to our own country by affording a coveted opportunity for extending its commerce and securing enlarged fields for our products and manufactures. Instead of friendly intervention here and there, negotiating a treat)^ between two countries to-day, securing a truce between two others to-morrow, it was apparent to the late President that a more comprehensive plan should be adopted if war was to cease in the Western Hemisphere. It was evident that certain European Powers had in the past been interested in promoting strife between the Spanish-American countries, and might be so interested in the future, while the interest of the United States was wholly and always on the side of peace with all our American neighbors, and peace among them all. It was therefore the President's belief that incidental and partial adjustments failed to attain the desired end and that a common agreement of peace, permanent in its character and continental in its extent, should if possible be secured. To effect this end it had been resolved, before the fatal shot of July 2d, to invite all the independent Governments of North and South America to meet in a Peace Congress at Washing- ton. The date to be assigned was the 15th of March, 1882, and the invitations would have been issued directly after the New England tour, which the President was not permitted to make. Nearly six months later, on the 22d of November, President Garfield's successor issued the invitations for the Peace Congress in the same spirit and with the same limita- tions and restrictions that had been originally designed. As soon as the project was understood in South America it received a most cordial approval, and some of the countries, not following the leisurely routine of diplomatic correspond- ence, made haste to accept the invitation. There can be no FOREIGN POLICY OF GARFIELD ADMINISTRATION. 413 doubt that within a brief period all the nations invited would have formally signified their readiness to attend the Congress. But in six weeks after the invitations had gone to the several countries, President Arthur caused them to be recalled, or at least suspended. The subject was afterwards referred to Con- gress, in a special message, in which the President ably vindi- cated his Constitutional right to assemble the Peace Congress, but expressed a desire that the Legislative Department of the Government should give an opinion upon the expediency of the step before the Congress should be allowed to convene. Meanwhile the nations that received the invitation were in an embarrassing situation ; for after they were asked by the Presi- dent to come, they found that the matter had been reconsid- ered and referred to another department of the Government. This change was universally accepted as a practical though indirect abandonment of the project, for it was not from the first probable that Congress would take action upon the sub- ject. The good will and welcome of the invitation would be destroyed by a long debate in the Senate and House, in which the question would necessarily become intermixed with personal and party politics, and the project would be ultimately wrecked from the same cause and by the same process that destroyed the usefulness of the Panama Congress during the Administra- tion of John Quincy Adams when Mr. Clay was at the head of the State Department. The time for Congressional action would have been after the Peace Conference had closed its labors. The Conference could not agree upon any thing that would be binding upon the United States, unless assented to as a treaty by the Senate, or enacted into a law by both branches of Congress. The assembling of the Peace Confer- ence was not in derogation of any right or prerogative of the Senate or House. Tlie money necessary for the expenses of the Conference — which would not have exceeded ten thousand dollars — could not, with reason or propriety, have been with- held. If Congress had refused it, patriotism and philanthropy would have promptly supplied it. The Spainsh-American States are in special need of the help which the Peace Congress would afford them. They require external pressure to keep them from war ; when at war they 414 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. require external pressure to bring them to peace. Their out- breaks are not only frequent but are sanguinary and sometimes cruel. The inhabitants of those countries are a brave people, belonging to a race that has always been brave, descended of men that have always been proud. They are of hot temper, quick to take affront, ready to avenge a wrong whether real or fancied. They are at the same time generous and chivalrous, and though tending for years past to estrangement and aliena- tion from us, they would promptly respond to any advance made by the Great Republic of the North, as they have for two generations termed our Government. The moral influence upon the Spanish-American people of such an International assembly as the Peace Congress, called by the invitation and meeting under the auspices of the United States, would have proved beneficent and far-reaching. It would have raised the standard of their civilization. It would have turned their at- tention to the things of peace ; and the Southern continent, whose undeveloped wealth amazed Humboldt, might have re- ceived a new life, might have seen a new and splendid career opened to its inhabitants. Such friendly interventions as the proposed Peace Congress, and as the attempt to restore peace between Chili and Peru, fall within the line of both duty and interest on the part of the United States. Nations like individuals often require the aid of a common friend to restore relations of amity. Peru and Chili are in deplorable need of a wise and powerful mediator. Though exhausted by war, they are unable to make peace, and, unless aided by the intervention of a friend, political anarchy and social disorder will come to the conquered, and evils scarcely less serious to the conqueror. Our own Government cannot take the ground that it will not offer friendly interven- tion to settle troubles between American countries, unless at the same time it freely concedes to European Governments the right of such intervention, and thus consents to a practical destruction of the Monroe doctrine and an unlimited increase of European influence on this continent. The late special envoy to Peru and Chili, Mr. Trescott, gives it as his deliber- ate and published conclusion that if the instructions under which he set out upon his mission had not been revoked, peace FOREIGN POLICY OF GARFIELD ADMINISTRATION. 415 between those angry belligerents would have been established as the result of his labors — necessarily to the great benefit of the United States. If our Government does not resume its efforts to secure peace in South America some European Government will be forced to perform that friendly office. The United States cannot play between nations the part of dog in the manger. A significant and important result would have followed the assembling of the Peace Congress. A friendship and an intimacy would have been established between the States of North and South America which must have enforced a closer commercial connection. A movement in the near future, as the legitimate outgrowth of assured peace, would, in all probability, have been a commercial conference at the City of Mexico or at Rio Janeiro, whose deliberations would be directed to a better system of trade on the two continents. To such a conference the Dominion of Canada could properly be asked to send repre- sentatives, as that Government is allowed by Great Britain a large liberty in regulating its trade relations. In the Peace Congress, to be composed of independent governments, the Dominion could not have taken part, and was consequently not invited. From this trade-conference of the two continents the Unitgxl States could hardly have failed to gain great advan- tages. |At present the commercial relations of this country with the Spanish-American countries, both continental and insular, are unsatisfactory and unprofitable — indeed, those relations are absolutely oppressive to the financial interests of the Government and people of the United States. In our current exchanges it requires about one hundred and twenty millions of dollars to pay the balance which Spanish America brings against us every year. This amount is fifty per cent more than the average annual product of the gold and silver mines of the United States during the past five years. This vast sum does not of course go to Spanish America in coin, but it goes across the ocean in coin or its equivalent, to pay Euro- pean countries for manufactured articles which they furnish to Spanish America — a large proportion of which should be fur- nished by the manufacturers of the United States. At this point of the argument the Free-trader appears and declares that our Protective tariff destroys our power of compe- 416 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. tition with European countries, and that if we will abolish Pro- tectioiijvye shall soon have South-American trade. The answer is not sufficient, for to-day there are maiiy articles which we c an send to South America and sell as cheaply as European manu- facturers can furnish them. It is idle, of course, to make this ■ statement to the genuine apostle of Free Trade and the implaca- ble enemy of Protection, for the great postulate of his argument, the foundation of his creed, is that nothing can be made as cheaply in America as in Europe. Nevertheless facts are stub- born and the hard figures of arithmetic cannot be satisfactorily answered by airy figures of speech. The truth remains that the coarser descriptions of cottons and cotton prints, boots and shoes, ordinary household furniture, harness for draught animals, agricultural implements of all kinds, doors, sashes and blinds, locks, bolts and hinges, silverware, plated ware, woodenware, ordinary papers and paper hangings, common vehicles, ordinary window-glass and glassware, rubber goods, coal oils, lard oils, kerosenes, white-lead, lead pipe and articles in which lead is a chief component, can be and are produced as cheaply in the United States as in any other part of the world. The list of such articles might be lengthened by the addition of those classed as " notions," but only enough are given to show that v' this country would, with proper commercial arrangements, ex-_ port much more largely than it now does to Spanish America. In the trade relations of the world it does not follow that mere ability to produce as cheaply as another nation insures a division of an established market, or, indeed, any participation in it. France manufactures many articles as cheaply as Eng- land — some articles at even less cost. Portugal lies nearer to France than to England, and the expense of transporting the French fabric to the Portuguese market is therefore less than the transportation of the English fabric. Yet Great Britain has almost a monopoly in the trade of Portugal. The same con- dition applies, though in a less degree, to the trade of Turkey, Syria and Egypt, which England holds to a much greater ex- tent than any of the other European nations that are able to produce the same fabric as cheaply. If it be said in answer that England has special trade relations by treaty with Portu- gal and special obligations binding the other countries, the FOREIGN rOLICY OF GARFIELD ADMIXISTRATIOX. 417 ready answer is that she has no more favorable position with respect to those countries than can be readily and easily acquired by the United States with respect to all the countries of America. That end will be reached whenever the United States desires it and wills it, and is ready to take the steps necessary to secure it. /At present the trade with Spanish America runs so strongly in channels adverse to us, that, beside our inability to furnish manufactured articles, we do not get the profit on our own raw products that are shipped there. Our petroleum reaches most of the Spanish-American ports after twice crossing the Atlantic, paying often a better profit to the European middle man who handles it than it does to the pro- ducer of the oil in the north-western counties of Pennsylvania. Flour and pork from the West reach Cuba by way of Spain, and though we buy and consume ninety per cent of the total products of Cuba, almost that proportion of her purchases are made in Europe — made, of course, with money furnished directly from our pockets./ As our exports to Spanish America grow less, as European exports constantly grow larger, the balance against us will show an annual increase, and will continue to exhaust our supply of the precious metals. We are increasing our imports from South America, and the millions we annually pay for coffee, wool, hides, guano, cinchona, caoutchouc, cabinet woods, dye woods and other articles, go for the ultimate benefit of European manufacturers who take the gold from us and send their fabrics to Spanish America. If we could send our fabrics, our gold would stay at home and our general prosperity would be sen- sibly increased. But so long as we repel Spanish America, so long as we leave her to cultivate intimate relati'^ns with Europe alone, so long our trade relations will remain unsatisfactory and even embarrassing. Those countries sell to us very heavily. They buy from us very lightly. The amount they bring us in debt each year is larger than the heaviest aggregate balance of trade we have against us in the worst of times. The average balance against us for the whole world in the five most adverse years we ever experienced, was about one hundred millions of dollars. This plainly shows that in our European exchanges, there is always a balance in our favor and that our chief defi- l^ 418 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. ciency arises from our ill-adjusted commercial relations with Spanish America. It follows that if our Spanish-American trade were placed on a better and more equitable foundation, it would be well-nigh impossible even in years most unfavorable to us, to bring us in debt to the world. With such heavy purchases as we are compelled to make from Spanish America, it could hardly be expected that we should be able to adjust the entire account by exports. But the bal- ance against us of one hundred and twenty millions in gold coin is far too large and is in time of stringency a standing menace of financial disaster. It should not be forgotten that every million dollars' worth of products or fabrics that we sell in Spanish America is a million dollars in gold saved to our own country. The immediate profit is to the producer and the exporter, but the entire country realizes a gain in the ease and affluence of the money market which is insured by keeping our goM-^JiiimimJ It is only claimed for the Peace Congress, designed under the administration of President Garfield, that it was an important and impressive step on the part of the United States towards closer relationship with our continental neighbors. The present tendency in those countries is towards Europe, and it is a lamentable fact that their people are not so near to us in feeling as they were sixty years ago when they threw off the yoke of Spanish tyranny. We were then a weak republic of but ten millions, but we did not hesitate to recognize the independence of the new Governments, even at the risk of a war with Spain. Our foreign policy at that time was especially designed to ex- tend our influence in the Western Hemisphere, and the states- men of that era — the era of De Witt Clinton and the younger Adams, of Clay and Crawford, of Webster and Calhoun, of Van Buren and Benton, of Jackson and Edward Livingston — were always courageous in the inspiring measures which they advocated for the expansion of our commercial dominion. Threescore years have passed. The power of the Republic in many directions has grown beyond all anticipation, but we have relatively lost ground in some great fields of enterprise. We have added thousands of miles to our ocean front, but our foreign commerce is relatively less, and from ardent friendship FOREIGN POLICY OF GARFIELD ADMINISTRATION. 419 with Spanish America we have drifted into indifference if not into coldness. It is but one step further to reach a condition of positive unfriendliness, which may end in what would be equivalent to a commercial alliance against us. Already one of the most dangerous of movements — that of a European guar- antee and guardianship of the Interoceanic canal — is suggested and urged upon the foreign Powers by representatives of a South-American country. If these tendencies are to be ux averted, if Spanish-American friendship is to be regained, if the commercial empire that legitimately belongs to us is to be ours, we m ust not lie idle and witness its transfer to others. If we would reconquer it, a great first step is to be taken. It is the first step that costs. It is also the first step that counts. Can ajwiser_steji_hfi. suggested than the Peace Congress of the two Americas, that was devised under Garfield and had the weisfht _pf J iis great name? i In no event could harm have resulted from the assembling of the Peace Congress. Failure was next to impossible. Success might be regarded as certain. The subject to be discussed was Peace, and the measures by which it can be permanently pre- served in North and South America. The labors of the Con- gress would probably have ended in a well-digested system of arbitration, under which all future troubles between American States could be promptly and satisfactorily adjusted. Such a consummation would have been worth a great struggle and a great sacrifice. It could have been reached without struggle and would have involved no sacrifice. It was within our grasp. It was ours for the asking. It would have been a signal victory of philanthropy over the selfishness of human ambition ; a com- plete triumph of Christian principles as applied to the affairs of nations. It would have reflected enduring honor on our own country and would have imparted a new spirit and a new brotherhood to all America. Nor would its influence beyond the sea have been small. The example of seventeen independ- ent nations solemnly agreeing to abolish the arbitrament of the sword, and to settle every dispute by peaceful adjudication, would have exerted an influence to the utmost confines of civilization, and upon generations of men yet to come. 420 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. MR. BLAINE'S LETTER ACCEPTING THE REPUB- LICAN NOMINATION FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 1884. Augusta, Me., July 15, 1884. The Honorable John B. Henderson and others of the Committee, etc. Gentlemen, — In accepting the nomination for the Presi- dency tendered me by the Republican National Convention, I beg to express a deep sense of the honor which is conferred and of the duty which is imi^osed. I venture to accompany the acceptance with some observations u^^on the questions involved in the contest — questions whose settlement may affect the future of the Nation favorably or unfavorably for a long series of years. In enumerating the issues upon which the Republican party appeals for popular support, the Convention has been singu- larly explicit and felicitous. It has properly given the leading position to the industrial interests of the country as affected by the tariff on imports. On that question the two political parties are radically in conflict. Almost the first act of the Republicans, when they came into power in 1861, was the establishment of the principle of Protection to American labor and to American capital. This principle the Republican party has ever since steadily maintained, while on the other hand the Democratic party in Congress has for fifty years persistently warred upon it. Twice within that period our opponents have destroyed tariffs arranged for Protection, and since the close of the civil war, Avhenever they have controlled the House of Representatives, hostile legislation has been attempted — never more conspicuously than in their principal measure at the late session of Congress. MR. BLAINE ACCEPTS THE NOMINATION IN 1884. 421 Revenue laws are in their very nature subject to frequent revision in order that they may be adapted to changes and modifications of trade. The Republican party is not coyntend- ing for the permanency of any particular statute. The issue between the two parties does not have reference to a specific law. It is far broader and far deeper : it involves a principle of wide application and beneficent influence against a theory which we believe to be unsound in conception and inevitably hurtful in practice. In the many tariff revisions which have been necessary for the past twenty-three years, or which may hereafter become necessary, the Republican party has main- tained and will maintain the policy of Protection to American industry, while our opponents insist upon a revision, which practically destroys that policy. The issue is thus distinct, well defined, and unavoidable. The pending election may de- termine the fate of Protection for a generation. The over- throw of the policy means a large and permanent reduction in the wages of the American laborer, besides involving the loss of vast amounts of American capital invested in manufacturing enterprises. The value of our present revenue system to the People is not a matter of theory, and I shall submit no argu- ment to sustain it. I only invite attention to certain facts of official record which seem to constitute a demonstration. In the census of 1850 an effort was made, for the first time in our history, to obtain a valuation of all the property in the United States. The attempt was in large degree unsuccessful. Partly from lack of time, partly from prejudice among many who thought the inquiries foreshadowed a new scheme of taxa- tion, the returns were incomplete and unsatisfactory. Little more was done than to consolidate the local valuation used in the States for purposes of assessment, and that, as is well known, differs widely from a complete exhibit of all the property. In the census of 1860, however, the work was done with great thoroughness — the distinction between-" assessed " value and " true " value being carefully observed. The grand result was that the " true value " of all the property in the States and territories (excluding slaves) amounted to fourteen thousand milHons of dollars ($14,000,000,000.) This aggregate was the net result of the labor and the savings of all the people within 422 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. the area of the United States from the time the first British colonist landed in 1607 down to the year 1860. It represented the fruit of the toil of two hundred and fifty years. After 1860 the business of the country was encouraged and developed by a Protective Tariff. At the end of twenty years the total property of the United States, as returned by the census of 1880, amounted to the enormous aggregate of forty-four thousand millions of dollars ($44,000,000,000.) This great result was attained, notwithstanding the fact that count- less milhons had in the interval been wasted in the progress of a bloody war. It thus appears that while our population between 1860 and 1880 increased sixty per cent, the aggregate property of the country increased two hundred and fourteen per cent — showing a largely enhanced wealth j^er capita among the people. Thirty thousand millions of dollars ($30,000,000,- 000) had been added during these twenty years to the perma- nent wealth of the nation — $1,500,000,000 per annum. These results are regarded by the older nations of the world as phenomenal. That our country should surmount the peril and the cost of a gigantic war and for an entire period of twenty years make an average gain to its wealth of one hun- dred and twenty-five million dollars per month surpasses the experience of all other nations, ancient or modern. Even the opponents of the present Revenue system do not pretend that in the whole history of civilization any parallel can be found to the material progress of the United States, since the acces- sion of the Republican party to power. The period which has elapsed since 1860 has not only been one of material prosperity, but at no time in the his- tory of the United States has there been such progress in the moral and philanthropic field. Religious and charitable institutions, schools, seminaries, and colleges, have been founded and endowed far more liberally than at any previous time in our history. Greater and more varied relief has been extended to human suffering and the entire progress of the country in wealth has been accompanied and dignified by a broadening and uplifting of our character as a People. Our opponents find fault that our revenue system produces a surplus j but they should not forget that the law has given a MR. BLAINE ACCEPTS THE NOMINATION IN 18-84. 423 specific purpose to which tlie whole of the surplus is profitably and honorably applied — tlie reduction of the public debt and the consequent relief of the burden of taxation. No dollar has been wasted, and the only extravagance with which the party stands charged is the generous pensioning of soldiers, sailors, and their families — an extravagance which embodies the high- est form of justice in the recognition and payment of a sacred debt. When reduction of taxation is to be made, the Repub- lican party can be trusted to accomplish it in such form as will most effectively aid the industries of the nation. A frequent accusation by our opponents is that the foreign commerce of the country has steadily decayed under the influ- ence of the Protective tariff. In this way they seek to array the importing interest against the Republican party. It is a common and yet radical error to confound the commerce of the country with its carrying-trade — an error often committed in- nocently and sometimes designedly — but an error so gross that it does not distinguish between tlie ship and the cargo. For- eign commerce represents the exports and imports of a country regardless of the nationality of the vessel that may carry the commodities of exchange. Our carrying-trade has from obvious causes suffered many discouragements since 1860, but our for- eign commerce has in the same period steadily and prodigiously increased — increased indeed at a rate and to an amount which absolutely dwarf all previous developments of our trade beyond the sea. From 1860 to the present time the foreign commerce of the United States (divided with approximate equality be- tween exports and imports) reached a grand total of twenty-four thousand millions of dollars ($24,000,000,000). The balance in this astounding aggregate of exchanges inclined in our favor, but it would have been much larger if our trade with the countries of America, elsewhere referred to, had been more wisely adjusted. It is difficult even to appreciate the magnitude of our export trade since 1860 and we can gain a correct conception of it only by comparison with preceding results in the same field. The total exports from the United States from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 clown to the day of Lincoln's election in 424 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. 