.>. I mean by the good tliose who are able to rule in the eity. Socrates. Not. suroly, over horses? A/cibiadei. Cortiiinfy not. Socrfttes. But over men 'i Alcibiudei. Yes." [Plato, Dialogues. The First Alcibiades. "Among the foremost purposes ought to be the downfall of this odious, insulting, degrading, aide-do- campish, incapable dictatorship. At such a crisis is the country to be left at tho mercy of barrack councils and me^<-rac)in polific.5?" — Letter of Lord B.irhamto Heiiru Brougham. Aug., \iod. Brougham's Life and Times, Vol. iii, p. 44. WASHINGTON: F. & J. RlVdS & GEO. A. BA.ILEY, REPORTERS AND PRINrERS OP THE DEDATEi OF CONQRESS 1872. Eg-] i^ '-J Republicanism vs. Grantism. The sundry civil appropriation bill coming up as unfinished business, Mr. Sumner moved to postpone indefinitely its consideration, and proceeded to re- view the report of the Committee on the Sale of Arms to French agents. Mr. SU-MNERthen said: Mr. President: I have no hesitation in declaring myself a member of the Repub- lican party and one of the straitest of the sect. I doubt if any Senator can point to earlier or more constant service in its behalf. I began at the beginning, and from that early day have never failed to sustain its candidates and to advance its principles. For these I have labored always by speech and vote, in the Senate and elsewhere, at first with few only, but at last as success began to dawn then with multitudes flocking forward. In this cause I never asked who were my associates or how many they would number. lu the consciousness of right 1 was willing to be alone. To such a party, with which so much of my life is intertwined, I have no common attachment. Not without regret can I see it suffer ; not without a pang can I see it changed from its original character, for such a change is death. Therefore do I ask, with no com- mon feeling, that the peril which menaces it may pass away. I stood by its cradle ; let me not follow its hearse. ORIGIN AND OBJECT OP THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Turning back to its birth, I recall a speech of ray own at a State convention in Massa- chusetts, as far back as September 7, 1854, where I vindicated its principles and announced its name in these words: "As Rf.pcbucaxs we go forth to encounter the Oligarchs of Slavery." The report records the applause with which this name was received by the excited multitude. Years of conflict ensued, in which the good cause constantly gained. At last, in the summer of 18(J0, Abraham Liucoln was nominated by this party as its candidate for the Presidency; and here par- don me if I refer again to myself. On my way home from the Senate I was detained in New York by the invitation of party friends to speak at the Cooper Institute on the issues of the pending election. The speech was made July 12, and, I believe, was the earliest of the campaign. As pui^lished at the time it was entitled "Origin, Necessity, and Perma- nence of the Republican Party," and to ex- hibit these was its precise object. Both the necessity and permanence of the party were asserted. A brief passage, which I take from the report in the New York Herald, will show the duty and destiny I ventured then to hold up. After dwelling on the evils of Slavery and the corruptions it had engendered, including the purchase of votes at the polls, I proceeded as follows : " Therefore justso long as the present false theories of Slavery prevail, whether concerning its character morally, economically, and socially, or concerning its prerogatives under the Constitution, just so loug as the Slave Oligarchy, which is the sleepless and unhesitating agent of Slavery in all its pretensions, continues to exist as a political power, the Repub- lican party must endure. 'Applause.] ItbaJ men con- spire for Slavery, good men must combine for Free- dom. ['Good, good 1'] Nor (-an the holy war be ended uolii the barbarism now dominant in the Republic is overthrown and the Pagan power is driven from our Jerusalem. [Applause.] And when the triumph is won, securing the immediate object of our organ- ization, the Republican party will not die. but puri- fied by its long contest with Slavery and filled with higher life, it will be lifted to yet other elforis with nobler aims for the good of man. [Applause, three cheers for Lincoln.]" Such, on the eve of the presidential election, was my description of the Republican party and my aspiration for its future. It was not to die, but purified by long contest with Slavery and filled with higher life, we were to behold it lifted to yet other efforts and nobler aims for the good of man. Here was nothing personal, nothing mean or petty. The Republican party was necessary and perma- nent, and always on an ascending plane. For Buch a party there was no deaih, but higher life and nobler aims; and this was the party to which 1 gave my vows. But alas! how changed. Once country was the object, and not a man ; once principle was inscribed on the victorious banners, and not a name only. REPUBLICAN PARTY SEIZED BY THE PRESIDENT. It is not difficult to indicate wben this disas- trous change, exaliing the will of one man above all else, became not merely manltest but painfully conspicuous. Already it had begun to show itself in personal pretensions, to which I shall refer soon, when suddenly aud without any warning