1860, added to all tliat had previously been exported from the American Colonies from their original settlement, amounted to less than nine thousand millions of dollars ($9,000,000,000). On the other hand our exports from 1860 to the close of the last fiscal year exceeded twelve thousand millions of dollars (■^2,000,000,000) — the whole of it being the product of Ameri- can labor. Evidently a Protective tariff has not injured our export trade wlien under its influence we exported in twenty- four years thirty-three per cent more than the total amount that had been exported in the entire previous history of American commerce. All the details, when analyzed, correspond with this amazing result. The commercial cities of the Union never had such growth as they have enjoyed since 1860. Our chief empo- rium, the city of New York, with its dependencies, has within that period doubled her population and increased her wealth fivefold. During the same period the imports and exports which have entered and left her harbor are more than double in bulk and value the whole amount exported by her between the settlement of the first Dutch colony on the island of Man- hattan and the outbreak of the civil war in 1860. The agricultural interest is by far the largest in the Nation, and in every adjustment of Revenue Laws is entitled to the first consideration. Any policy hostile to the fullest development of agriculture in the United States must be abandoned. Realizing this fact the opponents of the present system of Revenue have labored very earnestly to persuade the farmers of the United States that they are robbed by a Protective Tariff, and the effort is thus made to consolidate their influence in favor of Free Trade. But happily the farmers of America are intelli- gent and cannot be misled by sophistry when conclusive facts are before them. They see plainly that during the past twenty- four years, wealth has not been acquired in one section or by one interest at the expense of another section or another inter- est. They see that the agricultural States have made even more rapid progress than the manufacturing States. The farmers see that in 1860 Massachusetts and Illinois had about the same wealth — between eight and nine hundred mil- lion dollars each — and that in 1880 Massachusetts had advanced MR. BLAINE ACCEPTS THE XOMTXATION IX 1884. 425 to twenty-six hundred millions, while Illinois had advanced to thirty-two hundred millions. They see that New Jersey and Iowa were in 1860 just equal in population and that in twenty years the wealth of New Jersey was increased by the sum of eight hundred and fifty millions of dollars, while the wealth of Iowa was increased by the sum of fifteen hundred millions. They see that the nine leading agricultural States of the West have grown so rapidly in prosperity that the aggregate addition to their wealth since 1860 is nearly as great as the wealth of the entire country in that year. They see that the South, which is mainly agricultural, has shared in the general pros- perity and that having recovered from the loss and devastation of war, has gained so rapidly that its total wealth is at least double that which it possessed in 1860, exclusive of slaves. In these extraordinary developments the farmers see the help- ful impulse of a home market, and they see that the financial and revenue system, enacted since the Republican party came into power, has established and constantly expanded the home market. They see that even in the case of wheat, which is our chief cereal export, they have sold, in the average of the years since the close of the war, three bushels at home to one they have sold abroad, and that in the case of corn, the only other cereal which we export to any extent, one hundred bushels have been used at home to three and a half bushels exported. In some years the disparity has been so great that for. every peck of corn exported one hundred bushels have been consumed in the home market. The farmers see that in the increasing com- petition from the grain-fields of Russia and from the distant plains of India, the growth of the home market becomes daily of greater concern to them and that the impairment of that market would depreciate the value of every acre of tillable land in the Union. Such facts as these touching the growth and consumption of cereals at home give us some slight conception of the vastness of the internal commerce of the United States. They suggest also that, in addition to the advantages which the American people enjoy from protection against foreign competition, they enjoy the advantages of absolute free trade over a larger area 426 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. and with a greater population than any other nation. The in- ternal commerce of our thirty-eight States and nine Territories is carried on without let or hindrance, without tax, detention or Governmental interference of any kind whatever. It spreads freely over an area of three and a half millions of square miles — almost equal in extent to the whole continent of Europe. Its profits are enjoyed to-day by fifty-six millions of American freemen, and from this enjoyment no monopoly is created. According to Alexander Hamilton, when he discussed the same subject in 1790, "the internal competition which takes place does away with every thing like monopoly, and by degrees re- duces the prices of articles to the minimum of a reasonable profit on the capital employed." It is impossible to point to a single monopoly that has been created or fostered b}^ the In- dustrial System which is upheld by the Republican party. Compared with our foreign commerce these domestic ex- changes are inconceivably great in amount — requiring merely for one instrumentality as large a mileage of railway as exists to-day in all the other nations of the world. These internal exchanges are estimated b}" the Statistical Bureau of the Treasury Department to be annually twenty times as great in amount as our foreign commerce. It is into this field of home trade — at once the creation and the heritage of the American people — that foreign nations are striving to enter. It is into this field that the opponents of our present revenue system would freely admit the countries of Europe — countries in whose internal trade we could not reciprocally share ; coun- tries to which we should be surrendering every advantage of traffic ; from which we should be gaining nothing in return. A policy that would abandon this field of home trade must prove disastrous to the mechanics and workingmen of the United States. Wages are unjustly reduced when an industrious man is not able by his earnings to live in comfort, educate his children, and save a sufficient amount for the necessities of age. The reduction of wages inevitably consequent upon throwing our home market open to the world, would deprive the working- men of the United States of the power to do this. It would prove a great calamity to our country. It would produce a MR. BLAINE ACCEPTS THE XOMIXATIOX IX 1884. 427 conflict between the poor and the rich, and in the sorrowful degradation of labor would plant the seeds of public danger. The Republican party has steadily aimed to maintain just relations between Labor and Capital — guarding with care the rights of each. A conflict between the two has always led in the past and will always lead in the future to the injury of both. Labor is indispensable to the creation and profitable use of capital, and capital increases the efficiency and value of labor. Whoever arra3-s the one against the other is an enemy of both. That policy is wisest and best which harmonizes the two on the basis of absolute justice. The Republican party has protected the free labor of America so that its compensation is larger than is realized in any other country. It has guarded our people against the unfair competition of contract labor from China and may be called upon to prohibit the growth of a smiilar evil from Europe. It is obviously unfair to permit capitalists to make contracts for cheap labor in foreign countries to the hurt and disparagement of the labor of American citizens. Such a policy (like that which would leave the time and other conditions of home labor exclusively in the control of the employer) is in- jurious to all parties — not the least so to the unhappy persons who are made the subjects of the contract. The institutions of the United States rest upon the intelligence and virtue of aU the people. Suffrage is made universal as a just weapon of self-protection to every citizen. It is not the interest of the Republic that any economic system should be adopted which involves the reduction of wages to the hard standard prevailing elsewhere. The Republican party aims to elevate and dignify labor — not to degiade it. As a substitute for the industrial system which under Re- publican administrations has developed a prosperity so extraor- dinary, our opponents offer a policy which is but a series of experiments upon our system of revenue — a policy whose end must be harm to our manufactures and greater harm to our labor. Experiment in the industrial and financial system is the country's greatest dread, as stability is its greatest boon. Even the uncertainty resulting from the recent tariff agitation in Congress has hurtfully affected the business of the entire coun- try. Who can measure the injury to our shops and our homes, 428 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. to our farms and our commerce, if the uncertainty of perpetual tariff agitation is to be inflicted upon the country ? Our Foreign relations favor our domestic development. We are at peace with the world — at peace upon a sound basis with no unsettled questions of sufficient magnitude to embarrass or distract us. Happily removed by our geographical position from participation or interest in those questions of dynasty or boundary which so frequently disturb the peace of Europe, we are left to cultivate friendly relations with all, and are free from possible entanglements in the quarrels of any. The United States has no cause and no desire to engage in conflict with any Power on earth, and we may rest in assured confi- dence that no Power desires to attack the United States. With the nations of the Western Hemisphere we should cul- tivate closer relations and for our common prosperity and ad- vancement we should invite them all to join with us in an agreement that, for the future, all international troubles in North or South America shall be adjusted by impartial arbi- tration and not by arms. This project was part of the fixed policy of President Garfield's Administration and it should in my judgment be revived. Its accomplishment on this conti- nent would favorably affect the nations beyond the sea, and thus powerfully contribute at no distant day to the universal acceptance of the philanthropic and Christian principle of arbi- tration. The effect even of suggesting it to the Spanish- American States has been most happy and has increased the confidence of those people in our friendly disposition. It fell to my lot as Secretary of State in June, 1881, to quiet appre- hension in the Republic of Mexico, by giving the assurance in an official dispatch that " there is not the faintest desire in the United States for territorial extension south of the Rio Grande. The boundaries of the two Republics have been established in conformity with the best jurisdictional interests of both. The line of demarcation is not merely conventional. It is more ; it separates a Spanish-American people from a Saxon-American people ; it divides one great nation from another with distinct and natural finality." We seek the conquests of peace ; we desire to extend our MR. BLAINE ACCEPTS THE NOMIXATIOX IN 1884. 429 commerce, and in an especial degree with our friends and neighbors on this continent. We have not improved our rela- tions with Spanish America as Avisely and as persistently as we might have done. For more than a generation the sympathy of those countries has been allowed to drift away from us. We should now make every effort to gain their friendship. Our trade with them is already large. During the last year our exchanges in the Western Hemisphere amounted to three hundred and fifty millions of dollars — nearly one-fourth of our entire foreign commerce. To those who may be disposed to underrate the value of our trade with the countries of North and South America, it may be well to state that their pojDula- tion is nearly or quite fifty millions — and that, in proportion to aggregate numbers, we import nearly double as much from them as we do from Europe. But the result of the Spanish American trade is in a high degree unsatisfactory. The im- ports during the past year exceeded two hundred and twenty- five millions, while the exports were less than one hundred and twenty-five millions — showing a balance against us of more than one hundred millions of dollars. But the money does not go to Spanish America. We send large sums to Europe in coin or its equivalent to pay European manufacturers for the goods which they send to Spanish America. We are but paymasters for this enormous amount annually to European factors. Cannot this condition of trade in great part be changed? Cannot the market for our products be greatly enlarged ? We have made a beginning in our effort to improve our trade rela- tions with Mexico, and we should not be content until similar and mutually advantageous arrangements have been succes- sively made with every nation of North and South America. While the great powers of Europe are steadily enlarging their colonial domination in Asia and Africa it is the especial prov- ince of this country to improve and expand its trade with the nations of America. No field promises so much; no field has been cultivated so little. Our foreign policy should be an American policy in its broadest and most comprehensive sense — a policy of peace, of friendship, of commercial enlargement. The name of American, which belongs to us in our National capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism. Citi- 430 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. zenship of the Republic must be the panoply and safeguard of him who wears it. The American citizen, rich or poor, native or naturalized, white or colored, must everywhere walk secure in his personal and civil rights. The Republic should never accept a lesser duty, it can never assume a nobler one, than the protection of the humblest man who owes it loyalty — pro- tection at home, and protection which shall follow him abroad, into whatever land he may go upon a lawful errand. I recognize, not without regret, the necessity for speaking of two sections of our common country. But the regret dimin- ishes when I see that the elements which separated them are fast disappearing. Prejudices have yielded and are yielding, while a growing cordiality warms the Southern and the North- ern heart alike. Can any one doubt that between the sections confidence and esteem are to-day more marked than at any period in the sixty years preceding the election of President Lincoln ? This is the result in part of time and in part of Republican principles applied under the favorable conditions of uniformity. It would be a great calamity to change these influences under which Southern Commonwealths are learning to vindicate civil rights, and adapting themselves to the condi- tions of political tranquillity and industrial progress. If there be occasional outbreaks in the South against this peaceful progress, the public opinion of the country regards them as exceptional and hopefully trusts that each 'will prove the last. Any effort to unite the Southern States upon issues that grow out of the memories of the war, will summon the Northern States to combine in the assertion of that nationality which was their inspiration in the civil struggle. Thus great ener- gies which should be united in a common industrial develop- ment will be wasted in hurtful strife. The Democratic party shows itself a foe to Southern prosperity by always invoking and urging Southern political consolidation. Such a policy quenches the rising instinct of patriotism in the heart of the Southern youth ; it revives and stimulates prejudice ; it sub- stitutes the spirit of barbaric vengeance for the love of peace, progress, and harmony. MR. BLAINE ACCEPTS THE NOMINATION IN 1884. 431 The general character of the civil service of the United States under all Administrations of the Government has been honorable. In the one supreme test — the collection and dis- bursement of revenue — the record of fidelity has never been surpassed in any nation. With the almost fabulous sums which were received and paid during the late war, scrupulous integ- rity was the prevailing rule. Indeed, throughout that trying period, it can be said to the honor of the American name, that unfaithfulness and dishonesty among civil officers were as rare as misconduct and cowardice on the field of battle. The growth of the country has continually and necessarily enlarged the civil service, until now it includes a great body of officers. Rules and methods of appointment which prevailed when the number was smaller have been found insufficient and impracticable, and earnest efforts have been made to separate the mass of ministerial officers from partisan influence and personal control. Impartiality in the mode of appointment to be based on qualification, and security of tenure to be based on faithful discharge of duty, are the two ends to be accomplished. The public business will be aided by separating the Legislative branch of the Government from all control of appointments and the Executive will be relieved by subjecting appointments to fixed rules and thus removing them from the caprice of favoritism. But there should be rigid observance of the law which, in all cases of equal competenc}^ gives the preference to the soldiers who risked their lives in defense of the Union. I entered Congress in 1863, and in a somewhat prolonged service I never found it expedient to request or recommend the removal of a civil officer except in four instances, and then for non-political reasons which were instantly conclusive with the appointing power. The officers in the district, appointed by Mr. Lincoln in 1861 upon the recommendation of my predeces- sor, served, as a rule, until death or resignation. I adopted at the beginning of my service the test of competitive examination for appointments to West Point and maintained it so long as I had the right by law to nominate a cadet. In the case of many officers I found that the present law which arbitrarily limits the term of the commission offered a constant temptation to changes for mere political reasons. I have publicly expressed the belief 432 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. that the essential modification of that law would be in many- respects advantageous. My observation in the Department of State confirmed the conclusions of my Legislative experience, and impressed me with the conviction that the rule of impartial appointment might with advantage be carried beyond any existing provision of the Civil Service Law. It should be applied to appointments in the consular service. Consuls should be commercial sentinels — encircling the globe with watchfulness for their country's interests. Their intelligence and competency become, there- fore, matters of great public concern. No man should be ap- pointed to an American consulate who is not well instructed in the history and resources of his own country, and in the requirements and language of commerce in the country to which he is sent. The same rule should be applied even more rigidly to Secretaries of Legation in our Diplomatic service. The people have the right to the most efficient agents in the discharge of public business and the appointing power should regard this as the prior and ulterior consideration. Religious liberty is the right of every citizen of the Repub- lic. Congress is forbidden by the Constitution to make any law " respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For a century, under this guarantee, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, have worshiped God according to the dictates of conscience. But religious liberty must not be perverted to the justification of offenses against the law. A religious sect, strongly intrenched in one of the Terri- tories of the Union, and spreading into four other Territories, claims the right to destroy the safeguard and muniment of social order, and to practice as a religious j^rivilege that which is a crime punished with severe penalty in every State of the Union. The sacred unity of the family must be preserved as the foun- dation of all civil government, as the source of orderly adminis- tration, as the surest guarantee of moral purity. The claim of the Mormons that they are divinely authorized to practice ])olygamy should no more be admitted than the claim of certain heatlien tribes, if tliey should come among us, to con- tinue the rite of human sacrifice. The law does not interfere MR. BLAINE ACCEPTS THE NOMINATION IN 1884. 433 with what a man believes. It takes cognizance only of what he does. As citizens, the Mormons are entitled to the same civil rights as others and to these they must be confined. Polygamy ought never to receive National toleration by the admission of a community that upholds it, as a State in the Union. The Mormons must learn, as others have learned, that the liberty of the individual ceases where the rights of society begin. The people of the United States, though often urged and tempted, have never seriously contemplated the recognition of any other money than gold and silver — and currency directly convertible into them. They have not done so, they will not do so, under any necessity less pressing than that of desperate war. The one special requisite for the completion of our monetary system is the fixing of the relative values of silver and gold. The large use of silver as the money of account among Asiatic nations, taken in connection with the increasing commerce of the world, gives the weightiest reasons for an international agreement in the premises. Our Government should not cease to urge this measure until a common stand- ard of value shall be established — a standard that shall enable the United States to use the silver from its mines as an aux- iliary to gold in settling the balances of Commercial ex- change. The strength of the Republic is increased by the multiplica- tion of land-holders. Our laws should look to the judicious encouragement of actual settlers on the public domain, which should henceforth be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of those seeking homes. The tendency to consolidate large tracts of land in the ownership of individuals or corporations should be discouraged. One hundred thousand acres of land owned by one man is far less profitable to the Nation than when its owner- ship is divided among one thousand men. The evil of permit- ting large tracts of the National domain to be controlled by the few against the many is enhanced when the persons controlling it are aliens. It is but fair that the public land should be dis- posed of only to actual settlers and to those who are citizens, of the Republic, or willing to become so. 434 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOI^S. Among our National interests one languishes — the foreign carrying-trade. It was very seriously crippled in our civil war, and another blow was given to it in the general substitution of steam for sail in ocean traffic. With a frontage on the two great oceans, with a freightage larger than that of any other nation, we have every inducement to restore our navigation. Yet the Government has hitherto refused its help. A small share of the encouragement given to railways and to manufac- tures, and a small share of the capital and the zeal given by our citizens to those enterprises, would have carried our ships to every sea. A law just enacted removes some of the burdens upon our navigation and inspires hope that this great interest may at last receive its due share of attention. All efforts in this direction should receive encouragement. This survey of our condition as a Nation reminds us that material prosperity is but a mockery if it does not tend to pre- serve the liberty of the people. A free ballot is the safeguard of Republican institutions, without which National welfare is not assured. A popular election, honestly conducted, embodies the very majesty of true government. Ten millions of voters desire to take part in the pending contest. The safety of the Republic rests upon the integrity of the ballot, upon the security of suffrage to the citizen. To deposit a fraudulent vote is no worse a crime against Constitutional liberty than to obstruct the deposit of an honest vote. He who corrupts suffrage strikes at the very root of free government. He is the arch-enemy of the Republic. He forgets that in trampling upon the rights of others he fatally imperils his own rights. "• It is a good land which the Lord our God doth give us," but we can maintain our heritage only by guarding with vigilance the source of popular power. I am with great respect, Your obedient servant, JAMES G. BLAIXE. SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 435 SPEECHES BEFORE THE PEOPLE DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS OF 1884. [Diiring the campaign of 1884 Mr. Blaine made a tour tlirougli several States in the course of wh.ch — lasting in all some six weeks — he spoke more than four hundred times tc assemblies of the people. The speeches were necessarily brief. A small selection of them are here given.] [At the Worcester County, Massachusetts, Agricultural Fair, Sept. 18, 1884.] Ladies and Gentlejien, — I am sure that, under this rich autumn sun and in this prosperous State, you will expect from me to-day nothing but words of congratulation. If there be any one spot within the limits of the United States which may challenge all others in wealth, contentment, and general happi- ness, it must be Worcester, in the State of Massachusetts. We are accustomed, without looking closely at figures, to think of some of the rich sections of Europe as far more i^opulous than any portion of this country ; but in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland outside the counties of Middlesex and Surry there is not so dense a population as inhabits Massa- chusetts from this point to the sea ; there is not in the crowded Kingdom of Belgium, not even in that hive of industr}^ — Holland — so dense a population as you on this ground repre- sent to-day. When we compare the comfort and thrift of the entire people, there is not, perhaps, on this circling globe a community with which Worcester County cannot stand the test. In the West, on those rich lands which "laugh a crop when tickled with a hoe," in that " boundless contiguity " of space in which the agricultural district stretches from the crest of the AUeghenies to the Great Plains, it will be a surprise to them, if it is not to you, that this county of Worcester, out of more 436 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. than seventeen hundred counties that make up the United States, is the fifteenth in the Union in the value of its agricul- tural products ; and what is even more surprising is the fact that, standing in this high rank in agricultural industry and agricultural product, it stands still higher in mechanical indus- try and in manufactures. In that list it stands tenth in the United States. So that when you come to estimate the $3,500,- 000,000 product of agriculture and the s!!6,000,000,000 product of manufactures in a single year in the United States, you can see what must be the magnificent prosperity of this county that enables it to stand fifteenth in the one list and tenth in the other. Gentlemen, this county has been loug noted. It is the county best known in the State — and so widely known throughout the Union that if any county in this country were to be presented as the exemplar, the one illustration of what free industry, and free schools, and free suffrage could do, there would be a unanimous voice in favor of presenting the county of Worcester as that exemplar. We in Maine are some- times a little jealous of you in Massachusetts — perhaps it is only because of your superior prosperity ; but outside and be- yond that jealousy I am here to say on behalf of the State, which was formerly a part of the old Commonwealth, that for the county of Worcester, for the State of Massachusetts, no other feeling is entertained than that of respect and honor. [At Hamilton, O., on the 1st of October, 18S4.] Citizens of Ohio, — It is now fort}^ years since the question of a Protective tariff engaged the attention of the American peo- ple as profoundly as it does to-day. It was in the contest between Mr. Clay and Mr. Polk in 1844 that the great National debate on that question took place. The Protective tariff Avas defeated, not by the popular vote, but by the bad faith of the Democratic party which succeeded in the election ; and I beg to call your attention — the attention of a large manufacturing population — to the fact that the policy of protecting our industries has never been defeated in the United States by the popular vote. A contrary policy has been forced on the people at dif- ferent times through the bad faith of their representatives, but never, I repeat, by a popular vote, upon a deliberate appeal to SPEECHES DURIXG THE CAXVASS OF 1884. 