through the public press or any expression from public opinion, the President elected by the Republican party precipitated upon the country an ill-considered and ill- omened scheme lor the annexion of a portion of the island of St. Domingo, in pursuance of a treaty negotiated by a person of iiis own household styling himself " Aid-de-Camp of the President of the United States." Had this effort, however injudicious in object, been confined to ordinary and constitutional pro- ceedings, with proper regard lor a coordinate branch of the Government, it would have soon dropped out ofsightand been remembered only as a blunder. But it was not so. Strangely and unaccountably, it was pressed for months by every means and appliance of power, whether at home or abroad, now reaching into the Senate Chamber, and now into the waters about the island. Reluctant Senators were subdued to its support, while, treading under foot the Constitution in one of its most dis tinctive republican principles, the President seized the war powers of the nation, instituted foreign intervention, and capped the climax of usurpaiion by menace of violence to the Black Republic of Hayti, where the colored race have commenced the experiment of self- government, thus adding manifest outrage of International Law to manifest outrage of the Constitution, while the long-suffering African was condemned to new indignity. All these things, so utterly indefensible and aggravating, and therefore to be promptly disowned, found defenders on this floor. The President, who was the original author of the wrongs, contin- ued to maintain them, and appealed to Repub- lican Senators for help, thus fulfilling the excentric stipulation with the Government of Baez, executed by his Aid de-Camp. At last a Republican Senator, who felt it his duty to exhibit these plain violations of the Constitution and of International Law, and then in obedience to the irresistible. prompt- ings of his nature, and in harmony with his whole life, pleaded for the equal rights of the Black Republic — who declared that he did this as a Republican, and to save the party from this wretched complicity — this Republican Senator, engaged in a patriotic service, and anxious to save the colored people from out- rage, was denounced on this floor as a traitor to the party, and this was done by a Senator speaking for the party, and known to be in intimate relations with the President guilty of these wrongs. Evidently the party was in process of change from that generous asso- ciation dedicated to Human Rights and to the guardianship of the African race. Too plainly it was becoming the instrument of one man and his personal will, no matter how much he set at defiance the Constiiuiion and Interna- tional Law, or how much he insulted the col- ored people. The President was to be main- tained at all hazards, notwithstanding his aberrations, and all who called them in ques- tion were to be struck down. In exhibititig this autocratic pretension, so revolutionary and unrepublican in character, I mean to be moderate in language and to keep within the strictest bounds. The facts are in- disputable, and nobody can deny the gross violation of lue Constitution and of Inter- national Law with insult to the Black Repub- lic — the whole case being more reprehensi- ble, as also plainly more unconstitutional and more illegal than anything alleged against Andrew Johnson on his impeachment. Be- lieve me, sir, I should gladly leave this matter to the judgment already recorded, if it were not put in issue again by the extraordinary efforts, radiating on every line of office, to press its author for a second term as Pres- ident; and since silence gives consent, all these efforts are his efforts. They become more noteworthy when it is considered that the name of the candidate thus pressed has become a sign of discord and not of concord, dividing instead of uniting the Republican party, so that these extraordinary efforts tend directly to the disruption of the parry, all of which he witnesses and again by his silence raiifies. "Let the party split," says the Pres- ident, "I will not renounce my chance of a second term." The extent «f this personal pressure and the subordination of the party to the will of an Individual compel us to consider his pretensions. These, too, are in issue. PRESIDENTIAL PRETENSIONS. " On what meat doth this our Caesar feed" that he should assume so much? No honor for victory in war can justify disobedience to the Constitution and to law; nor can it afford the least apology for any personal immunity, privilege, or license in the presidential office. A President must turn into a king before it can be said of him that he can do no wrong. He is responsible always. As President he is foremost servant of the law, bound to obey its slightest mandate. As the elect of the peo- ple he owes not only the example of williiig obedience, but also of fidelity and industry in the discharge of his conspicuous office with an absolute abnegation of all self seeking. Noth- ing for self but ail for country. And now, as we regard the career of this candidate, we find to our amazement how little it acc«fds with this simple requirement. Bring it to the touchstone and it fails. Not only are Constitution and law disre- garded, but the presidential office itself is treated as little more than a plaything and a perquisite — when not the former then the latter. Here the details are ample; showing how from the beginning this exalted trust has dropped to be a personal indulgence, where palace cars, fast horses, and sea-side loiterings figure more than duties ; how personal aims and objects have been more prominent than the public interests ; how the presidential office has been used to advance his own family on a scale of nepotism dwarfing everything of the kind in our history and hardly equaled in the corrupt Governments where this abuse has most prevailed; how in the same spirit office has been conferred upon those from whom he had received gifts or benefits, thus making the country repay his personal obligations ; how personal devotion to him.