437 the people in their primary capacity. It would therefore seem to be the duty of the people of the United States, if by a ma- jority they believe in the policy of Protection, to see to it that the party is sustained which can be trusted to uphold it. Yes, but, said a gentleman to me yesterday, " Protection does not always secure abundant prosperity ; there are a great many idle men now in the country." Grant it, gentlemen ! There has never yet been a policy devised by the wisdom of man that will insure through all times and all seasons a continuous flow of prosperity. But the question is whether over a given series of years there has not been a larger degree of prosperity to the people under the policy of Protection than under the policy of Free Trade. The question is to be tested not by the experi- ence of a single year, but by the experience of a series of years. We have had a Protective tariff now for more than two decades, and I ask you whether there has ever been another period in which the United States has made such progress as during the last twent}'- years ? It is true I admit that now and then there will come a lull and a re-action in business. Adverse changes frequently come even under the laws of Nature. You are suffering from a pro- tracted drought in Ohio this year, but you do not on that account avow that you will have no more rains. You do not fear that seed-time and harvest will fail ! On the contrary, you are the more firmly persuaded that rain is the only element that will restore fertility to your soil, verdure to your fields, richness to your crops. So in this little slough, this temporar}'- dullness in the business in the country, the one great element that can be relied on to restore prosperity is the Protective tariff. The question is one which Ohio must in large part decide. On the fourteenth day of this month you will have an opportunity to tell the people of the United States whether you believe in the policy of Protection. If you do, you will secure not only its continuance, but its permanent triumph. If, on the other hand, you should falter and fall back, it might produce disaster elsewhere. The responsibility is upon you. Is jouv courage equal to your responsibilit}^ ? Is your confidence equal to your courage ? 438 rOLITTCAL DISCUSSIONS. [At Grafton, West Virginia, on tlie 6th of October, 1884.] Citizens of West Virginia, — As your distinguished Chairman has intimated, I am not a stranger to your State. I have known it personally I might say all my life, and this section of it I have known well. I was born and reared on the banks of yonder river a few miles below the point where it enters Penn- sylvania, and you do not need to be told by me that there has always been good-fellowship and unity of feeling among the inhabitants of the Monongahela Valley. But I have not seen in my journey to-day, I do not see around me and before me now the West Virginia which I knew in my boyhood. The West Virginia of forty years ago was comparatively a wilder- ness. The West Virginia of to-day is a prosperous industrial centre in the United States, with great lines of railways and great manufacturing establishments. West Virginia, as an in- dependent Commonwealth, began her existence during the civil war, and at that day the most liberal estimate of her total prop- erty, according to the enumeration of the United States census, did not exceed $100,000,000. In 1870 the census gave jou an aggregate of $190,000,000, and in 1880 it showed that you possessed capitalized wealth to the amount of $350,000,000. From the close of the war to the year 1880, a period of only fifteen years. West Virginia had therefore gained in wealth the enormous sum of $250,000,000. You have fared pretty well, therefore, under Republican administration. Probably some political opponent does me the honor to listen to me, and I would ask him, as a candid man, what agency was it that nerved the arm of industry to smite the mountains and create this wealth in West Virginia ? It was the Protective tariff and a financial system that gave you good money and an abun- dant currency. Before the war you never had a bank-bill circu- lating in West Virginia that would pass current five hundred miles from home. You have not to-day a single piece of paper money circulating in West Virginia that is not good all around the globe ; not a bill that will not pass as readily in the money markets of Europe as in Wheeling, Baltimore or New York. So that the man who works for wages knows, when Saturday night comes, that he is to be paid for his week's labor in good money. SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 439 Under the Protective tariff your coal industries, and your iron industries, and the wealth of your forests have been brought out, and it is for you, voters of West Virginia, to say whether you wish this to continue or whether you want to try Free Trade. I make bold to say, with all respect, that there is not a Democratic statesman on the stump in West Virginia, conspicuous enough to be known to the Nation — I speak only of those I know — who advocates a Protective tariif ; not one. I go further ; I do not know a Democratic statesman who does not hold that a tariff for Protection is unconstitutional, and, therefore, as honest men they are bound to oppose it. The Morrison Tariff Bill would have struck at the interests of West Virginia in many vital respects, and it is an amazing fact that the representatives in Congress from West Virginia voted for that bill. There is a good old adage which I beg to recall to your minds, that God helps those who help themselves, and if West Virginia is not willing to sustain a Protective tariff by her vote and her influence she must not expect it to be sus- tained for her by others. If she wants the benefit of a Protec- tive tariff she must give to a Protective tariff the benefit of her support. If she is not willing to do this she does not deserve the prosperity which a Protective tariff has brought and is still bringing to her. I am glad that I am addressing a Southern audience ; I am glad to exchange views with a community that were slave- holders — a community made up of those who were masters and those who were slaves. But I am addressing a slave State no. longer. I am appealing to tlie new South. I am appealing to West Virginia not to vote upon a tradition or a prejudice ; not to keep her eyes to the rear and to the past, but to look to the front and to the future ; and if I could be heard I would make the same appeal to other Southern States — to old Virginia, to North Carolina, to Georgia, to Alabama, to Tennessee, and to Louisiana. They are all interested in a Protective tariff, and the question is, which do they prefer, to gratify a prejudice or to promote general prosperity? West Virginia can lead the way : she can break this seemingly impregnable barrier of the solid South. Solid on what? Solid on a prejudice ; solid on a tradition ; solid upon doctrines that separate the different por- 440 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. tions of the Union. I invite you to join in a union not merely in form, but in fact : I invite you to take your part in the solution of the industrial and financial problems of the time. If West Virginia takes that course on the 14th of October she will do much to settle the controversies that now agitate the country. The repeal of the Protective tariff, as proposed by the terms of the Morrison Bill, would cost West Virginia a vast sum of money. Between 1870 and 1880 you gained in this State 1160,000,000, between 1880 and 1890 you will gain much more, with a tariff for Protection ; but I ask any business man if he believes you can do it with Free Trade ? Here I close my words of counsel, leaving the action to you. I leave you, I trust, not as a community influenced by sectional feeling, but as a community broadly National. I leave you as a State allied on this side to Pennsylvania, and on that to Ohio, as much as you are on the other sides to Virginia and Kentucky. I leave you as a State that stands in the van of the new South, inviting the whole South to join in a great National movement which shall in fact and in feeling, as well as in form, make us a people with one union, one Constitution, one destiny. [At Lancaster, Ohio, Oct. 11, 1884] My Friends, — T confess that in this place and at this time I hardly feel disposed to make any allusion to public affairs. The recollections that rush upon me as I stand here carry me back through many years, to a time before the majority of those who ]iow hear me were born. In 1841 I was a school- boy in this town, attending the school of Mr. William Lyons, a cultivated English gentleman — the younger brother of the then Lord Lyons, and uncle of the late British Minister at Washington. He taught the youth of this vicinity with great success, with thoroughness, and with refinement. I know not whether he be living, but if he is I beg to make my acknowl- edgments to him, if these words may reach him, for his effi- ciency and excellence as an instructor. As I look upon your faces I am carried back to those days, to Lancaster as it then was. In that row of dwellings on the opposite side of the street, in one of which I then lived and am now a guest, resided SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 441 at that time the three leading Lawyers of Ohio — Thomas Ewing, Henry Stanburjs and Hocking Hunter. I vividly recall their persons and their peculiarities. A few months before there had come home from West Point a tall and very slender young man, straight as an arrow, with a sharp face and a full suit of red hair. His name was Sherman, and he had in his pocket an order to join the army in Florida. You have heard of him since. You have heard of him, and he will be heard of as long as the march through Georgia holds its place in history ; he will be heard of as long as lofty character and military genius are esteemed among men. About the same time, from a country town to the south-west of this place, there was sent to West Point a sturdy, strong- headed youth who was also heard of in the war, and whose fame has since encircled the globe. His name is Ulysses S. Grant. In the adjoining county of Perry, twenty miles perhaps from this spot, there lived a short, stout boy, who has since become known to the world as Phil Sheridan. Combative, yet gentle in nature, he achieved a reputation not unlike that which Ney attained in the Napoleonic wars. So that Ohio was then pre- paring military leaders for great contingencies, for unforeseen crises. I remember another youth of this town — slender, tall, stately — who had just left school, when I came here from my home across the Pennsylvania line, and who had begun as a civil engineer on the Muskingum River improvements. You have since heard of him too. His name is John Sherman. At that time this town seemed to my boyish vision to be the centre of the universe, and my idea was that the world was under deep obligation for being permitted to revolve around Lancaster. I recall those scenes with peculiar pleasure. I recall my early attachment and love for this town, and for the friends and the kindred that were in it — some of whom near to me in blood were here when Arthur St. Clair was Governor of the North-west Territory, and some of whom are here still. When I think of those days, and of the deep attachments I inherited and have since maintained, I feel more like dwelling 442 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. upon old stones and old scenes, than talking about the political contests of to-day. But, my friends, these things are gone by for more than forty years, and a new generation of men meet here in a new era, under new responsibilities. We meet upon the eve of an impor- tant election, and the people of Ohio, as is their wont and as has been their fortune, are placed in the vanguard of the fight. I am satisfied that on Tuesday next you will show, as you have shown in preceding Presidential years, that Ohio is fit to be intrusted with the responsibility of leadership in a National contest. I do not stop to argue any question : the time for argument has passed. I do not stop even to appeal to you ; the appeal has been made. I stop only to remind you that if you do your duty on Tuesday next as becomes men of your lineage and your inheritance, the Republican administration of this Government will be continued ; the Protective tariff will be upheld ; the patriotism and the fruits of the civil struggle will be maintained, and the Government of the Union, preserved by the loyalty of the Union, will continue to be administered in loyalty to the Union. Good-night. [At Flint, Michigan, Oct. 16, 1884.] Fellow-Citizens, — I have received since I have been in this State, two or three letters from persons asking me to say in public whether I had ever been a member of the Know-Noth- ing party. In connection with these inquiries from persons in Michigan I have received several telegrams from the Pacific coast asking whether I was not a supporter of Mr. Fillmore when he ran in 1856 as the Native American candidate for the Presidency. Let me say, in full and explicit reply to these in- quiries by letter and telegraph, that I never was a member of the Know-Nothing order ; that I never voted for a man who was nominated by it, either for a State or for a National office ; and that instead of supporting Mr. Fillmore in 1856, when I was a young man of twenty-six I had the honor to be a member of the National RepiiJblican Convention which nominated Gen- eral Fremont, and as tlie General is now on this platform, he will be able to bear testimony that, however inefficient my sup- port may have been, it was very earnest and very ardent. I SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 443 was then the junior editor of the Kennebec Journal^ and the paper was entirely devoted to General Fremont's advocacy, and aided in giving him the largest majority ever cast in Maine for a Presidential candidate of any party. The Know-Nothing order holds views in regard to immigration and naturalization from which I never hesitated to express dissent. But while I am on that subject, I wish to say that there are at least three wrongs in connection with European immigra- tion which, in my judgment, require correction. Firsts I think that the habit which has grown up on the part of some European countries of sending their paupers to the United States ought not to be longer tolerated. I believe in the good old American system which requires that each town or each county shall take care of its own poor. If the laws of European countries tend to impoverish their Avorking-people those countries ought to take care of them when reduced to want, instead of shipping them to us. Second^ And still more objectionable is the practice of ship- ping their criminals to us, as has been done, criminals being in many cases released from punishment on condition that they shall come to the United States. I think that is a very gmve offense against this country which should not be permitted but should on the contrary be resented and forbidden. Thirds If a tariff for protection is designed to elevate the laboring-man of this country and secure him good wages — and if it is not for that it is not for any thing — then I think the custom which some men are tr3ang to introduce of importing cheap contract labor from foreign countries to compete with home labor ought to be prohibited. It is a species of servitude, against the spirit of our laws, and injures all who are in any way connected with it. These are three evils which I think should be remedied. But, as to every honest immigrant seeking to better his condition, whether he come from the British Isles or from the g'reat Ger- man Empire, from the sunny climes of the Latin nations, or from the brave Scandinavian races of the North, we bid him God-speed and give him hearty welcome and hospitality ; and, when he is admitted to citizenship, we assure him protection at home and abroad. Once among us and of us, his rights are 444 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. equal before tlie law with those of the native-born citizen. No distinction can be tolerated among those who are clothed with the honor of American citizenship. [At Ann Arbor, to the students of Michigan University, Oct. IS, 1884.] During the war we used to hear much about the rebel yell. It was said to imply great vigor and determination, but it seems to me that the young men of Michigan University who do me the honor to appear here to-day could have terrified the whole army of Lee. But I am glad to witness it and hear it, for it implies the enthusiasm and strength of youth; and from the youth of the country the Republican party is constantly re- cruited. What we lose from desertion and disappointment and dissatisfaction on the part of the elders is far more than made up — yea, fourfold made up — by the young men of the country who are just coming into active life. I wish to leave with these young collegians a problem in relation to the leading industrial issue of the time — a problem which will confront them in their future careers — that is, to find out why so many college youths who are Free-Traders at twenty become Protectionists at forty? I think the answer will be found in the fact that at forty they have taken degrees in the university of experience, which, after all, is much wider than the university of theory in which our college boys are taught. I was myself taught when I was in college the doctrine of Free Trade, but the United States stands as a perpetual and irrefutable argument and example of the value of Protection to Home industries in a new country. I am glad to meet you — not merely as those interested in a political campaign, but as young men who are the pride and hope of the country. In dealing with the problems of the future in this marvelous experiment of a people governing themselves by free and universal suffrage, nothing can avail except an educated and constantly corrected public opinion. I wish to impress upon every man who has the advantage of a collegiate education that he is every day more and more placed in debt to his country, and that in proportion as he progresses in knowledge and wisdom, in that proportion will he be ex- pected to pay back in patriotic labor the country which has nurtured him. I congratulate you on being born to such SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 445 opportunities, to a harvest that is ripe for the reaper, a field that is continually expanding. By the time you have your degrees you will go forth to the battle of life in a nation of 60,000,000 of freemen. You go forth, each of you, with as good an opportunity in life as any other man has, and you go with the added advantage which education gives. I commend you to your responsibility, for the responsibilities of an educated American are higher and deeper and broader than those of an educated man in any other land ; and in proportion as your opportunities are greater will you be held to sterner account in this life and in the life which is to come. [At South Bend, Indiana, Oct. 18, 1884.] Men of Indiana, — The struggle in all human society is first for bread. It is idle to propound fine theories to a man who is hungry ; it is idle to commend a political principle to one who is in need of shelter; it is idle to talk philosophy to one who is naked. Food and clothing are the primary require- ments of human society, the primary elements of human prog- ress, and to secure these you must put the people in the way of earning good wages. I never saw any man moved to enthu- siasm by silently contemplating the prosperity of another while he himself was in need. To move him you must make him feel that he can win prosperity himself. The beginning of wise legislation, therefore, is to give to every citizen of the land a fair and equal chance, to leave the race of life open and free for all. What agency will best accomplish that? What legislation will most tend to that end ? Certainly it will not tend to that end to throw open our ports and say. Send ye all here your fabrics made by the cheapest and most dis- tressed labor of Europe in order that our rich people shall have every thing at the lowest price, and in order that those who are not rich, but who are just opening their shops and building their factories, may meet a ruinous competition ! If you do that you cannot spin a wheel or turn a lathe in these manufac- turing establishments which I see on all hands unless you can get your labor at the European prices. We begin just there. From these considerations we deduce the conclusion that the Protective tariff is primarily for the 446 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. benefit of the laboring man, because, if you consider any manu- factured article, you find that the chief constituent element in its cost is the labor. In many cases the material is but one per cent and the labor is ninety-nine per cent. Therefore, all legis- lation of a Protective character is, and must be, mainly for the benefit of labor, because labor is the principal element in the cost of the fabric. Hence, if there be any man who is pre- eminently and above all others interested in the tariff it is the laboring man. A Protective tariff was one of the first fruits of the election of Mr. Lincoln. We have had it for more than twenty years on the statute-book, with various amendments which have been added from time to time, to make it more protective, and the result is that all history, ancient, modern and mediaeval, may be challenged for a National progress like unto that we have made since 1861. I am merely reciting the facts and figures of your assessors' books and of the United States census tables, when I say that in the last twenty years of the history of this country we have added more wealth, twice over, than we had acquired in the centuries between the discovery of the country by Columbus and the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency. There must have been some peculiar and potent agent at work to produce this great result. That agent was the Protective tariff operating to nerve the arm of labor and reward it fairly and liberally. Whether that policy shall be con- tinued or whether it shall be abandoned is the controlling issue in this campaign. All other questions are laid aside for the time. There are many other questions which are worthy of consideration, but two weeks from Tuesday next we shall have an election in every State in the Union, to determine with reference to this question, the character of the next Congress and the future policy of the Government. You have before you the Republican party, pledged to sustain the Protective tariff, and illustrating that pledge by a specific and consistent example, extending through the last twenty-three years. You have on the other hand, the Democratic party, which in fifty- one years (since 1833) has never in a single instance voted for Protection, and never controlled a Congress in which it did not oppose Protection. SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 447 I say, therefore, to the laboring men and to the mechanics, some of whom may do me the honor to listen to me, your unions, your leagues, all those Labor associations you have formed for your own advantage and your own advancement, are well and proper in their way. It is your right to have them and to administer them as you choose, but they are not as strong as a rope of sand against the ill-paid labor of Europe, if you take away the Protective tariff which is now your background and support. Do not therefore be deluded by the idea that you can dispense with the Protective tariff and sub- stitute for it your labor unions. I do not distract your atten- tion with any other question. I do not stop to dwell upon the great issues that have been made and settled by the Repub- licans within the last twenty-three years. That party has made a deeper and more serious imprint in history than any other political organization that ever was charged with a great respon- sibility in the United States, and it is the j)atriotic pride of every man in its ranks that he has been a member of it and has shared its responsibilities, its triumphs, its honors. [At Fort Wayne, Indiana, Oct. 20, 1884.] Citizens of Indiana, — The October elections in Ohio and West Virginia have put a new phase on the National contest, or rather they have reproduced the phase of former years. The Democratic party, as of old, consider now that they have the South solid again ; they believe that they are sure of one hundred and fifty-three Electoral votes from the sixteen South- ern States, and they expect, or they hope, or they dream, that they may secure New York and Indiana and that with New York and Indiana added to the solid South, they will seize the Gov- ernment of the Nation. I do not believe that the farmers, the business men, the manufacturers, the merchants, the mechanics, and, last of all and most of all, I do not believe that the soldiers of Indiana can be put to that use. I do not believe that the men who added lustre and renown to your State through four years of brave service in a bloody war can be used to call to the administration of the Government the men who organized the Rebellion. In the Senate of the United States the Demo- cratic party have thirty-seven members, of which number thirty- 448 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. two come from the South. Of their strength in the House of Representatives the majority come from the South, and now the intention is, with an absolutely solidified Electoral vote from the South, added to the votes of the two States I have named, to seize the Government of the Union. That seizure means a great deal, my friends ; it means that as the South furnishes three-fourths of the Democratic strength, it will be given the lead and control of the Nation in event of a Democratic triumph. It means that the financial and indus- trial s-ystems of the country shall be placed under the direction of the South ; that the currency, the banks, the tariff, the inter- nal-revenue laws — in short, that the whole system upon which the business of the country depends shall be placed under the control of that section. It means that the Constitutional amendments to which Southern leaders are so bitterly opposed shall be enforced only so far as they may believe in them ; that the National credit as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amend- ment, that the payment of pensions to the soldiers of the Union as guaranteed in the same amendment, shall be under their control ; and what that control might mean can be measured by the bitterness with which those amendments were resisted by the Democrats of the South. There is not one measure of banking, of tariff, of finance, of public credit, of pensions, not one line of administration upon which the Government is con- ducted to-day, to which the Democrats of the South are not recorded as hostile, and to give them control would mean a change the like of which has not been known in modern times. It would be as if the dead Stuarts were restored to the throne of England ; as if the Bourbons should be invited to administer the Government of the French Republic ; as if the Florentine Dukes should be called back and empowered to govern the new Kingdom of Italy as consolidated under Victor Emanuel. Such a triumph, fellow-citizens, would, in the end, be a fear- ful misfortune to the South itself. That section, under tlie wise administration of the Government by the Republican party, has been steadily and rapidly gaining for the last ten years in all the elements of material prosperity. It has added enor- mously to its wealth since the close of the war, and has shared fully in the general advance of the country. To call that sec- SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 449 tion now to the Rulership of the Nation would disturb its own social and political economy, would rekindle smouldering pas- sions, and, under the peculiar leadership to which it would be subjected, it would organize an administration of resentment, of reprisal, of revenge. No greater misfortune than that could come to the Nation or to the South. It would come as a re-ac- tion against the progress of liberal principles in that section — a progress so rapid that the Republicans are waging earnest contests in those States whose interests are most demonstrably identified with the policy of Protection as against the baleful sjiectacle of a solid South. I am sure that Indiana will protest, and, on the whole, will conclude to stand where she has stood in the past. I believe that you will stand wliere you stood in the war ; that you will stand for the principles and the policies which have made your State rich and prosperous, and which have made the American Republic, in manufactures, in agriculture, the leading Nation of the world, not merely in a material sense, but in a moral and philanthropic sense — a country in which every man has as good a chance as every other man, and which, among other great gifts, bestows absolutely free suffrage and free education. You enjo}' that suffrage, and the fourth day of November next you are to say for which party, for which policy, you will cast your votes. Not for me personally. I am not speaking for myself. No man ever met with a misfortune in being defeated for the Presidency, while men have met great misfortunes in being elected to it. I am pleading no personal cause. I am pleading tlie cause of the American people. I am pleading the cause of the American farmer, the American manufacturer, the Ameri- can mechanic, and the American laborer against the world. I am reproached by some excellent people for appearing before these multitudes of my countrymen, upon the ground that it is inconsistent with the dignity of the office for which I am named. I do not feel it to be so. There is not a courtier in Europe so proud but that he is glad to uncover his head in the presence of his sovereign. So I uncover in the presence of the only earthly sovereignty I acknowledge, and bow with, pride to the free people of America. 450 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. [At Terre Haute, Indiana, Oct. 23, 1884.] Fellow-Citizens, — The Southern question, as for years it has been popuLarly termed, is precipitated into this canvass by the South itself, and to neglect to notice it would be to over- look one of the most powerful and dangerous factors in the National contest. To understand that question properly, it should be remembered that politically there are two Souths, which we may term respectively the new South and the old South. The new South represents the awakened liberal senti- ment that is striving for the industrial development of that naturally rich section of the Union which recognizes the neces- sity of a tariff for protection, which casts the bitter memories of the civil conflict behind, and which is hopefully struggling in Virginia, in North Carolina, in Tennessee, for better things than hate and vengeance and injustice. This element includes many men who served in the Confederate armies. It naturally affili- ates with the Republican party, and it seeks to lead the people away from the prejudices of the past to a contemplation of the majestic future which wise and magnanimous action may bring to the South, in common with the North and with the entire Union. The old South represents the spirit of the rebellion, cher- ishes sentiments of sullen discontent, is perpetually re-affirm- ing its faith in the rightfulness of "the Lost Cause," is full of bitter reproaches against those who triumphed in the war for the Union, regards negro suffrage with abhorrence, main- tains "the white line" as the proclamation of hostility to the colored race, and is ready to use whatever amount of intimidation or violence may be necessary to preserve its own political and personal mastery in the South. It is unques- tionably dominant in all the old slave States, and is in open and avowed affiliation with the Democratic party of the North. It constitutes three-fourths of the electoral strength of the Democratic party in the Nation, and in the event of Demo- cratic triumph would be in absolute and undisputed control of the Government. The struggle of the Republicans is for the amelioration, improvement, and progress of the South, as well as of the North, but they are confronted everywhere and resisted everywhere by the determined and hitherto triumphant Southern Democracy. SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 451 The aim of the Democratic party, as I have ah-eady said, is to conjoin the Electoral votes of New York and Indiana with the Electoral votes of the sixteen Southern States ; and it is for New York and Indiana to consider just what that means, and where it would carry them. New York has a greater stake than any other State of the Union in maintaining sound prin- ciples of government, in upholding the National credit, in perpetuating the financial system which embodies the matured wisdom of the last twenty years, in sustaining the Protective policy. Indiana has a stake less than that of New York only as her population and wealth are less. Do the citizens of those two States fully comprehend what it means to trust the national credit, the national finances, the national pensions, the Protec- tive system, and all the great interests which are under the control of the National Government, to the old South, with its bitterness, its unreconciled temper, its narrowness of vision, its hostility to all Northern interests, its constant longing to revive an impossible past, its absolute incapacity to measure the sweep of the present and the magnitude of our future ? The North and the South, under Republican administration of the Government, will ultimately come into harmonious rela- tions. In the last ten years great progress has been made toward that result, and the next ten years may witness the effacement of all prejudices and hostilities and the absolute triumph of just and magnanimous policies. But all prospects of that result would be defeated and destroyed by giving the old South possession of the national power. Among the first of the baleful eifects that would follow would be the crushing out of liberal progress in the South, and the practical nullification of all that has been gained by the reconstruction laws which followed the Rebellion. The people of New York and the people of Indiana are now asked to aid in bringing about that deplorable result, to be followed by the abandonment or the reversal of the financial and industrial policies under which the Nation has prospered so raarvelously since the close of the war. I cannot believe that you will do it, because such a course is forbidden by every instinct of patriotism, as well as every consideration of enlightened self-interest and self-respect. 452 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. [At Milwaukee, Oct. 27, 1884,] Citizens of Wisconsin, — The Republican party liad its birth in the North-West, and there it has always found steady support. The five great Commonwealths that were formed from the old North-west Territory represent to-day an empire — an empire founded in 1787, but an empire which has had its greatest growth since 1861. The growth of that imperial sec- tion of the Union has been most rapid under Republican admin- istration of the National Government, and under the continuous influence of a Protective tariff. In the last twenty-three years its wealth has trebled. In the next twenty-three years, with a Protective tariff in operation, its wealth will increase in even greater ratio. I do not come here at this late day in the National campaign to argue any question. I come merely to recite historic facts, and leave you to draw the inference. The Protective tariff has found its steady friend in the Republican party. It has found its steady foe in the Democratic party. Under the Protective sj'stem, agriculture, manufactures, and commerce have flourished in equal degree ; and the question now before the voters of Wisconsin, the question before the voters of the Nation, is whether that system shall be abandoned, or whether it shall be continued. The sixteen States of the South will in all probability vote against it. It remains to be seen whether a sufficient re-enforcement can be obtained from the North to hand over the Government to the domination of the Free-trade South. As the Rej)ublican party had its birth in the North-West, we come to you now for a re-baptism in the original faith, and for added strength to the prestige of the party. I do not believe that Wisconsin, I do not believe that Illinois, I do not believe that Michigan, I do not believe that Indiana, I am sure that Ohio, those great component members of the old North-west Territory, — I do not believe that any of them can be induced to undo the work which they began in 1854. I do not believe that the free arms and the free hearts of the great free North- West can be used to turn the Government of this nation over to the men who sought its destruction. In that faitli I greet you. In that faith I leave you. In that faith I thank you pro- SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 4o3 founclly for a reception which is proportioned to the grandeur of your empire and the \varmth of your hearts. [A large number of German-Americans waited on Mr. Blaine at the Grand Pacific Hotel, Chicago, and through their Chairman, Professor Kistler, made an address, and Mr. Blaine responded as follows: — ] Professor a>td German-American Citizens of Chi- cago, — Any tender of your friendship and confidence would be welcome and grateful to my feelings. What must I then say of one that is so eloquent and so cordial ? I am not un- aware in meeting you that there has been an effort made to prejudice the minds of German-American citizens against me, but I never feared that the effort would succeed, because the one great distinction of the German mind is deliberation in coming to a conclusion, thoroughness of investigation, com- plete and entire justice of final judgment. I recognize the perfect truthfulness of what you say of the devotion of German- Americans to the flag of the country and the nationality they have assumed. I have long been acquainted with the German character. My birth and my rearing in Pennsylvania made me familiar from childhood with the German character, with its steadiness, its industry, its fidelity, its integrity, its truth in friendship, its loyalty to Government. Pennsylvania owes much to her German population, to the Muhlenbergs, the Heisters, the Wolfs, the Snyders, the Markles, the Shunks, who have illus- trated her annals and with whom I am connected by ties of good will, of kindly associations inherited through five genera- tions of family friendships that are warm and cordial to-day. When on my Western tour I reached Ohio, I sought conference with German fellow-citizens, and was assured, and subsequent events have confirmed the assurance, that so far from being hostile to me, they were, as I had a right to expect and as you so eloquently declare, cordially disposed towards me. Thank- ing you again for the kindly expressions of your address I am glad to take each one of you by the hand in token of friendship and regard. [At Binghamton, New York, Oct. 28, 1884.] My Frie>tds and Fellow-Citizens, — I am sure that no man who loves the American Union can ever visit the city of 454 rOLITICAL DTSCUSSIOXS. Bingliamton without a reverent remembrance of Daniel S. Dickinson, and no man who was contemporary with tlie great civil struggle which involved the fate of American nationality can ever forget the strength, the encouragement, and enthusiasm which Mr. Dickinson brought to the loyal cause when he for- sook liis party for his countr}*. Not precisely in the same phase, but involving like issues, is tlie contest in which we are engaged to-day. For as we then confronted the South arrayed in war against the Union, so we confront it now in an attempt by a great combination to seize the Government of the United States and control it through the same men who rebelled against it. The reason I refer to that here and now is that that combination will be absolutely ineffective unless aided by the vote of New York, and I am sure that the county of Broome and the valley of the Susquehanna will enter an in- dignant protest against taking the Empire State from the great cordon of free States, always loyal to the Union, to be joined with the States of the solidified South. This question, fellow-citizens, is not one of mere sentiment. It is not a mere question of patriotism. It is a question of material interest. The triumph of the South in this contest would mean the triumph of Free Trade and the destruction of the Protective system. In the whole history of that marvelous prosperit}' which has made New York the most populous and the most wealthy State in the Union, you have never made any progress comparable to that which you have made since 1861. When ]\Ir. Buchanan, the last Democratic President, went out of office the wealth of New York was 81,800,000,000 as shown by the National census. Twenty years later, under a continu- ous Protective tariff, the enactment of which was the first work of the Republican party after it gained power, your progress had been so rapid that your wealth had advanced from 81,800,- 000,000 to 86,300,000,000, as shown by the census of 1880. No such progress was ever made before in the history of human government. And there is not an intelligent man of any party who does not know that that progress was in large measure due to the influence of the Protective tariff. New York is not in my opinion ready to give it up. New York is not ready to join the solid South for Free Trade. New York is ready to stand SPEECHES DURING THE CAXVASS OF 1884. 455 by the Republican party and Protective tarijff. I am sure that yon realize your responsibility and need no stimulus from words of mine. [At a dinner given by prominent Republicans of New York at Delmonico's, Oct. 29, Honorable William M. Evarts presiding.] Mr. President, — It is a great reversal of positions, that makes me hear you ascribe leadership to me. For it has been my duty and my pleasure in these long years to follow you ; to learn from you wisdom in public affairs, to join with my coun- trymen in ascribing to you not merely the great merit of leader- ship in the noblest of professions, but to yield our admiration for the pre-eminent success which has given you the opportunity to lead in the three most important cases ever pleaded by a member of the American bar. First, in resisting your own party in what you deemed the impolicy, if not the madness, of impeaching a President; second, in maintaining before the greatest international tribunal that has assembled in modern times the rights of your country and obtaining redress for wrongs to her that grew out of the civil war ; and third, in perhaps averting civil commotion by pleading before an Elec- toral Commission a peaceful settlement of the angriest political discussion that ever arose between parties in the United States. I turn now from your President to thank you, merchants, professional men, leaders in the great and complex society of New York — to thank you for receiving me, not merely at this festal board, but also in that far more impressive reception which the close of this rainy day witnessed in your broad and beautiful avenue. I could not, I am sure, by any possible stretch of vanity take this generous demonstration to myself. It is given to me as the representative for the time of the prin- ciples which you and I hold in common touching those great interests which underlie, as we believe, the jDrosperity of the nation. It is fitting that the commercial metropolis of the con- tinent should lead ; it is fitting that the financial centre of the continent should lead ; it is fitting that this great city, second only in the world, should give an expression to the continent of its views and its judgment on the important questions to be decided Tuesday next by the American people. 456 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. I venture — not that I know it so well as you, but that I am spokesman for the present — I venture to remind you, men of New York, with your wealth and your just influence, that seventy per cent of the entire property of this city has been acquired since Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1861. I should not mention here a fact of percentage and of statistics if it did not carry with it an argument and a moral. The common apprehension in regard to New York is that it is simply a great commercial city, that its exports and imports represent the major part of all that is exported from or imported into the United States. That we all know. But we are often prone to forget that New York is the largest manu- facturing city in the world, with perhaps a single exception ; that of the $6,000,000,000 of manufactures annually produced in the United States, this Empire State furnishes one-fifth — $1,200,000,000 — of which this Empire City produces $500,000,- 000. From these facts comes that great sympathy, that iden- tity of interest which has taken the place of the previously existing conflicts between what have been known as the manu- facturing and the commercial interests, and has taught us that there can be no true prosperity in the country unless the three great interests comprehended by agriculture, manufactures and commerce are acting in harmony, the one with the other, and joining together for a common end for the common good. It is usually thought that a change of Government means but little ; that we come together with our votes on a given day and count them as the sun goes down, and one party goes out and another comes in. But, gentlemen, it is worth while to remember that the United States is proceeding to-day upon a given basis of public policy — I might say upon a given series of public policies. We have a financial system ; we have a currency system ; we have an important national credit ; we have a levying of duties, as has been so well described by your distinguished President of the evening, so adjusted that the in- dustries of the country are fostered and encouraged thereby ; we have three important Constitutional amendments that grew out of the war, upon which, at this hour, and in the hours, and the days, and the weeks, and the years to follow, great issues hang in this country. Are we — if we should be defeated and SPEECHES DURIXG THE CANVASS OF 1884. 457 our opponents successful — are we to understand that these policies are to be reversed ? Then we should, one and all, pre- pare for a grand disaster. For a single illustration, let me recall to j^our minds that the repeal of ten lines in the National Banking Act would restore to vitality and to vigor the old State-bank system from which we had happily escaped, as we thought, for all the remainder of our lives. If these policies are to be reversed you will have to recast your accounts and review your ledgers and prepare for a new and, I may say, a dangerous departure ; and if these policies are not to be reversed they will certainly be better maintained by the party which originated them and has thus far sustained them with energy and success. As I have already said, we speak of New York as the great exporting and importing city, and from that perhaps we often give an exaggerated importance, relatively speaking, to our foreign trade because this magnificent metropolis never would have attained its grandeur and its wealth upon the foreign trade alone. We should never forget, important as that trade is, representing the enormous sura of %1, 500, 000, 000 annuall}-, that it sinks into insignificance and is dwarfed out of sight when we think of those vast domestic exchanges of Avhich New York is the admitted centre and which annually exceed %20, 000, 000, 000. Our foreign trade naturally brings to our consideration the foreign relations of this country, so well described by my dis- tinguished friend as always simple and sincere. It is the safe- guard of republics that they are not adapted to war. I mean aggressive war. And it is the safeguard of this Republic that in a defensive war we can defy the world. This nation to-day is in profound peace with the world.. But, in my judgment, it has before it a great duty which will not only make that pro- found peace permanent, but set such an example as will abso- lutely abolish war on this continent, and, by a great example and a lofty moral precedent, ultimately abolish it in other con- tinents. I am justified in saying that every one of the seven- teen independent Powers of North and South America is not only willing but ready — is not only ready but eager — to enter into a solemn compact in a Congress that may be called in the name of Peace, to agree that if, unhappily, differences shall 458 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. arise — as differences will arise between men and between nations — they shall be settled upon the peaceful and Christian basis of arbitration. As I have often said before, I am glad to repeat in this great centre of civilization and power, that in my judgment no National spectacle, no International spectacle, no Continental spectacle, could be more grand than that presented by the Republics of the Western World meeting and solemnly agreeing that neither the soil of North nor of South America shall ever hereafter be stained by brothers' blood. The Republican party, gentlemen, cannot be said to be on trial. To be on trial implies something to be tried for. The Republican party in its twenty-three years of rulership has advanced the interests of this country far beyond that of any of its predecessors in power. It has elevated the moral and intellectual standard of America — it has increased its wealth in a ratio never before realized or even dreamed of. Statistics, I know, are dry, and I have dwelt so much upon them in the last six weeks that they might be supposed to be especially dry to me. Yet I never can forget the eloquence of the figures which tell us that the wealth of this great Empire State when the Republican party took the reins of govern- ment was estimated at $1,800,000,000, and that twenty years afterward, under the influence of an industrial and financial system for which that party is proudly responsible, under the influence of that industrial and financial system, the same tests which gave you $1,800,000,000 of property in 1860 gave you $6,300,000,000 in 1880. There has never been in all the history of financial progress — there has never been in all the history of the world — any parallel to this ; and I am sure, gentlemen, that the Republican party is not arrogant nor over-confident when it claims to itself the credit of organizing and maintain- ing the industrial system which gave to you and your associates in enterprise the equal and just laws which enabled you to make this marvelous progress. As I have said, that party is not on trial. If it has made mistakes, they have been merged and forgotten in the greater success which has corrected them. If it has had internal differ- ences, they are laid aside. If it has had factional strife, I am SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 459 sure that has ceased. And I am equally sure that, looking to the history of the past, and looking to that great future which we are justified in prophesying, this imperial State cannot afford to reverse, and therefore will not reverse those great policies upon which it has grown and advanced from glory to glory. I thank you, gentlemen ; I thank that larger number with whom I have already had the pleasure of exchanging greetings to-day ; I thank the ministers, the merchants, the lawyers, the professional men, the mechanics, the laboring men of New York, for a cordial reception, an over-generous welcome, which in all the mutations of my future life will be to me among the proud- est and most precious of my memories. [In response to a reception from the ladies of Brooklyn in the Academy of Music in that city, Oct. 30, 1884.] In the important National contest which now draws to a close, much of the progress of which I have personally wit- nessed, two things have especially impressed me — the influence exerted by the women of the United States, and that exerted by the young men, and I do not know that I ought to divide these, for I attribute the great interest and activity of the young men largely to the influence of their mothers. The Re- publican party owes a great debt to the women of the United States. Not a debt now maturing, but one which began at the foundation of the party. The literature which sprang from the pen of woman did much — I was about to say did most — to concentrate that great army of freedom which in the conflict that came upon the country, destroyed the institution of slavery. I am sure that when the news came that I was selected for the important and responsible post in which I now stand, I received no greeting that meant more, or was more grateful to me, than the one which came to me from that lady whose gifted pen im- parted spirit and soul to the anti-slavery agitation when she gave to the world " Uncle Tom's Cabin." I do not feel, therefore, that the ladies of Brooklyn are taking any new step in this cordial welcome — to which a grateful heart feels it impossible to make adequate response — 1 do not feel that they are taking any new step or exerting any other in- fluence than that which has been constantly exerted by women 460 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. during the thirty years in the history of the United States in which the Republican party has led the National progress. I know the wide-spread influence that goes out from such a greet- ing as this. I know that, without suffrage, woman casts often the weightiest vote. I know that the great moral strength, — showing itself constantly in political strength, — with which the Republican party has been inspired in its struggles and its triumphs, has come from the gracious and pure influence of woman. I make, therefore, due and profound acknowledgment, not merely for the great significance of this occasion, but for whatever of personal compliment it may imply. Bpt I should be vain indeed if I should take to myself any large part of that which means only an expression of sympathy and support in the commanding contest in which, for the time, I am called to represent the highest patriotism, the best heart, the loftiest aspiration of the American Republic. [At the Grand Opera House, Brooklyn, New York, Oct. 30, 1884.] Citizens of Brooklyn, — Thirty years of effort, twenty- four years of power, have certainly vindicated the claims of the Republican party to general and to National confidence, and the leading question now to be decided by the popular vote in all the States is, whether that industrial system and that financial system which go hand in hand shall be superseded, and whether the experiment of Free Trade, with a possible change in our currency system, shall be resorted to by the vol- untary consent of the American people. Certainly there is no man intelligent enough to reckon up his week's wages on Satur- day night who does not know that the only difference between a day's pay for labor in the United States and a day's pay for labor in the British Isles is that which is produced by and results from the Protective tariff. So that the American laborer or mechanic who voluntarily casts his ballot for the elevation to power of a party committed to Free Trade casts his ballot for the reduction of his own wages. I desire to repeat here what I have said more than once else- where ; that all the voluntary associations which laboring men and mechanics resort to in their trades-unions and like co-opera- tive efforts — well enough in themselves, desirable no doubt in SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 461 many respects, meeting certainly with no word of criticism from me — are yet entirely ineffectual as a means of upholding the scale of American wages unless behind them there be that protection and support which come from the levying of duties on the scale embodied in the Protective tariff. Here at home the trades-unions may protect you from the exactions of an unjust employer ; but how, in an era of Free Trade, can