-elf rather than pub lie or party service has been made the stand- ard of favor; how the vast appointing power conferred by the Constitution for the general welfare has been employed at his wili to pro- mote his schemes, to reward his friends, to pun ish his opponents, and to advance his election to a second term; how all these assumptions have matured in a personal government, semi- military in character and breathing the mili- tary spirit, being a species of Casiarism or personalising abhorrent to republican institu- tions, w here subservience to the President is the supreme law ; how in maintaining this subserv- ience he has operated by a system of combin- ations, military, political, and even senatorial, having their orbits about him, so that, like the planet Saturn, he is surrounded by rings ; nor does the similitude end here, for his rings, like those of the planet, are held in position by satellites ; how this utterly unrepublican Caesarism has mastered the Republican party and dictated the presidential will, stalking into the Senate Chamber itself, while a vin- dictive spirit visits good Republicans who cannot submit ; how the President himself, unconscious thai a President has no right to quarrel wiih anybody, insists upon quarreling until he has become the great presidential quarreler, with more quarrels than all otiier Presidents together, ail begun and contin- ued by liimseif; how his personal followers back him in quarrels, insuk. those he insulis, and then, nut deparluig from his spirit, cry out with Shakspeare, " We will have rings and things and fine array;" and finally, how the chosen head of the Kepublic id knowu chiefly for presidential pretensions, utterly indefensible in character, derogatory to the country and of evil influence, making personal objects a primary pursuit, so that instead of a beneficent presence he is a bad example through whom Republican institutions suffer and the people learn to do wrong. Would thai these things could be forgotten, but since through officious friends the Pres- ident insists upon a second term they must be considered and publicly discussed. When understood nobody will vindicate them. It is easy to see that Caisarisra even in Europe is at a discount ; that " personal governmetii" has been beaten on that ancient field, and that "Caesar wiih a senate at his heels"' is not the fit model for our Republic. King George III of England, so peculiar for narrowness and obstinacy, had retainers in Pa'riiament who went under the name of " Ihe King's Friends." Nothing can be allowed here to justify the inquiry, " Have we a King George among us?" or that other question, "Have we a party in the Senate of ' the King's Friends?' " PERSONAL GOVERNMENT UNREPUBLICAN. Personal government is autocratic. It is the One Man Power elevated above all else, and is, therefore, in direct conflict with re- publican government, whose consummate form is tripartite. Executive, Legislative, and Judi- cial; each independent and coequal. From Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, we learn that the accumulation of these powers " in the same hands'" may justly be pronouncr-d " the very definition of tyranny." And so any attempt by either to exercise powers of another is a tyrannical invasion always reprehensible in proportion to its extent. John Adams tells us in most instructive words that " it is by balancing each of these powers against the other two that the eftbrts in human nature toward tyranny can alone be checked and resir-iined, and any degree of freedom pre- served in the Consiituiion." {John Adams^ s Works, Vol. IV, p. 186.) Then, again, the same authority says that the perfection of this great idea is " by giving each division a power to defend itself by a negative." (/iiti, page 2i)6 ) In other words, each is armed against invasion by the others. Accordingly, the constitution of Virginia, in 177(3, conspicuous as an historical precedent, declared expressly : " The legislative, executive, and judiciary depart- ments shall bo .separate and disuiict. so lliat neilher exercise the powers properly belonsjing to the other ; nor shall auy persoa execute tiie powers of more than oue ot them at the same time." The constitution of Massachusetts, dating from 178l>, einboJiei the same pri:iciple iu meinoraule words : " The legislative ilepartment .■'hall never exeroi.