they protect you from the importation of cheap fabrics from the Old World which must necessarily displace your own, or probably compel the abandonment of the rival manufactures in this country ? So that what I desire to enforce and impress upon men of enterprise and men of prudence is, that their only safe- guard is in ujDholding that industrial system which prevents ruinous competition in the fabrics they are making, and that financial system which, when a dollar is earned, enables it to be paid with a hundred cents. It is the peculiar merit of the Republican party that, while from its hostility to slave-labor, with the natural consequence, protection to free labor, it has earned the right to the suffrage and support of the industrial class, it has never done it in the demagogic spirit which seeks to arouse the prejudice of labor against the rights of capital. It has continually taught the wise doctrine that capital and labor are friends and not enemies ; that in co-operation they can produce prosperity, but that in hostility they can produce only adversity. The Republican party has taken care that capital shall not encroach upon labor, and that labor shall be so protected that it shall have no cause of enmity to capital. [Mr. Blaine's speech in New Haven, Connecticut, on Nov. 1, 1884.] Fellow-Citizens, — Since my arrival in this city, an address from the clergymen of New Haven has been placed in my hands expressing their personal respect and confidence, and, through the person who delivered it, the assurance that on public questions and political issues under the laws and Con- stitution of the United States they know no sect ; they know no Protestant, no Catholic, no Hebrew, but the equality of all. In the city of Hartford this morning, a letter was put into my hands asking me why I charged the Democratic party with being inspired by "rum, Romanism and rebellion." My answer 462 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. is first that an unfortunate and ill-considered expression of an- other man was falsely attributed to me ; and, in the next place, it gives me an opportunity to say, at the close of the National campaign, that in the public speeches which I have made, I have refrained carefully and instinctively from any disrespect- ful allusion to the Democratic party. I differ from that party widely on matters of principle, but I have too much respect for the millions of my countrymen whom it includes, to assail it with epithets or abuse. I am sure that I am the last man in the United States who would make a disrespectful allusion to another man's religion. The United States guarantees freedom of religious opinion. Before the law and under the Constitu- tion, the Protestant, the Catholic and the Hebrew stand entitled to absolutely the same recognition and the same protection. If disrespectful allusion is to be made against the religion of any man, I repeat that I am the last man to make it, for though Protestant by conviction myself, and connected with a Protes- tant church, I should esteem myself of all men the most de- graded if, under any pressure or under any temptation, I could, in any presence, make a disrespectful allusion to that ancient faith in which my mother lived and died. The question now before the people of the United States, my fellow-citizens, is not a religious one, is not a question of creeds though it comes home to the fireside of every American citizen. We have enjoyed in this country for the last twenty- three years the numberless advantages of a Protective tariff. There is not a man within the sound of my voice, there is not a man in Connecticut, there is not a man in New England, there is not a man in the United States, who is not directly or indirectly interested in the Protective tariff. I see before me a large assemblage, including, doubtless, many who earn their bread in the sweat of their faces, and to whom the daily wages of labor is a matter of great importance. I beg to remind them that the only agency which secures them higher wages for their labor than a man in the British Isles receives for the same labor, is the Protective tariff. When I look abroad in your State, and when I examine your statistics, I find that Connecti- cut has doubled its wealth in the last twenty years ; and T sub- mit that that rapid ratio of progress is a direct result of the SPEECHES DURING THE CANVASS OF 1884. 463 Protective tariff. Every man in this State, whether he be a capitalist or a laborer, whether he be manufacturer or opera- tive, finds that the question of protecting American industry enters into the warp and woof of his daily life. It is a cardinal doctrine in the creed of the Republican party that a Protective tariff shall be maintained, and it has been the invariable practice of the Democratic party in Congress for more than fifty years past, to oppose the policy of Protection. You choose between the policies of Protection and Free Trade when you choose between the Republican and Democratic parties. The decision, fellow-citizens, rests with you ! The omens in the present contest are to be spoken of by you, not by me ; but there are one or two things connected with the canvass to which I may with propriety call your attention. I beg especially to refer to the fact that, in a larger degree than in any other campaign of which I have personal knowledge, the Republican party has the inestimable advantage of the sympathy and support of the great mass of the young men of the country, and the young men carry with them strength, confidence, the power to bear burdens, and the power to give encouragement to others. The Republican party began its existence thirty years ago, with the support of the young men. Twenty-eight years ago, before many who now hear me knew any thing of political contests, that party entered the field for the first time in a National struggle. It selected a young man for its leader ; it selected a man in his forty-third year — the same age at which Washington was intrusted with the command of the Continental Army — a young man of great zeal, of great intelligence, and of a career so heroic that it par- takes largely of romance. Under his leadership the Republican party, in its very first National contest, alarmed, if it did not defeat, its opponents. Since then twenty-eight years have been added to his age, bringing it up to the psalmist's limit — three- score years and ten , but he is still fresh and vigorous in body and in mind, still warm in his support of the Republican prin- ciples, and it is my especial pleasure to-day that I can, as I now do, introduce to you General John C. Fremont. 464 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. [At Boston the evening before the Presidential election, November 3d, at a dinner tendered to Mr. Blaine by leading Republicans, Honorable Uenry Cabot Lodge presiding.] Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — For reasons which I need not detail, a reception of this character in the city of Boston at the close of the National campaign is peculiarly grateful to me, and I thank Mr. Lodge for giving me the oppor- tunity to thank you. It is too late to argue, or even to state, the great issues involved in the canvass which closes to-niglit, but I am sure that those issues constitute a difference between parties so broad and so deep that their decision, one way or the other, will affect for weal or for woe the history of the United States for many years to come. I am sure that the Constitu- tional amendments which have grown out of the civil struggle and which have in so many respects, I might say, changed the very framework of our Government, have been made under the lead and by the power of the Republican party, and are now in its keeping. I have frequently said elsewhere, and I here now repeat, that to transfer the political power of the country to the Democratic party at this time would by no means be one of those ordinary transfers of the Government from one party to another which the gray-haired men within my view witnessed more than once in the last generation. It would not be merely an instance of one party going out and another coming in. It would be rather a reversal and overturning of the indus- trial systems of the Government, of the financial systems of the Government, in short a transfer of the sovereignty of the country of far greater consequence than the ordinary changes of dynasty which occur in European Governments of a differ- ent form from ours. I close this canvass, Mr. Chairman, in which I have taken an active part, with a profound conviction that intelligent as the voters of the United States are — and I am certainly address- ing some of the most intelligent of them — accustomed as they are to give heed to the weight and tendency of the questions to be decided, the people of the United States have not yet measured, nor, as I believe, yet fully comprehended, what it would mean to transfer this Government to the absolute control of the Southern States of this Union. Nor do I here and now SPEECHES DURIXG THE CANVASS OF 1884. 465 stop to give my own idea of what such a change would mean. It would be out of place. I should refrain for the additional reason that any thing I might now say would be too late to in- fluence popular judgment in any direction, and for .the third reason that in so far as my own voice could reach and influence the just judgment of the people of the United States I have exerted it to the extent of my strength. I have never offered an apology or explanation for taking what some of my closest friends regarded as an extraordinary step in going before the people somewhat more freely than has been the habit of those chosen as the Presidential candidates of great parties. But I will now say that I did it — and I desire to put this on record — because I thought that the peculiar character of the canvass was my personal justification for doing it. I am a profound believer in a popular government, and I know no reason why I should not face the American people. I did it, too, for the more specific reason that I believed there was danger lest the leading question which relates to the Protective system of America should be partially or perhaps wholly excluded from that consideration by the people which its merits deserved, and, intrusted as I was with the function of representing all mem- bers of the Republican party, I felt that I would in an especial degree obtain a hearing. I have returned somewhat weary, somewhat broken in voice, as your ears have already detected, but I have returned with even a more profound trust than I had at the outset in the judg- ment, in the fairness, in the impartiality, in the generosity of the great mass of American citizens. I go to my home to-mor- row not without a strong confidence in the result of the ballot, but with a heart that shall not in the least degree be troubled by any verdict that may be returned by the American people. I have sought in my entire canvass to lose sight of myself and of whatever personal fortune I have at stake, in the far greater, and far grander, and far more enduring issue which for the time I was submitting to popular judgment. 466 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1884. [Mr. Blaine's speech to a large number of Republican friends of the city and county of his residence, ■nho serenaded him on the evening of Xov. IS, 1SS4.] Friexds and Neighbors, — The National contest is over and by the narrowest of margins vre have lost. I thank you for your call, which if not one of joyous congratulation is one, I am sure, of confidence and sanguine hopes for the future. I thank you for the public opportunity you give me to express m}' sense of obligation not only to 3'ou but to all the Republi- cans of Maine. Thej' responded to my nomination with grati- fying enthusiasm and ratified it by a superb vote. I count it as one of the honors and pleasures of my public career that the party in Maine, after struggling hard for the last six years and twice within that period losing the State, has come back in this campaign to an old-fashioned twenty thousand plurality. No other expression of public confidence and esteem could equal that of the people among whom I have lived for thirty 3-ears, and to whom I am attached by all the ties that ennoble human nature, and give joy and dignity to life. After Maine, indeed, with Maine, my first thought is always of Pennsylvania. How can I fittingly express my thanks for that unparalleled majority of more than eight}' thousand votes ? — a popular in- dorsement which has deeply touched my heart and which has, if possible, increased my affection for the grand old Common- wealth — an affection which I inherited from my ancestry and which I shall transmit to my children. But I do not limit ray thanks to the State of my residence and the State of my birth. I owe much to the true and zealous friends in New England who were nobly steadfast to the Re- publican party and its candidates, and to the eminent scholars and divines, who, stepping aside from their ordinary vocations, AFTER THE PRESIDEyTIAL ELECTIOX OF 1884. 467 made mv cause their cause, and to loyalty to principle, added the special compliment of standing as my personal representa- tives in the struggle. But the achievements for the Republican cause in the East are even surpassed by the splendid victories in the West. In that magnificent cordon of States that stretches from the foot-hills of the Alleghenies to the Golden Gate of the Pacific — beginning with Ohio and ending with California — the Republican banner was borne so loftily that but a single State failed to join in the wide acclaim of triumph. Nor should I do justice to my feelings if I failed to thank the Republicans of the Empire State who encoimtered many discouragements and obstacles, who fought against foes £rom within and foes from without, and who waged so strong a battle that a change of one vote in every two thousand would have given us the victory in the nation. Indeed a change of little more than five thousand votes would have transferred Xew York, Indiana, Xew Jersey, and Connecticut to the Republic-an standard, and have made the Xorth as solid as the South. My thanks would still be incomplete if I should fail to recognize with specLid gratitude that great body of workingmen — both native and lo reign bom — who gave me their earnest support — breaking from old personal and party ties and finding in the principles which I represented in the canvass the safeguard and protection of their own fireside interests. The result of the election, my friends, will be regarded in the future, I think, as extraordinary. The Xorthem States, leaving out of the count the cities of Xew York and Brooklyn, sustained the Republican cause by a majority of more than four hundred thousand — almost half a million indeed — of the popular vote. The cities of Xew York and Brooklyn threw their great strength and influence with the solid South, and were the decisive element which gave to that section the con- trol of the Xational Government. Speaking now, not as a defeated candidate, but simply as a loyal and devoted Ameri- can, I think the transfer of the political power of the Gt)vem- ment to the S^^uth is a great Xational misfortune. It is a misfortune because it introduces an element which cannot insure harmony and prosperity to the people, because it intro- duces into a Republic the rule of a minority. 468 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. The first instinct of an American is equality — equality of right, equality of privilege, equality of political power — that equality which says to every citizen, " Your vote is as good, and as potential as the vote of any other citizen." That cannot be said to-day in the United States. The course of affairs in the South has crushed out the political power of more than six million American citizens and has transferred it by violence to others. Forty-two Presidential electors are assigned to the South on account of the colored population, and yet the colored population with more than eleven hundred thousand loyal votes have been unable to choose a single elector. Even in States where they have a decided majority of more than a hundred thousand they are deprived of free suffrage, and their rights as citizens scornfully trodden under foot. The eleven States that comprised the Rebel Confederacy had by the census of 1880 seven and a half million white population, and five million three hundred thousand colored population. The col- ored population almost to a man desire to support the Republi- can party, but by a system of reckless intimidation, and by violence and murder whenever violence and murder are required, they are absolutely deprived of political power. If the outrage stopped there it would be bad enough. But it does not stop there, for not only is the negro population disfranchised but the power which rightly and Constitutionally belongs to them is transferred to the white population of the South, enabling them to exert an electoral influence far beyond that exerted by the same number of white people in the North. As an illustration of the extent to which this works destruction of all fair elections, let me present to you five States in the late Confederacy and five loyal States of the North, possessing in each section the same number of electoral votes. In the South the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina have, in the aggregate, forty-eight electoral votes. They have two million eight hundred thousand white people and over three million colored people. In the North the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas and California have likewise in the aggregate forty-eight electoral votes, and tliey have a white population of five million six hundred thousand, or just double that of the five Southern States which I have AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1884. 469 named. These Northern States have practically no colored population. It is therefore evident that the white men hi those Southern States, by usurping and absorbing the rights of the colored men, are exerting just double the political power of the white men in the Northern States. I submit, my friends, that such a condition of affairs is extraordinary, unjust, and derogatory to the manhood of the North. Even those who are vindictively opposed to negro suffrage will not deny that if Presidential electors are assigned to the South by reason of the negro population, that population ought to be permitted free suffrage in the election. To deny that clear proposition is to affirm that a Southern white man in the Gulf States is entitled to double the political power of a Northern white man in the Lake States. It is to affirm that a Confederate soldier shall wield twice the influence in the nation that a Union soldier can wield, and that a perpetual and constantly increasing superiority shall be conceded to the Southern white man in the Government of the National Union. If that be quietly conceded in this generation, it will be hardened into custom, until the badge of inferiority will attach to the Northern white man as odiously as ever Norman noble stamped it upon Saxon churl. This subject is of deep interest to the laboring men of the North. With the Southern Democracy triumphant in their states and in the Nation, the negro will be compelled to work for just such wages as the whites may decree, — wages which will amount, as did the supplies of the slaves, to a bare sub- sistence, equated in cash, perhaps at thirty-five cents per day, over the entire South. The white laborer will soon feel the destructive effect of this upon his own wages. The Republican party has clearly seen from the earliest days of reconstruction, that wages in the South must be raised to a just recompense of the laborer, or wages in the North must be ruinously lowered, and it has steadily worked for the former result. The reverse influence will now be set in motion, and that condition of affairs reproduced which, as Mr. Lincoln, years ago, warned the free laboring men of the North, will prove hostile to their independ- ence, and will inevitably lead to a ruinous reduction of wages. A mere difference in the color of the skin will not suffice to maintain an entirely different standard of wages in contiguous 470 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. States, and the voluntary will be compelled to yield to the in- voluntary. So completely have the colored men in the South been already deprived by the Democratic party of their Consti- tutional and legal rights as citizens of the United States, that they regard the advent of that party to national power as the signal of their re-enslavement, and are affrighted because they think all legal protection for them is gone. Few persons in the North realize how comj)letely the chiefs of the Rebellion wield the political power which has triumphed in the late election. It is a portentous fact that the Democratic senators who come from the States of the late Confederacy, all, without a single exception, personally participated in the re- bellion against the National Government. It is a still more significant fact that in those States no man who was loyal ,to the Union, however strong a Democrat he may be to-day, has the slightest chance of political promotion. The one great avenue to honor in that section is the record of zealous service in the war against the Government. It is certainly astounding that the section in which friendship for the Union in the day of its trial and agony is still a political disqualification, should be called now to rule over the Union. All this takes place during the lifetime of the generation that fought the war, and elevates into practical command of the American Government the identical men who organized for its destruction and plunged us into the bloodiest contest of modern times. I have spoken of the South as placed by the late election in possession of the Government. The Soutli furnished nearly three-fourths of the electoral votes that defeated the Republican party, and they will step to the command of the Democratic party as unchallenged and as unrestrained as they held the same position for thirty years before the civil war. Gentlemen, there cannot be political inequalityamong the citizens of a Free Republic. There cannot be a minority of white men in the South ruling a majority of white men in the North. Patriotism, self-respect, pride, protection for person, safety for the country, all cry out against it. The very thought of it stirs the blood of men who inherit equality from the pilgrims who first landed on Plymouth rocks, and from liberty-loving patriots who came to the Delaware with William Penn. It becomes the j^rimal AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1884. 471 question of American manhood. It demands a hearing and a settlement, and that settlement will vindicate the equality of the American citizen in all personal and civil rights. It will at least establish the equality of white men under the National Government and will give to the Northern man who fought to preserve the Union as large a voice in its government as may be exercised by the Southern man who fought to destroy the Union. The contest just closed utterly dwarfs the fortunes of candi- dates whether successful or unsuccessful. Purposely, I may say instinctively, I have discussed the issues and consequences of that contest without reference to my own defeat, without the remotest reference to the gentleman who is elevated to the Presidency. Towards him personally I have no cause for the slightest ill will, and with entire cordiality I may express the wish that his official career will prove gratifying to himself and beneficial to the country, and that his administration may overcome the embarrassment which the peculiar source of its power imposes upon it from the hour of its birth. 472 MEMORIAL SERVICES. MEMORIAL SERVICES IN HONOR OF GENERAL GRANT IN AUGUSTA, MAINE, AUG. 8, 1885. [General Ulysses S. Grant, ex-President of the United States, died at Mount McGregor, New York, on Tlmrsday, July 23, 1885. His funeral was in the City of New York on Saturday, August 8. On the same day and at the same hour memorial services were held in many places throughout the Union. At the ser- vice in Augusta, Maine, Mr. Blaine delivered the following address : — ] Public sensibility and personal sorrow over the death of General Grant are not confined to one continent. Profound admiration for great qualities and still more profound gratitude for great services have touched the hearts of the people with deep sympathy — increased even to tender emotion by the agony of his closing days and the undaunted heroism with which he morally conquered a last cruel fate. The world in its hero-worship is discriminating and practical, if not indeed selfish. Eminent qualities and rare achievements do not always insure lasting fame. A brilliant orator attracts and enchains his hearers with his inspired and inspiring gift, but if his speech be not successfully used to some great, public, worthy end he passes soon from popular recollection, his only reward being in the fitful applause of his forgetting audience. A victorious general in a war of mere ambition receives the cheers of the multitude and the ceremonial honors of his gov- ernment, but if he bring no boon to his country his fame will find no abiding-place in the centuries that follow. The hero of the ages is he who has been chief and foremost in his day in contributing to the moral or material progress, to the gran- deur and glory, of the succeeding generations. Washington secured the freedom of the Colonies and founded a new Nation. Lincoln was the prophet who warned the people of the evils MEMORIAL SERVICES. 473 that were undermining our Government, and the statesman who was called to leadership in the work of their extirpation. Grant was the soldier who by victory in the field gave vitality and force to the civil policies and philanthropic measures which Lincoln devised in the Cabinet for the regeneration and per- petuity of the Republic. The monopoly of fame by the few in this world comes from an instinct, perhaps from a deep-seated necessity of human nature. Heroes cannot be multiplied. The gods of mythology lost their sacredness and their power by their numbers. The millions pass into oblivion ; only the units survive. Who aided the great leader of Israel to conduct the chosen people over the sands of the desert and through the waters of the sea, unto the Promised Land ? Who marched with Alexander from the Bosphorus to Lidia ? Who commanded the legions under Ctesar in the conquest of Gaul? Who crossed the Atlantic with Columbus ? Who ventured through the winter passes of the Alps with the Conqueror of Italy ? Who fought with Wellington at Waterloo ? Alas ! how soon it may be asked, Who marched with Sherman from the mountain to the sea? Who stood with Meade on the victorious field of Gettysburg? Who shared with Thomas in the glories of Nashville ? Who went with Sheridan through the trials and the triumphs of the blood- stained Valley ? General Grant's name will survive because it is indissolubly connected with the greatest military and moral triumph in the history of his country. If the armies of the Union had ultimately failed, the vast and beneficent designs of Mr. Lincoln would have been frustrated. He would have been known in history as a statesman and philanthropist who in the cause of humanity cherished great aims which he could not realize, conceived great ends which he could not attain ; — as an unsuc- cessful ruler whose policies distracted and dissevered his coun- try ; while General Grant would have taken his place with that long and always increasing array of able men who are found wanting in the supreme hour of trial. But a higher power controlled the result. God in his gracious mercy had not raised up these men for works which should come to naught. In the reverent expression of Mr. Lincoln, 474 GENERAL U. S. GRANT. " no human counsel devised, nor did any mortal hand work out these great things." In their accomplishment these human agents were sustained by more than human power, and through them great salvation was wrought for the land. As long there- fore as the American Union shall abide, with its blessings of Law and Liberty, Grant's name shall be remembered with honor ; as long as the slavery of human beings shall be abhorred and the freedom of man cherished, Grant's name shall be recalled with gratitude ; and in the cycles of the future the story of Lincoln's life can never be told without associating Grant in the enduring splendor of his own fame. General Grant's military supremacy was honestly earned, without factitious praise, without extraneous help. He had no influence to urge his promotion, except such as was attracted by his own achievements ; he had no potential friends, except those whom his victories won to his support. He rose more rapidly than any other military leader in history. In two and a half years he was advanced from the command of a single regiment to the supreme direction of a million men, divided into many great armies and operating over an area as large as the empires of Germany and Austria combined. He exhibited extraordinary qualities in the field. Bravery among American officers is a rule which has happily had few exceptions, but as an eminent general said. Grant possessed a quality above bravery ; he had an msensibility to danger, apparently an uncon- sciousness of fear. With this rare quality General Grant combined an evenness of judgment, to be depended upon in sunshine and in storm. Napoleon said, "The rarest attribute among generals is two o'clock in the morning courage." "I mean," he added, "un- prepared courage, that which is necessary on an unexpected occasion and which in spite of the most unforeseen events leaves full freedom of judgment and promptness of decision." No better description could be given of the type of courage which distinguished General Grant. His constant readiness to fight was another quality Avhich, according to the same high authority, established his rank as a commander. " Generals," said the exile at St. Helena, "are rarely found eager to give battle ; they choose their positions, consider their combina- MEMORIAL SERVICES. 475 tions, and then indecision begins." "Nothing," added this greatest warrior of modern times, " nothing is so difficult as to decide." General Grant in liis services in the field never once exhibited indecision, and it was this quality which gave him his crowning characteristic as a military leader ; he inspired his men with a sense of their invincibility, and they were thence- forth invincible ! The career of General Grant when he passed from military to civil administration was marked by his strong qualities. His Presidency of eight years was filled with events of magni- tude, in which if his judgment was sometimes questioned, his patriotism was always conceded. He entered upon his office after the angry disturbance caused by the unexpected course of Mr. Lincoln's successor, and quietly enforced a policy which had been for four years the source of embittered disputa- tion. His election to the Presidency proved in one important aspect a landmark in the history of the country. For nearly fifty years preceding that event there had been few Presidential elections in which the fate of the Union had not in some degree been agitated either by the threats of political malcon- tents or in the apprehensions of timid patriots. That day and that danger had passed. The Union was saved by the victory of the army commanded by General Grant. No menace of its destruction has been heard since General Grant's victory at the polls. Death holds a flag of truce over its own. Under that flag, friend and foe sit peacefully together, passions are stilled, be- nevolence is restored, wrongs are repaired, justice is done. It was impossible that a career so long, so prominent, so positive as that of General Grant, should not have provoked strife and engendered enmity. For more than twenty years — from the death of Mr. Lincoln to the close of his own life — General Grant was the most conspicuous man in America — one towards whom leaders looked for leadership, upon whom partisans built their hopes of victory, to whom personal friends by tens of thousands offered the incense of sincere devotion. It was according to the weakness and the strength of human nature that counter-movements should ensue, that General Grant's primacy should be challenged, that his party should be resisted, 476 MEMORIAL SERVICES. that his devoted friends should be confronted by jealous men in his own ranks, and by bitter enemies in the ranks of his opponents. But all these passions, all these resentments are buried in the grave which to-day receives his remains. Conten- tion over his rank as a commander ceases, as Unionist and Confederate alike testify to his prowess in battle and his magnanimity in peace. Controversy over his civil Administra- tion closes, as Democrat and Republican unite in pronouncing him to have been in every act and in every aspiration an American patriot. THE IRISH QUESTION. 477 THE IRISH QUESTION. [Speech delivered by Mr. Blaine before a public meeting in Portland, Maine, June 1, 188G. The meeting was called to order by His Honor, Charles P. Chapman, Mayor of the city, and His Excellency, Frederic Robie, Governor of the State, presided.] Your Excellency and Fellow-Citizens, — Directly after the published notice of this meeting I received a letter from a venerable friend in an adjacent county asking me, as I was announced to speak, to explain if I could, just what the " Irish question" is. I appreciate this request, for on an issue that calls forth so much sympathy and so much sentiment among those devoted to free government, throughout the world, and evokes so much passion among those who are personally con- cerned in the contest, there may be danger of not giving suffi- cient attention to the simple, elementary facts which enter into the subject. What then is Home Rule ? It is nothing more and nothing less than that which is enjoyed among us by every State and every Territory of the Union. Negatively it is what the people of Ireland do not enjoy. In a Parliament of 670 members Great Britain has 567 and Ireland has 103. Except with the consent of this Parliament, in which the Irish members are outnumbered by more than five to one, the people of Ireland possess no Legislative power whatever. They cannot incorpo- rate a horse railroad company, or authorize a ferry over a stream, or organize a gas company to light the streets of a city. Apply that to yourselves. Suppose the State of Maine were linked with the State of New York in a joint Legislature in which New York had five members to Maine's one. Suppose you could not take a step for the improvement of your beauti- ful city, or this State organize an association of any kind, or 478 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. adopt any measure for its own advancement, unless by the permission of the overwhelming majority of the New York members ! How long do you think the people of Maine would endure such a condition of affairs? Yet that illustrates the position whicli Ireland holds with respect to England, except that there is one irritating feature in addition which would not apply to New York and Maine ; — the centuries of oppression which have inspired the people of Ireland with a deep sense of wrong on the part of England. If the Anglo-Celtic contention were left to the people of the United States to adjust, I suppose we should say, — adopt the Federal system I Let Ireland have her legislature, let England have her legislature, let Scotland have her legislature, let Wales have her legislature, and then let the Imperial Parlia- ment legislate for the British Empire. Let questions that are Irish be settled by Irishmen, questions that are English be set- tled by Englishmen, questions that are Welsh be settled by Welshmen, and questions that are Scotch be settled by Scotch- men. Let questions that affect the whole Empire of Great Britain be settled in a Parliament in which the four great con- stituent elements shall be impartially represented. That would be our direct, shorthand method of settling the question. Under that system we have lived and grown and prospered for more than two hundred years in the United States, continually ex- panding and continually strengthening our institutions. I do not forget that it would be political empiricism to attempt to give the details of any measure that would settle this prolonged strife between Great Britain and Ireland. To prescribe definite measures for a British Parliament would be a presumption on our part as much as for the English people to prescribe definite measures for the American Congress. I have noticed so many errors, even among the leading men of Great Britain, concerning the Congress of the United States, that I have been taught modesty in attempting to criticise the pro- cesses and the specific measures of the British Parliament. I well remember that Lord Palmerston on a grave occasion dur- ing our Civil war informed the House of Commons that " the President of the United States could not of his own power declare war ; that it required the assent of the Senate." Every THE IRISH QUESTION. 479 school-boy in America knows th?t it is the Congress of the United States, both Senate and House, to which the war power is given by the Constitution of the Republic, and not to the President at all. But Lord Palmerston's error was slight com- pared with another which is said to have occurred in Parlia- ment. A member in an authoritative manner assured the House that no law in the United States was valid until it had received the assent of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States ; and a fellow-member corrected him, saying, " You are wrong ; the American Congress cannot discuss any measure until two-thirds of the Legislatures of the States shall have already approved it." Admonished by these and like in- stances, I refrain from any discussion of the details of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule bill. It may not be perfect. It may not give to Ireland all that she is entitled to. I onl}' know that it is a step in the right direction, and that the long- oppressed people of Ireland hail it as a great and beneficent measure of relief. They and their representatives understand it ; and more than all Mr. Gladstone understands it. On the occasion of Lord John Russell's somewhat famous motion in the House of Commons in 184-i to inquire into the condition of Ireland, Mr. Seward said (I mean Lord Macaulay, but I am sure that the memory of neither will be injured by mistaking one for the other) Lord JNIacaulay said, in one of his most eloquent speeches, " You admit that you govern Ireland not as you govern England, not as you govern Scotland, but as you govern your new conquests in Scinde ; not by means of the respect which the people feel for the law, but by means of bayonets and artillery and intrenched camps." If that were true in 1844 I am sure I do not exaggerate when I say that the long period of forty-two years which has intervened has served to strengthen rather than to diminish the truth of Macaulay's words. And now without in any way denying the facts set forth in Macaulay's extraordinary statement, Lord Salisbury comes forward with a remedy of an extremely harsh character. He says in effect that " the Irish can remain as they are now situated, or they can emigrate." But the Irish have been in Ire- land as long as Lord Salisbury's ancestors have been in England and I presume much longer. His Lordship's lineage is not 480 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. given in Burke's Peerage beyond the illustrious Burleigh of Queen Elizabeth's day, and possibly his remote ancestry may have been Danish pirates or peasants in Normandy before the Conquest, and centuries after the Irish people were known in Ireland.' I repeat, therefore. Lord Salisbury's jDroposition is extremely harsh. Might we not, indeed, with good reason call it impudent? Would it transgress courtesy if we called it insolent ? Should we violate truth if we called it brutal in its cruelty ? We have had occasion in this country to know Lord Salisbury too well. He was the bitterest foe that the Govern- ment of the United States had in the British Parliament during our civil war. He coldly advocated the destruction of the American Union simjDly as a measure of increasing the com- merce and prosperity of Great Britain. His policy for Ireland and his policy towards the United States are essentially alike in spirit and in temper. Another objection to Mr. Gladstone's policy comes from the Presbyterians of Ulster in the form of an appeal to the Pres- byterians of the United States against granting the boon of Home Rale to Ireland. As a Protestant I deplore this action. I was educated under Presbyterian influences, in a Presbyte- rian college. I have connections with that church by blood and affinity that began with my life and shall not cease until my life ends. And yet I am free to say that I should be ashamed of the Presbyterian Church of America if it re- sponded to an appeal which demands that five millions of Irish people shall be perpetually dejDrived of free government because of the remote and fanciful danger that a Dublin Parliament might interfere with the religious liberty of Presbyterians in Ulster. Mr. Chairman, if the Home Rule bill shall j)ass, the Dublin Parliament will assume power with a greater responsi- bility to the public opinion of the world, than was ever before imposed upon a Legislative body, because if the Dublin Parlia- ment is formed it will be formed by reason of the pressure of public opinion from the liberty-loving people of the world. If the Irishmen who compose it should take one step against perfect liberty of conscience, or against any Protestant form of worship, tliey would fall under a condemnation even greater in its intensity than the friendship and sympathy which their own THE HUSH QUESTION. 481 sufferings have so widely called forth. But I have not the remotest fear that any such result will happen. The Catholics and the Presbyterians of Ireland will live and do just as the Presbyterians and Catholics of the United States live and do. They will accord perfect liberty of conscience each to the other, and will be mutually governed by the greatest of Chris- tian virtues, which is charity. Mr. Gladstone's policy includes another measure. It pro- poses to do something to relieve the Irish from the intolerable oppression of absentee landlordism. Let me here quote Lord Macaulay again. Speaking of Ireland whose territory is less than the territory of the State of Maine, less than thirty-three thousand square miles in extent, Lord Macaulay in the same speech from which I have already quoted, says, " In natural fertility Ireland is superior to any area of equal size in Europe, and is far more important to the prosperity, the strength, the dignity of the British Empire than all our distant dependen- cies together ; more important than the Canadas, the West Indies, South Africa, Australasia, Ceylon and the vast domin- ions of the Moguls." I am sure that if any Irish orator had originally made that declaration in America he would have been laughed at for Celtic exaggeration and imagination. This extraordinary statement from Lord Macaulay led me to a practical examination of Ireland's resources. I went at it in a direct, farmer-like way, and examined the statistics relating to Ireland's production. I gathered all my information from trust- worthy British authority, and I give you the result of my examination, frankly confessing tliat I was astounded at the magnitude of the figures. In the year 1880 Ireland produced four million bushels of wheat. But wheat has ceased to be the crop of Ireland. She produced eight million bushels of barley. But barley is not one of the great crops of Ireland. She pro- duced seventy million bushels of oats, a very extraordinary yield considering Ireland's small area. The next item I think every one will recognize as peculiarly adapted to Ireland ; of potatoes, she produced one hundred and ten millions of bushels — within sixty millions of the whole product of the- United States for the same year. In turnips and mangels, together she produced one hundred and eighty-five million 482 POLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. bushels — vastly greater in weight than the largest cotton crop of the United States. She produced of flax sixty millions of pounds, and of cabbage eight hundred and tifty millions of pounds. She produced of hay three million eight hundred thousand tons. She had on her thousand hills and in her val- leys over four million head of cattle, and in the same pasturage she had three million five hundred thousand head of sheep. She had five hundred and sixty thousand horses, and two hun- dred and ten thousand asses and mules. During the year 1880 she exported to England over seven hundred thousand cattle, over seven hundred thousand sheep, and nearly half a million swine. Pray remember all these came from a territory not quite so large as the State of Maine, and from an area of cul- tivation less than twenty millions of acres in extent! But with this magnificent abundance on this fertile land, rivaling the richness of the ancient land of Goshen, there are men in want of food, and appealing to-day to the charity of the stranger — compelled to ask alms through their blood and kindred in America. Why should this sad condition occur in a land that overflows with plenty, and exports millions of produce to other countries ? According to the inspired command of the great Lawgiver of Israel, " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that tread- eth out the corn," and St. Paul, in quoting this text in his first epistle to Timothy, added, " The laborer is worthy of his reward." Yet many of the men engaged in producing these wonderful harvests are to-day lacking bread. Mr. Gladstone believes, and we hope more than half of Great Britain believes with him, that the cause of this distress in Ireland is to be traced in large part to the absentee ownership of the land. Seven hundred and twenty-nine Englishmen own half the land in Ireland. Three thousand other men own the majority of the other half of the agricultural land of Ireland. Counting all the holdings there are but nineteen thousand two hundred and eighty-eight owners of land in Ireland, and this in a population of more than five million souls. Produce that condition of affairs in Maine or in all New England and the distress here in a few years would be as great as tlie distress in Ireland to-day. Mr. Gladstone, speaking as a statesman and a Christian, says that this intolerable wrong must cease, and that THE IRISH QUESTIOX. 483 the men who till the land in Ireland must be permitted to purchase and to hold it. But the story is not half told. The tenants and the peasan- try of this little island, not so large, mind you, as Maine, pay a rental of sixty-five millions of dollars per annum upon the land. Besides this, Ireland pays an imperial tax of thirty-five millions of dollars annually, and a local tax of fifteen millions more. Thus the enormous sum of one hundred and fifteen millions of dollars is annually wrought out of the bone and flesh and spirit of the Irish people ! No wonder that under this burden many lie crushed and down-trodden. I believe the day has dawned for deliverance from these great oppressions ; but from tlie experience of Ireland's past, it is not wise to be too sanguine of a speedy result. For one, therefore, I shall not be disappointed to see Mr. Gladstone's measures defeated in this Parliament. The English members can do it. But there is one thing which the English members cannot do. They cannot permanently defy the public opinion of the lovers of justice and liberty throughout the civilized world. Lord Hartington made a very significant admission when in a com- plaining tone he accused Mr. Gladstone of having conceded so much in his measure that Irishmen would never take less. I do not know the day, whether it be this year or next year or the year after that, or even years beyond, when a final settle- ment shall be made ; but I have confidence that if Mr. Glad- stone's bills are defeated the settlement will never be made on as easy terms for English landlords as the Premier now proposes. They complain sometimes in England of such meetings as we are now holding. They say we are transcending the just and proper duties of a friendly nation. Even if that were true, the Englishman who remembers 1862-63-64 should main- tain a discreet silence. Yet I freely admit that misconduct of Englishmen during our war would by no means justify mis- conduct on our part now. I do not refer to that as any pallia- tion or as any ground for justification if we were doing wrong. I do not adopt the flippant cry of tit for tat, or the illogical taunt of tu quoque. Indeed, there has been nothing done in America that is not strictly within the lines of justice and strictly within the limits of international obligation. Nor is 484 rOLITICAL DISCUSSIOXS. any thing done in the United States with the intention of in- juring or with the remotest desire to injure Great Britain. The English people themselves are divided, and the American people sympathize with what they believe to be the liberal and just side of English opinion. We are no more sympathizing with Ireland as against the England of the past than we are sympa- thizing with Gladstone against Salisbury in the England of the present. Nor must it be forgotten that England herself, ai3par- ently not appreciating her own course towards Ireland, has never failed in the last fifty years to extend sympathy and sometimes the helping-hand to nationalities in Europe strug- gling to be freed from the clutch of tyranny. When Hungary resisted the rule of Austria, Kossuth was as much a hero in England as he was in America. When Lombardy raised the standard of revolt against the House of Hapsburg, the British Ministry could scarcely be held back from open expression of sympathy. When Sicily revolted against the reign of the Neapolitan Bourbons, English sympathy was so active that Lord Palmerston was openly accused of permitting guns from Wool- wich Arsenal to be smuggled to the Island of Sicily to aid the insurrection against King Bomba. The American i)eople are therefore justified by the example of England, and apart from any consideration except the broad one of human fellowship, stand forth as the friends of Ireland in her present distress. They do not stand forth as Democrats. The}^ do not stand forth as Republicans. They do not stand forth as Protestants. They do not stand forth as Catholics. But they stand fortli as citizens of a Free Republic, symj)athiz- ing with freedom throughout the world. If I had a Avord of personal advice to give, or if I were in a position to give authoritative counsel, it would be this: the time is coming that will probably try the patience and the self-control of the Irish people more severely than they have been tried in any other stage in the progress of their long struggle. My advice is that by all means and with every personal and moral influence which can be used, all acts of vio- lence be suppressed. Irishmen have earned the approving oi)inion of that part of the Christian world which believes in free government. Let them have a care that nothing be done THE IRISH QUESTION. 485 to divide this opinion. Let no act of imprudence or rashness or personal outrage or public violence produce a re-action. Never has a cause been conducted with a clearer head or with better judgment in its parliamentary relations than that which has been conducted by Mr. Parnell. I regard it as a very fortunate circumstance that Mr. Parnell is a Protestant. It has been the singular, and in many respects the happy fortune of Ireland in every trouble to be so led that generous-minded men the world over might see that it was not sectarian strife, but a struggle for freedom and good government. How often has the leader in Irish agitation been a Protestant : — Dean Swift, Molyneux, Robert Emmet, Theobald Wolf Tone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Henry Grattan, and I might add many names to the list. These patriots carried the Irish cause high above and beyond all considerations of sectarian difference and founded it on "the rights of human nature," as Jefferson defined the American cause in our own Revolutionary period. Thus led and thus guarded the Irish cause must prevail. There has never been a contest for liberty by any section of the British Empire composed of white men that was not successful in the end, if the white men were united. By union the Thirteen Colonies gained their independence. By union Canada gained every con- cession she wished upon the eve of a revolution, and there is nothing to-day which Canada could ask this side of absolute separation that would not be granted for the asking. I have only one more word to say, and that again is a word of advice. The men of Irish blood in this country should keep this question as it has been kept thus far, out of our own polit- ical controversies. They should mark any man as an enemy who seeks to use it for personal or for partisan advancement. To the Sacredness of your cause conducted in this spirit, you can in the lofty language of the most eloquent of Irishmen, Edmund Burke — "you can attest the retiring generations, you can attest the advancing generations, between whom we stand as a link in the great chain of eternal order." Conducted in that spirit you can justify your cause before earthly tribunals, and you can carry it with pure heart and strong faith before the judgment seat of God. 486 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. POLITICAL ISSUES IN 1886. [Speech delivered by Mr. Blaine at a Republican mass meeting held at Sebago Lake, Aug. 24, 1886.] Fellow-Citizens, — A new Administration of the National Government is usually unvexed in its first year, except by the importunities and the disappointments of its own supporters. The people at large give small heed, for the time, to public affairs, and the discussion of political issues is left as a somewhat per- functory task to opposing partisans in Congress. This season of apparent indifference is caused in part by the natural ebb of the tide which flowed so high in the preceding national election, and in part also by the American instinct of fair play which demands that the party freshly installed may have free oppor- tunity and full time to lay out its ground and mature its measures. This period of popular inaction is thus not only advantageous for rest, but it prepares those who are the ulti- mate arbiters in all matters of public concern to give patient hearing to fair argument when the time arrives for popular discussion. The approaching election of a governor, of four representa- tives to a new Congress, and of a legislature that shall choose a senator o± the United States, revives the interest in political topics in Maine, and subjects to inquiry the various issues which separate our people into distinct political parties. Have the old differences between the Republican and Democratic organizations been adjusted, or have they groAvn more palpable and more pronounced? Are the questions, over which the Republicans and the Democrats have waged a long contest, to be now abandoned? Is litigation in the court of public opinion to be discontinued, and a settlement effected by enter- ing " neitlier party " on the People's docket ? Or, on the other POLITICAL ISSUES IN 1886. 