^a the executive uu4 judiqial powers, or eiiuec of 6 them; the executive shall never exercise the legis- lative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the lc?isiative and executive powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men." A government of laws and not of men is the object of republican government; nay more, it is the distinctive essence without which ii becomes a tyranny. Therefore, personal gov- ernment in all its forms, and especially when it seeks to sway the action of any oilier branch or overturn its constitutional negative, is hos- tile to the first principles of republican insti- tutions, and an unquestionable outrage. That our President has offended in this way is unhappily too apparent. THE PRESIDENT AS A CIVILIAK. To comprehend ihe personal government that has been installed over us we must iinow its author. His picture is the necessary frontispiece ; not as soldier, let it be borne in mind, but as civilian. The President is titular head of the Army and Navy of the United States; but his ofitice is not military or naval. As if to exclude all question, he is classed by the Constitution among "civil officers." Therefore as civilian is he to be seen. Then, perhaps, may we learn the secret of the policy so adverse to republicanism in which he perseveres. To appreciate bis peculiar character as a civilian it is important to know his triumphs as a soldier, for the one is the natural com- plement of the other. The successful soldier is rarely changed to the successful civilian. There seems an incompatibility between the two, modified by the extent to which one has been allowed to exclude the other. One always a soldier cannot late in life become a statesman; one always a civilian cannot late in life become a soldier. Education and expe- rience are needed for each. Washington and Jackson were civilians as well as soldiers. In the large training and experience of antiquity ihe soldier and civilian were often united ; but in modern times this has been seldom. The camp is peculiar in the influence it exerci'^es; it is in itself an education; but it is not the education of the statesman. To suppose that we can change wiihout prepara- tion from the soldier to tne statesman is to assume that training and experience are of less consequence for the one than the other — that a man may be born a statesman but can fit himself as a soldier only by four years at West Point, careful scientific study, the com- mand of troops, and experience in the tented field. And is nothing required for the states- man? is his duty so slight? His study is the nation and its welfare, turning always to his- tory for example, to law for authority, and to the lofiitsl truth for rules of conduct. No knowledge, care, or virtue, discifilined by habit, can be too great. The pilot is not accepted in his trust until he knows the signs of the storm, the secrets of navigation, the rooks of the coast, all of which are learned only by careful study with charts and sound- ings, by coasting the land and watching the crested wave. But can less be expected of that other pilot who is to steer the ship which contains us all? The failure of the modern soldier as states- man is exhibited by Mr. Buckle in his remark- able work on the "History of Civilization." Writing as a philosopher devoted to liberal ideas, he does not disguise that in antiquity '• the most eminent soldiers were likewise the most eminent politicians]" but he plainly shows the reason when he adds that "in the midst of the hurry and turmoil of camps these eminent men cultivated their minds to the highest point that the knowledge of that age would allow." (Vol. I, chap. 4.) The secret was culture not confined to war. In modern Europe few soldiers have been more con- spicuous than Gustavus Adolphus and Fred- erick sometimes called the Great: but we learn from our author that both " failed igno- miniously in their domestic policy and showed themselves as short-sighted in the arts of peace as they were sagacious in the arts of war." {Ibid.) The jndgmentof Marlborough is more pointed. While portraying him as "the greatest conqueror of the age, the hero of a hundred fights, the victor of Blenheim and Hamillies," the same philosophical writer describes him as " a man not only of the most idle and frivolous pursuits, but so miserably ignorant that his deficiencies made him the ridicule of his contemporaries," while his politics were compounded of selfishness and treachery. Nor was Wellington an exception. Though shining in the field without a rival, and remarkable for integrity of purpose, an unflinching honesty and high moral feeling, the conqueror of VVaterloo is describedas " never- theless utterly unequal to the complicated exigencies of political life." {Ibid.) Such are the examples of history, each with its warning. It would be hard to find anything in the native endowments or in the training of our chieftain to make him an illustrious exception ; at least nothing of this kind is recorded. W.