487 hand, do the American people just now begin to see with clearer vision the aims and intentions, the methods and the measures of each party, and are they waking to a new and more earnest struggle over policies that are irreconcilable, over measures that are inherently and inevitably in conflict ? Let us inquire concerning these things in a spirit of candor ! It is in the first place especially worthy of observation that in the history of industrial questions no party in time of peace has ever been more united in support of a policy than is the Republican party in support of a Protective Tariff to-day. At the late session of Congress a measure known as the Morrison Tariff Bill, designed first to weaken and ultimately to destroy the Protective policy, was resisted by so compact an organization of the Republican members that a single vote from New York and two or three votes from Minnesota were all that broke the absolute unanimity of the party. This was rendered still more striking by the fact that the organs of Republican opinion in New York and Minnesota declare that these exceptional votes were adverse to the wishes of a large majority of those who elected the dissenting members. On the other hand, the majority of the Democratic members supported the Free Trade side of the question; but a small minority, uniting with the Republicans, found themselves able to defeat the measure. Thereupon the Democratic papers quite generally throughout the country denounced the recu- sants as unfaithful to the creed of their party, and the journal in New York which is said to reflect the views of the National Administration, gave formal notice to all Democrats, North and South, who lean towards the policy of Protection, that they must revise their opinions or leave the party, because with their views they can find no sympathy in Democratic ranks and no standing-room on Democratic platforms. These leading facts indicate that the policy of Protection versus Free Trade, is an issue shaped and determined no longer by sectional preference — but has become general and National — affording a distinct, well-marked line of division between the Republican and Democratic parties. I do not recall these facts as prex3aratory to an analytic discussion of the Protfective sys- 488 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. tem, but with the view of applying them to certain current movements and current events. The hostility of the Democratic party to Protection has entailed upon the country a vast loss and has in many ways obstructed the progress and development of certain sections. Since the financial panic of 1873 and the contemporaneous solidification of the ^uthern vote, the Democratic party has, with the exception of a single Congress, held control of the House of Representatives. The power to originate revenue bills has been exclusively in their hands, and they have used it to the confusion, the detriment, in many instances to the de- struction of new enterprises throughout the Union. Confi- dence once shaken is hard to restore, and the schemes of improvement which have been abandoned within the past ten 3' ears on account of the uncertainty of our revenue laws, con- stantly menaced by the Democratic party in Congress, would have caused prosperity and happiness in many communities that have felt the discouraging influence of dull times. The Democratic party is continually referring to the com- parative dullness in business, largely developed by their own course in Congress, as an argument against the policy of Pro- tection. But it is worth while to contrast the condition of the country in this year of grace with its condition the year before . the Republicans succeeded in enacting their first Protective Tariff; to contrast the financial condition at the beginning of 1861 and at the beginning of 1886 of the nine States which still do the larger amount of manufacturing for the country, and which did nearly all of it a quarter of a centur}'^ ago — New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the six States of New England. In 1861 the country had been for nearly a generation under Free Trade, and the amount which the people had accu- mulated in their savings banks during that long period was less than one hundred and sixty millions of dollars. In the same States on the first day of January, 1886, the aggregate amount in the savings banks was over one thousand and twenty millions of dollars. The difference in the amount of savings in Maine for the two periods show that in January, 1861, the people liad less than a million and a half in bank, while in January, 1886, the people had over thirty-six millions in bank. POLITICAL ISSUES IX 1886. 489 During this period it must be remembered that tlie increase of population in the nine States has been about thirty-five per cent, while the increase of deposits in savings banks has been at the rate of eight hundred per cent. It must be remembered that seventy-five per cent of this vast sum belongs to the wage-workers. The vast number of deposi- tors may be inferred from the fact that in Maine, where the aggregate population is less than seven hundred thousand, the thirty-six millions of deposits are divided between 110,000 per- sons, showing that about one in six of the total population is a depositor and that the average to each is about three hundred and twenty dollars. The figures with which we are dealing have been confined to the nine States named, because in 1861 the manufacturing of this country was mainly confined to those States. But the economic fact that a thousand millions of dollars had been saved by the workers within their borders becomes still more signifi- cant when we remember that since 1861 the great body of North-western States under the inspiring influence of a Protec- tive Tariff have in turn developed an enormous aggregation of manufacturing industries. Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, are no longer devoted to agriculture solely, but have a mass of manufacturing industries larger in value than all the manufactures in all the States of the Union on the day Mr. Lincoln was first inaugurated. Still another comparison may be made even more embarrass- ing to the Free Trade doctrinaires. While the American work- men in nine States, working under a protective tariff, have over a thousand millions of dollars in savings banks, the vastly greater mass of w^orkingmen in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the whole United Kingdom, all working under free trade have less than four hundred millions of dollars in both savings banks and postal banks. These figures and these dollars are the most persuasive of arguments and the conclu- sion they teach is so plain that the running man may read. The leading feature in the industrial field of 1885 and 1886 is the discontent among the men who earn their bread by skilled and by unskilled labor. Uneasiness and uncertainty are 490 rOLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. found on all sides ; there are wise aims among many and among not a few there is aimlessness, with its inevitable result of dis- appointment and discouragement. The man who could by any prescription remove this discontent and at once restore har- mony and happiness would be philosopher, patriot and states- man. The man who professes to be able to do it will generally prove to be a compound of empiricism and ignorance. But in the end, perhaps by toilsome paths, with many blunders and some wrongs, no one need doubt that sound, just and right- eous conclusions will be reached. Perfect freedom to test the virtues and secure the advantage of organization, to exert strong power through combination, are certainly among the common rights of all men under a Republican government. Labor associations have the same sanction and the same rights that any form of incorporation may assume — subject, as all must be, to the condition that the persons and property of others shall be respected. It is well for every citizen of a free government to keep before his eyes and in his thoughts the honored maxim that " the liberty of one man must always end where tlie rights of another man begin." I have no new nostrums to offer for the cure of labor troubles. I have no quack remedies to propose. I am a firm believer in the efficacy of the Protective Tariff, and I can look back with satisfaction to my record in Congress as never blotted by a single vote that was not friendly to the interests of American Labor. I never promised any thing when I was a candidate for a public office, and now as a private citizen I have no temptation to flatter any man or state any thing else than the simple truth as I see the truth. It is in this spirit that I offer some suggestions which seem to me worthy of attention under the present aspect of the Labor question. In what may be termed the political creed of the various Labor organizations I have observed an apparent reluctance to recognize some pertinent and, as I think, controlling facts, — facts which in a spirit of friendship and candor I beg to point out. I read, a few days since, in a creed put forth by an asso- ciation of Knights of Labor, in another State, a recital of eighteen distinct ends which they desired to secure or main- tain by national legislation. Among these there was not the POLITICAL ISSUES IX 1886. 491 slightest mention of a protective tariff. That might have been accidental ; or it might have implied a perfect sense of safety in regard to the continuance of the tariff; or it might have meant that those who proclaimed the creed are indifferent to the fate of protection. In any event it would be well for the Labor organizations diligently to inquire and ascertain how the wages of labor in the United States can be kej)t above the rate of wages in Eng- land, Germany and France on the same articles of manu- facture without the intervention of protective duties? With the present cheap modes of interchange and transportation of all eommodities, I inquire of these gentlemen how, under the rule of fuee trade, can wages in the United States be kept above the general standard of European wages ? I do not stop for the detail of argument, I only desire to lodge the question in the minds of the millions of American laborers Avho have it in their power to maintain protection or to inaugurate free trade ; who have it in their power to uphold the party of pro- tection, or the party of free trade. Another portentous fact has been omitted — so far as I have observed — from the consideration and judgment of the Labor organizations. They seem to liave taken little or no heed of the existence of a million and a half of able-bodied laborers in the South witli dark skins, but with expanding intellect, increasing intelligence and growing ambition. While these men were slaves, working in the corn and cotton fields, in the rice swamps and on the sugar plantations of the South, the skilled labor of the Northern States felt no competition from them. But since they became freemen there has been a great change in the variety and skill of the labor performed by colored men in the South. The great mass are, of course, still engaged in agricultural work, but thousands and tens of thou- sands, and in fact hundreds of thousands, have entered and are entering the mechanical and semi-mechanical field. They are making pig and bar iron in Tennessee and Alabama. They are manufacturing cotton in Georgia and the Carolinas. They are brick-layers and plasterers everywhere ; they are carpenters and painters ; they are blacksmiths ; they make wagons and carts ; they make cigars ; they tan leather and make harness ; 492 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. tliej^ are firemen and pilots on river boats ; they calk vessels in Southern ports ; they lay railroad track ; they are switchmen and section men on the line, and firemen on locomotives. In fact, they are generally entering all the avenues and channels of skilled labor. Of course they are underpaid. They receive far less than has been paid in years past to Northern mechanics for similar work. They are not able to take part in making laws for their own protection, and they are consequently and inevitably unable to maintain a fair standard of wages or to receive a fair proportion of their proper earnings. I do not dwell on this subject at length, though it could easily be presented in exasperating detail. I mention it only to place it before the Labor organizations of the North, with this question : Do 3^ou suppose that you can permanently main- tain in the Northern States one scale of prices when just beyond an imaginary line on the south of us a far different scale of prices is paid for labor? The colored mechanic of the South is not so skillful a workman nor so intelligent a man as you are, but if he will lay brick in a new cotton factory in South Carolina at half the price you are paid, if he will paint and plaster it at the same low rate, he is inevitably building up an industry which, if the same rate of wages be maintained throughout, will drive you out of business or lead you to the gates of his own poverty. The situation is therefore plainly demonstrable : — first, if the Democratic party shall succeed in what they have been annually attempting for twelve years past, destroying the Pro- tective Tariff, the artisans of the United States will be thrown into direct competition with the highly skilled and miserably paid labor of Europe. Second, If the Democratic party shall be able to hold control of the Government, the colored laborer in the South will remain where the Southern Democrats have placed him politically, subject to the will of the white man, and unable to fix the price or command the value of his labor. The colored man will, therefore, under those conditions remain a constant quantity in the labor market, receiving inadequate compensation for his own toil, and steadily crowding down the compensation of white labor, if not to his own level yet far below its just and adequate standard. POLITICAL ISSUES IN 1886. 493 At every turn, therefore, whetker it be in exposing the white American hiborer to the danger of European competition by destroying the Protective Tariff, or whether it be in reducing the wages of the white man by unfairly making the colored laborer his fatal competitor in all the fields of toil, the Demo- cratic party North and South appears as the enemy of every interest of the American workman. With that party placed in full power and with all its measures achieved, the wages of the American laborer will fall as certainly as effect follows cause. The Fishery dispute between the United States and Great Britain has passed through many singular phases in the last seventy years but never before, I think, were the circumstances of the controversy so extraordinary as we find existing at this moment. Before discussing the merits of the American case it may be interesting to recall the process by which the ques- tion has been placed in its present attitude. On the thirty-first day of January, 1885, several months before the fishing season of that year began, President Arthur notified the people by public proclamation that the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington (1871) had, according to the conditions of the treaty, been formally terminated. The President made plain and unmistakable the results that would flow from this action by warning all citizens of the United States that "none of the privileges secured to them by these articles will exist after July 1st, 1885." This termination of the treaty had been degreed by an overwhelming vote of both branches of Congress and was now made final and effec- tive by the President's proclamation. This course had been earnestly desired by the American fishermen, was fully under- stood by them and was completed without protest from a single citizen of the United States. Five weeks after President Arthur's proclamation was issued, his term closed, and with the new Administration Mr. Bayard became Secretary of State. In three or four days after he had been installed in office the British minister. Honorable Sack- ville West, submitted a proposal to continue the reciprocal fishing arrangements until Jan. 1, 1886. After a brief corre- 404 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. spondeiice Mr. Bayard accepted the oifer. In other words, Mr. West and Mr. Bayard made a treaty of their own by which American fishermen were to be alloAved to fish in British waters six months longer, and British fishermen should freely fish in American waters for the same period. When Mr. West first proposed this extension of time, in his note of March 12, lie based his suggestion solely upon the generous ground that as the treaty would terminate during the fishing season " consid- erable hardship might be occasioned to American fishermen if they were compelled to desist from fishing at that time." Tliis exact point had been foreseen, had been carefully considered by Congress, by the President, by the State Department, and by the American fishermen themselves. In popular parlance, they had " discounted it " and were fully prepared for it, when to their exceeding surprise the British minister seemed to be moved with compassion for their possible sufferings. Appar- ently without other motive than disinterested benevolence, Mr. West was anxious to allow them six months more of that precious time which the Halifax Commission had declared to be worth to American fishermen a half million dollars per annum. But reading a little farther in this remarkable diplomatic cor- respondence, we find that Mr. West instead of acting from motives of pure generosity towards American fishermen was really paving the way for a shrewd trade and a new treaty. A formal understanding- between himself and Mr. Bayard was reduced to writing, showing that he received a large considera- tion for leaving the British waters open to American fishermen six months longer. The consideration was a pledge from Mr. Bayard under date of June 19, 1885, that the President would at the next session of Congress " recommend the appointment of a Commission in which the Governments of the United States and Great Britain shall be respectively represented, charged with the consideration and settlement upon a just, equitable and honorable basis of the entire questions of the fishing rights of the two Governments and of their respective citizens on the coasts of the United States and British North America." The stipulation was definite and reduced to writing that " in view and in consideration of such jyromised recommenda- POLITICAL ISSUES IX 188G. 495 tions hy the President'''' the British would for the ensuing six months enforce no restrictive regulations against American fishermen. In addition to all this, Mr. Bayard gave significant intimation to Mr. West that the refunding of duties meauAvhile collected under our custom laws upon Canadian fish might be brought before the Commission thus promised. Accordingly, in the following December, six and a half months after Mr. Bayard's memorandum pledge that the Presi- dent would make the recommendation to Congress, the President actually did incorporate it in his annual message and gave it in language which was a transcript verbatim of the words which Mr. Bayard gave to Mr. West. It would certainly be apart from my desire to pass any personal criticism upon the President, of whom I wish at all times to speak in terms of respect, but viewing this as a public question and speaking only with the freedom of a private citizen, I must express my belief that this transaction was throughout extraordinary and unprecedented. It was extraordinary and unprecedented and altogether beyond the proper power of a Secretary of State in the recess of Congress to revive any part of a treaty which Congress had expressly terminated ; it was extraordinary for a Secretary of State to begin negotiations for the renewal of a treaty which every department of Government had just united in annulling ; it was extraordinary for a Secretary of State to enter into a trade with a foreign Minister for a present benefit to be paid for by the future action of the Government; and most of all was it extraordinary that a pledge should be given to a foreign Government that the President of the United States should in the future — more than a half-year distant — make a specific recommendation, on a specific subject, in specific words to the Congress of the United States. That pledge was given and was held in the British foreign office in London, and it took from the President all tlie power of reconsideration which the lapse of time and the change of circumstances might suggest and impose. It robbed the President pro Jiac vice of his liberty as an executive. He was no longer free to insert in his annual message of December what might then seem ex- pedient on the question of the fisheries, but was under personal obligations to insert word for word, letter for letter, the exact 496 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. recommendation which the Secretary of State in the preced- ing month of June had promised and pledged to the British Ministry. The matter presents a curious speculation in regard to the working of our Government. What, for instance, could or should the President have done, if before the date of his annual message he had become convinced, as a large majority of the Senate were convinced, that it was not expedient to organize an International Commission on the Fisheries. He would then have found himself embarrassed between this pledge given to a foreign Government in June and his convictions of duty to the citizens of the United States in the ensuing December. Congress could not be induced to concur in the President's recommendation for an International Commission on the Fish- eries, and so the scheme for which Mr. Bayard and Mr. West had made their extraordinary preparations came to naught. It would have been strange indeed if any other result had been reached. Congress had for several years been diligently en- deavoring to free the country from the burden of the treaty provisions respecting the fisheries, and it could not be expected that they would willingly initiate measures for a new treaty that would probably in the end be filled with provisions as odious and burdensome to the American fishing interest as those from which they had just escaped. As soon as it became evident that Congress would not accept the proposal for a new commission, the Government of the Dominion of Canada, with the presumed approval of the Im- perial Government, began a series of outrages upon American fishing-vessels and fishing-crews, — seeking in every way to de- stroy their business and to deprive them of their fishing-rights. That course continues to this day, and is adopted by the Cana- dian Government with the deliberate intention and obvious expectation of forcing concessions from this Government. A few facts in the long controversy over the fishery question may be pertinently recalled as bearing on the present situation. Let us frankly admit at the outset that we are governed in this matter by the terms of the treaty of 1818. Of the injus- tice of which this country was made the victim before that treaty was ratified, we need not here and now speak. We POLITICAL ISSUES IN 1886. 497 accepted the treat}- of 1818 in good faith; and though it largely curtailed privileges which were the birthright of American fishermen, those hardy men went to work under it, and by their enterprise largely expanded their business, — increasing in an amazing ratio the number of vessels, their aggregate tonnage, and the number of men engaged in the hazardous calling. This rapid progress alarmed the Canadians, and with the view of repressing rivalry and crippling American fisher- men, a new construction was applied to the treaty nearly a quarter of a century after it had been in peaceful operation. From 1841 to 1845 it was for the first time contended by Great Britain that the American right to fish within three miles from shore, meant three miles from the headlands which marked the entrance to bays. On this new and strained construction of the treaty, they sought to exclude American fishermen even from the Bay of Fundy, which is sixty miles wide at its mouth. After a long diplomatic discussion, maintained with signal ability by Edward Everett, our Minister at London, Lord Aberdeen — a name identified with justice and magna- nimity in more than one generation — then at the head of the British Foreign Office, acknowledged that the ground taken by England in regard to the Bay of P\indy was indefensible, the Canadian position was reversed, and the bay was re-opened to American fishermen. But the design of coercing the United States into opening her markets to Canadian fishermen was not abandoned. In 1852 a fresh and determined series of hostilities was begun against American fishermen. A naval force was sent out from England, and the whole coast of Nova Scotia was guarded by the guns of the Royal Navy — thirteen war-vessels patrolling the fishing-grounds. It was again proclaimed that the three- mile limit of the treaty of 1818 was not three miles from the shore, but three miles outside of a line from headland to head- land of ba^^s. This construction of the treaty would place the American fishermen in many places thirt}^ miles from shore, instead of three, as provided by treaty. Mr. Everett had perti- nently reminded the British Government that by this construc- tion " the waters which wash the entire south-eastern coast of Nova Scotia from Cape Sable to Cape Causo — a distance of 498 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. nearly three hundred miles — might constitute a bay from which the United States fishermen would be excluded." In other words, the argument of Mr. Everett showed that the British construction, if admitted, would destroy all American rights intended to be guarded and guaranteed under the provisions of the treaty. When the attempt of 1852 was made to enforce the " head- land " construction of the treaty, Mr. Webster was Secretary of State, in the Administration of Mr. Fillmore. In an official paper over his own signature, Mr. Webster recorded his opinion that the British construction of the treaty " is not conformable to the intentions of the contracting parties.'' Those are weighty words, and spoken b}^ Mr. Webster, they give an almost author- itative construction to the treaty. It is certainly not discour- teous or invidious to say that in legal ability, especially on points both of Constitutional and International Law, Mr. Webster's opinion is entitled to more serious consideration than that of any British official who was then dealing or who has since dealt with the fishery question. Mr. Webster's official proclamation, from which I have quoted, was issued on the 6th of July, 1852. A fortnight later he addressed a lara:e audience from the front door of his house at Marshfield, and then he spoke with entire freedom. " The treaty of 1818," said Mr. Webster, "was made with the Crown of England. If an American fishing-vessel is captured by one of her vessels of war, the Crown of England is answerable ; but it is not to be expected that the United States will submit their rights to be adjudicated in the petty tribunals of the Provinces, or that we shall allow our own vessels to be seized by constables and other petty officers, and condemned by the municipal courts of Quebec, Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Canada. ... In the mean time be assured that the fishing in- terest will not be neglected by this Administration under any circumstances. The fishermen shall be protected in all their rights of property and in all their riglits of occupation. To use a Marblehead phrase, they shall be protected ' hook and line, bob and sinker.' " Mr. Webster fell ill very soon after these vigorous expressions, and the negotiations passed into other hands and were adjusted POLITICAL ISSUES IN 1886. 499 finally by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. The operation of that treaty was highly injurious to American fishermen. Before its termination in 1866, our Government refused to renew it and our fishing interest imijiediately began to revive, and im- mediately the Canadians began to agitate for another treaty by which they could reach the markets of the United States. Their wishes were gratified, and by the strangest of all diplo- matic juggles the United States paid five and a half millions of dollars for a treaty which it did not want and which the other party earnestly desired. Time has passed and the treaty of 1871 has expired. The Canadians again come back to their old tactics of harassing and worrying and outraging American fishermen until by sheer weariness, after the manner of the unjust judge in Scripture, our Government shall give them what they want, even to the injury of our own people. The humiliation of our situation has been gratuitously in- creased by the vote of a majority of the Democratic party in the House of Representatives to throw open the markets of the United States to British and Canadian fishermen, without duty or charge, and without securing to American fishermen the right to fish in British and Canadian waters. This is an act of hostility to the fishing interest of New England, the motive of which it is difficult even to comprehend. John Randolph so hated the wool tariff that he " felt like walking a mile to kick a sheep." Do Northern Democrats feel so rancorous a hostil- ity to the fishermen of New England that they would sacrifice a great national interest in order to inflict a blow upon them ? It would certainly be refreshing if we could hear Mr. Web- ster's words repeated from official sources to-day. It would be refreshing if it could once more be asserted with the strength and dignity of Webster that " the United States will not sub- mit their rights to be adjudicated in the petty tribunals of the Provinces," that " American fishermen shall be protected in all their rights of property, and in all their rights of occupation." Mr. Webster did not expect and did not intend that his posi- tion would lead to war. He simply expected that a firm, de- cided tone would bring English officials to their senses, and make them feel the responsibility and danger of transgressing the rights and touching the sensibilities of a proud and power- 500 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. ful people. Mr. Webster knew, as those who learned from him have since known, that England could even less than the United States afford to go to war abont the fisheries. Mr. Webster knew, as those who have learned in his school have since known, that England and the United States can never go to war except on some point that touches the imperial integrity of the one or the other ; and even an offense of that magnitude we agreed in 1S71 to settle by arbitration and not by gage of battle. But the country is weary of hearing in Mr. Webster's phrase that Canadian constables are arresting American crews, and that Canadian gun-boafs are capturing vessels on the high seas floating the American flag. — and doing all this on the assumption of a treaty power which the United States denies, and upon a technical construction put forward a quarter of a century after the treaty went into operation, and after it had received a peaceful and fair construction. We await the publi- cation of Mr. Bayard's correspondence with Great Britain on the subject of the seizure of American fishing-vessels with deep interest — and with the hope, if not the expectation, that he will leave his country in a better position at the close of the negotiation than he has thus far maintained. Another international trouble has increased onr sense of chagrin and humiliation. In contrast with our patient endur- ance of Canadian outrage towards American fishermen, we have made an unnecessary and im dignified display of insolence and bravado towards Mexico. There is no adequate cause for the demonstration. I do not stop at this point to narrate the precise facts attending the imprisonment of Mr. Cutting. I know that we cannot without loss of character for honor and chivalry begin our negotiations with threats of war. I main- tain that when the United States agreed to accept arbitration as the means of adjusting our grave difficulties with England, we c-ame under bonds to the public opinion of the world to offer arbitration to any weaker power as the means of settKng difficulties in all cases where we cannot adjust them by direct negotiation. If we are not willing to accept that conclusion, we place ourselves in the disreputable attitude of accepting arbitration with a strong power, and resorting to force with a POLITICAL ISSUES IX l^SS. 501 ■weak p«c>wer. I am sure no American citizen of self-respect desires to see his country subjected to that degradation. For the United States to attack Mexico without giving her an opportunitT to be heard before an impartial tribunal of arbitra- tion would be for a nation of unlimited power to put herself to open shame before the world. There could not, fellowarticipation in public afBairs with special satis- faction it is that I endeavored to assemble the American Repub- lics in a Peace Congress to the end that war between nations on this continent should be made forever impossible. War in any direction would be calamity to the United States — but war forced on Mexico would be a crime. The pending contest is marked by the presence of a third party, organized as its leaders say, to enforce the prohibition of the liquor traffic in Maine. Some singular features charac- terize this movement. The Republic-an party in Maine frc>m the day of its organization has been pledged to prohi';:::i::i — enacting in 18-57-58 the principal statute now in force, and amending it from year to year as leading temperance men requested. The amendments have averaged nearly one for every year since the original law was passed. The third party, in their convention, testify that prohibition has been so well enforced by the Republicans, that in their judgment Maine is a quarter of a century ahead of the lic-ense States in all that pertains to the temperance reform. The Republicans have this year with sp«eoial emphasis in their State Convention re-affirmed their faith in prohibition and nomi- nated for Governor a pronounced supporter of the law. But 502 POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS. all this does not suit the Third Party Prohibitionists. They desire a party of their own just small enough to have no effect at all, or, if possible, just large enough to throw the State into the hands of the Democratic party, which has been as constant in its hostility to prohibition as the Republican party of Maine has been constant in its fidelity to prohibition. The position and platform of the third party might in fact be thus abbreviated : Whereas the Republican party of Maine en- acted a prohibitory law thirty years ago and has since amended it as a majority of the friends of temperance demanded, and has in consequence advanced Maine in all matters of temperance a quarter of a century ahead of the license States ; therefore, be it resolved that we, members of a third party of Prohibitionists, will so vote as to defeat the Republican party and turn the Government of Maine over to the Democrats, who have opposed prohibition by every instrumentality in their power. Democrats of course, with scarcely an attempt at conceal- ment, regard the third party as their especial ally, and the coali- tion is so evident that I am sure no man can be deceived in regard to the result except him who desires to be deceived. Every voter knows that he must choose between the Republi- can and Democratic parties — and every voter knows that in joining the third party he indirectly but effectually throws his political and moral influence in favor of the Democracy. The supporters of the third party adopt as their shibboleth that "the Republican party must be killed," and they have secured the co-operation of the Democrat, of the Free-Trader, of the saloon proprietor, of all men who wish to keep six millions of colored people in the South disfranchised and oppressed. It is an insincere coalition, an unhallowed partnership, an unholy alliance. Against it the Republican party of Maine presents its uniform support of prohibition, its unbroken record of devotion to the protection of American labor, its steadfast effort in be- half of those who are down-trodden and deprived of natural rights. The Republican party has alwa^^s fought its battles single-handed, against great odds, and now with principle un- tarnished and courage undaunted it will again triumph over the combined force of all its foes. 1 ■ W, "".-M ■ ■.' CJs^^i^ Ly^^y^ MEMORIAL ADDRESS. ON THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF JAMES A. GAUFIELD. [Delivered Feb. 27, 1882, in response to an invitation from the two Houses of Congress.] 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 mur- dered 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. " Who- ever 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." From the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth till the up- rising against Charles I., about tAventy 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 natu- rally ceased when the contest for religious liberty began in ear- nest at home. The man who struck his most effective blow for freedom of conscience bj'" sailing for the Colonies in 1620 would have been accounted a deserter if he had left after 1640. The- 504 JAMES A. GARFIELD. 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 power of England. The emigration was never re- newed, and from these twenty thousand men, and from a small emigration from Scotland, from Ireland, 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 prominent in its history. Their names have in large part become anglicized, 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 Puritan and the Huguenot, came the late President — his father, Abram Garfield, being de- scended from the one, his mother, Eliza Ballon, 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 man- liness, 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 oppres- sion of the Stuarts, and seventh in descent from the brave French Protestants who refused to submit to tyranny even from Louis the Great. General Garfield delighted to dwell on these traits, and, dur- ing his only visit to England, he busied himself in searching out 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 MEMORIAL ADDRESS. . 505 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. His father dying before he was two years old, Garfield's early life 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 this destitution, none of these 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, in a public speech, Mr. Webster bore this testimony : — " 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 bur- dens of each, is a very different poverty, different in kind, dif- ferent in influence and effect, from that conscious and humiliat- ing indigence which is every day forced to contrast itself with neighboring wealth on which it feels a sense of grinding depend- 506 JAMES A. GARFIELD. ence. The poverty of the frontier is indeed no poverty. It is but the beginning of wealth, and the boundless possibilities of the future are ahvaj's opening before it. No man ever grew up in the agricultural regions of the West, where a house-rais- ing, or even a corn-husking, is 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. He 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 ad- venture 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 any thing 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. Gen- eral Garfield's youth presented no hardships which family love and family energy did not overcome, subjected him to no priva- tions winch he did not cheerfully accept, and left no memories save those which were recalled with delight, and transmitted with profit and with pride. His early opportunities for securing an education were ex- tremely 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 ac- quaintance ; some of them he learned 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 MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 507 liis speech in mature life gave evidence of this early training. At eighteen years of age he was able to teach school, and thenceforwa-rd 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 full- ness 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-reli- ance, 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, his career was emi- nent 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, INIajor-General of the Army of the United States, and Representative-elect to the National Con- gress. A combination of honors so varied, so elevated, within a period so brief and to a man so young, is without parallel in the history of the country. His army life was began 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 508 JAMES A. GARFIELD. a more embarrassing and discouraging position. He knew just enough of military science, as he expressed it liimself, to meas- ure 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 he 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 rout of Marshall, the capture of his camp, the dispersion of his force, and the emancipation of an im- portant territory from the control of the rebellion. Coming at the close of a long series of disasters to the Union arms, this 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 Jhanks 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 high- est qualities of a soldier, and President Lincoln supplemented these words of praise by the more substantial reward of a Brigadier-General's 0ommission, 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 on the bloody field of Shiloh. The remainder of the year 1862 was not MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 609 especially eventful to him, 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. This of itself was 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 deliver- ance — was Joseph Holt of Kentuck}', 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 the Cumber- land. 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 dis- tinction was accorded him of a great promotion for bravery on a field that was lost. President Lincoln appointed him a Major- 510 JAMES A. GARFIELD. General in the Army of the United States for gallant and meri- torious conduct in the battle of Chickamauga. The Army of the Cumberland was re-organized 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 re- signed his commission of Major-General on the fifth day of December, 1863, and took his seat in the House of Representa- tives on the seventh. He had served two years and four months in the Army, and had just completed his thirty-second year. The Thirty-eighth Congress is pre-eminently entitled in his- tory 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 ex- tent 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 un- precedented, both in respect to the vast sums of money raised for tlie support of the Army and Navy, and of the new and extraordhiary powers of legislation which it was forced to ex- ercise. Only twenty-four States were represented, and one hundred and eighty -two members Avere 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 parliamen- tary experience. Into this assemblage of men Garfield en- tered without special preparation, and, it might almost be said, unexpectedly. The question of taking command of a division MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 511 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 uni- form of a Major-General of the United States Army on Satur- day, 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 Re2:)resen- tatives ; 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 the 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 tlie 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 contained an unusual number of strong men of both parties ; nineteen of them have since been transferred to the Senate ; many of them have served with distinction in the gubernatorial chairs of their respective States, 512 JAMES A. GARFIELD. 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 suc- ceeded " 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 he possessed was one of his great characteristics. He never did so well but that it seemed he could easily have done better. He never ex- pended so much strength but that he appeared to be holding additional power at command. 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 ser- vice in the House of Representatives. His military life, illus- trated by honorable performance, and rich in promise, was, as he himself felt, prematurely terminated, and necessarily incom- plete. 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 ability 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 con- secutively chosen to the House, an honor enjoyed probably by not twenty other Representatives of the more than five thou- sand who have been elected from the organization of the Government to this hour. MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 513 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, per- haps, 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 elabo- rate and complete preparation. He was a steady and indefati- gable worker. Those who 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. John- son, 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 case 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 de- bater, 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 selec- 514 JAMES A. GARFIELD. tion 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 posi- tion and scatters confusion m his ranks by attacking an exposed point when really the righteousness of the cause and the strength of logical intrenchment are against him. He con- quers often both against the right and the heavy battalions; as when young Charles 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 adminis- tration, 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 Gar- field 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. They were all men 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 discus- sion, in the art of controlling and consolidating reluctant and refractory followers, in the skill to overcome all forms of oppo- sition, 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 leader- ship, in the pride and plenitude of power, he hurled against John Tyler with deepest scorn the mass of that conquering MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 515 column which had swept over the land in 1840, and drove his administration to seek shelter behind the lines of its political foes. Mr. Douglas achieved a victory scarcely less notable when, in 1854, against the secret desires of a strong administra- tion, 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 to repeal the Missouri Com- promise. 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 Seward 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 parliamen- tary uprising of which Thaddeus Stevens was the animating spirit and the unquestioned leader. From these three great men Garfield differed radically, dif- fered 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 Con- gressional 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. 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 prove 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 vol- umes of Congressional record, they would present an invaluable compendium of the political events 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 516 JAMES A. GARFIELD. human rights, amendments to the Constitution, maintenance of public credit, steps toward specie resumption, true theories of revenue, may all be reviewed, unsurrounded by prejudice and disconnected from partisanship, 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 defense of the imjDortant 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 bej^ond the public opinion of the hour, but which he confidently be- lieved 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 re- sembles 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 Presidenc3% 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 fea- tures in the strong, independent course of Sir Robert Peel, to whom he had striking resemblances in the type of his mind and in the habit of his speech. He had all of Burke's love for the Sublime and the Beautiful, with, possibly, something of his superabundance. In his faith and his magnanimity, in his power of statement, in his subtle anal3'sis, 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, con- fronted with obstacles that would daunt any but the dauntless, reviled as bitterly by those whom he would relieve as by those MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 617 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. Garfield's nomhiation to the Presidency, while not antici: pated, 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, kept him before the public as a man occupying the highest rank among those en- titled 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 Newfoundland. 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 mo- mentum until the close of his victorious campaign : "Xo might nor greatness in mortality Can censure 'scape ; backwounding 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 imputa- tions passed unnoticed, and with the general dSbris 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, 518 JAMES A. GARFIELD. had a successful Presidential candidate spoken freely on passing events and current issues. To attempt any thing 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 popularity before his nomination, and the unfortunate speeches which rapidly con- sumed the remainder. The younger voters had seen Mr. Greeley, in a series of vigorous and original addresses, prepar- ing the pathway for his own defeat. Unmindful of these warn- ings, 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, Avatchful 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 in- jury, Garfield did not trip or halt in any one of his seventy speeches. This seems all the more remarkable when it is re- membered that he did not write what he was to say, and j^et spoke with such consecutiveness of thought and such precision • of phrase as to defy the accident of misreport and the malignity of misrepresentation. In the beginning of his Presidential life Garfield's experi- ence did not yield him pleasure or satisfaction. The duties that engross so large a portion of the President's time Avere dis- tasteful to him, and were unfavorably contrasted with his legis- lative 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 funda- mental 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 appoint- MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 519 ment 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. Indeed, he constantly surprised many who were intimately associated with him in the Government, and espe- cially 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 classifica- tion, enabled him to dispatch a mass of detail with promptness and ease. His Cabinet meetings were admirably conducted. His clear presentation of official subjects, his well-considered suggestion of topics for discussion, 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, im- pelled always by a generous enthusiasm, he 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 defi- nitely counted on being present at ^ree 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 ex- act scope and verge which he needed. At Yorktown he would have before him the associations of a hundred years that boundi the South and the North in the sacred memory of a commoni danger and a common victory. At Atlanta he would present 520 JAMES A. GARFIELD. 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-defense. At Chattanooga he would revive memories of the war only to show that after all its disaster and suffering, the country was stronger and greater, the Union ren- dered indissoluble, and the future, through the agony and blood of one generation, made brighter and better for all. His 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 aban- doned 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 pas- sion of patriotic devotion, and every waking thought was given to her advancement. He was an American in all his aspira- tions, 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 events which disturbed the President's serenity for many weeks before that fateful day in July form an impor- tant chapter in his career, and, in his own judgment, involved questions of principle and of right which are vital to the constitutional administration of the Federal Government. It would be out of place here to speak the language of contro- versy ; but the events referred to, however they may continue to be a source of contention with others, have become, so far as the name of Garfield is involved, as much a matter of history as his heroism at Chickamauga or his illustrious service MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 521 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 now to be adversely in- terpreted or 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 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 conse- quences personal to himself. The pride of consistency, or any supposed sense of humiliation that might result from surrender- ing 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 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 de- volves 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. The religious element in Garfield's character was deep and 522 JAMES A. GARFIELD. earnest. In his early youth he espoused the faith of the Disci- ples, a sect of the great Baptist Communion. But the broaden- ing tendency of his mind and his spirit of inquiry were early apparent, and carried him beyond the dogmas of sect and the restraints of association. In selecting his college he rejected Bethany, though presided over by Alexander Campbell, the greatest preacher of his church. His reasons were character- istic : first, that Bethany leaned too heavily towards 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 anticipated as the result of wider culture was fully realized. He was emancipated from mere sectarian belief, and with eager interest pushed his inves- tigations in the direction of modern progressive thought. He followed with quickening step in the paths of exploration and speculation fearlessly trodden by Darwin, by Huxley, by Tyn- dall, and by other eminent scientists. His own church, bind- ing its disciples by no formulated creed, but accepting the Old and New Testaments as the word of God, with unbiased liber- ality of private interpretation, favored, if it did not stimulate, the spirit of investigation. 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 sole- cisms and contradictions. A philosophic observer declares that men by the thousand will die in defense of a creed whose doc- trines they do not comprehend and whose tenets they habitu- ally violate. It is equally true that men by the thousand will cling to church organizations with instinctive and undying fidelity, when their belief in maturer years is radically differ- ent 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 im- MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 623 planted, longest survive. Not many weeks before his assassina- tion, walking on the banks of the Potomac with a friend, and conversing on those 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 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 all 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 utterance of St. 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 angels, nor principalities, nor pow- ers, 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 en- circled 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. On the morning of Saturday, July 2, 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 624 JAMES A. GARFIELD. a keen anticipation of pleasure, his talk was all in tlie 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 ; th-at grave diffi- culties confronting him at his inauguration had been safely passed ; that trouble 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 tri- umphs of this world, on that quiet July morning Garfield may well have been a happy man. No foreboding of evil haunted him ; no 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 the 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 bril- liant, broken plans, what baffled, high ambitions, what sunder- ing of strong, warm, manhood's friendships, 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 MEMORIAL ADDRESS. 625 not yet emerged from childhood's day of frolic ; the fair young daughter ; the sturdy sons just springing into closest compan- ionship, 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 ; he was 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. In 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 its 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 wist- fully upon the ocean's changing wonders ; on its far sails, whit- ening in the morning light ; on its restless waves, rolling shore- ward 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 reced- ing world he heard the great waves breaking on a farther shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the eternal morning. 3 ^Sl^'i (■HS- w