-is nature more generous with hiai than with Marlborough or Wellington, Gustavus Adol- phus or Frederick called the Great? Or was his experience of life a better preparation than theirs ? And yet they failed except in war. It is not known that our chieftain had any expe-, rience as a civilian until he became President, nor does any partisan attribute to him that double culture which in antiquity made the same man soldier and statesman. It has been often said that he took no note of public affairs never voting but once in his life, and then for James Buchanan. After leaving West Point he became a captain in the Army, but soon aban- doned the service to reappear at a laterday asn successful general. There is no reason to believe that he employed this intermediate period in any way calculated to improve him as a statesman. One of his unhesitating supporters, my col- league, [Mr. Wii.sox,] in a speech intended to commend him for reelection says: " Before the war we knew nothing of Griint. lie was earuiuK a few hundred dollars ayear in tanning hides in Giileniu" By the war he passed to be President; and such was his preparation to govern the great Republic, making it an example to mankind. Thus he learned to deal with all questions domestic and foreign, whether of peace or war, to declare constitutional law and international law and to administer the vast aiipointiug power, creating Cabinet ofiBcers, judges, for- eign ministers, and au uncounted army of officeholders. To these things must be added that when this soldier first began as civilian he was already forty six years old. At this mature age, close upon half a century, when habits are irrevocably fixed, whea the mind has hard- ened against what is new, when the character has taken its permanent form, and the whole man is rooted in his own unchangeable indi- viduality, our soldier entered abruptly upon the untried life of a civilian in its most exalted sphere. Do not be surprised, that, like other soldiers, he failed ; the wonder would be had he succeeded. Harvey was accustomed to say that nobody over forty ever accepted his dis- covery of ttrf circulation of the blood ; but he is not the only person who has recognized this period of life as the dividing point after which it is difficult to learn new things. Something like this is embodied in the French saying, that at forty a man has given his measure. At least his vocation is settled — how completely is seen if we suppose the statesman after trav- ersing the dividing point abruptly changed to the soldier. And j'et at an age nearly seven years later our soldier precij)ilately changed to the statesman. This sudden metamorphosis cannot be forgot- ten when we seek to comprehend the strange pretensions which ensued. It is eavsy to see how some very moderate experience in civil life, involviii'^ of course the lesson of subor- dination to republican principles, would have prevented indelensible acts. TESTIMONY OF TUE LATE EDWIN M. STANTON. Something also must be attributed to indi- vidual character; and here 1 express no opin- ion of my own : 1 shall allow another to speak in solemn words echoed from the tomb. On reaching Wasliingtoii at the opening of , Congress in December, IHGO, I was pained to hear that Mr. Slauion, lately SecreUry of . War, was in failing health. Full of gratitude for his unsurpassed services, and with a senti- ment of friendship quickened by common political .sympathies, I lost no time in seeing him, and repeated my visits until his death, toward the close of the same month. My last visit was marked by a communication never to be forgotten. As I entered his bedroom, where I found him reclining on a sofa, propped by pillows, he reached out his hand, already clammy cold, and in reply to my inquiry, " Uow are you?" answered, " Waiting for my furlough." Then at once with singular solemnity he said, "I havesomelhing to say to you." When I was seated he proceeded without one word of introduction : "'1 know General Grant better than any other person in the country can know him. It was my duly to study him, and I did so night and day, when I saw him and when I did not see him, and now I tell you what I know, he cannot govern this country.'^ Ihe intensity of his manner and the positiveness of his judgment surprised me, for though I was aware that the late Secretary of War did not place the President very high in general capacity, I was not prepared for a judfjment so strongly couched. At last, after some delay, occupied in meditating his remarkable words, I observed, " What you say is very broad." "It is as true as it is broad," he replied promptly. I added, "You are tardy ; you tell this late ; why did you not say it before his nomination?" He answered that he was notconsulted about the nomination, and had no opportunity of expressing his opinion upon it, besides being much occupied at the time by his duties as Secretary of War and his contest with the President. 1 followed by saying, "But you took part in the pres- idential election, and made a succession of speeches for him in Ohio and Pennsylvania." "Ispoke," said he, " but I never introduced the name of General Grant. I spoke for the Republican party and the Republican cause." This was the last lime I saw Mr. Stanton. A few days later I followed him to the grave where he now rests. As the vagaries of the President became more manifest and the pres- idential office seemed more and more a play- thing and perquisite, this dying judgment of the great citizen who know him so well haunted me constantly day and nighl, and I now communicate it to my country, feeling that it is a legacy which 1 have no right to withhold. Beyond the intrinsic interest from its author, it is not without value as tes- timony in considering how the President could have been led into that Quixotism ot personal pretension which it is my duty to expose. DUTY TO MAKE KIP03DRK. Parion me if I repeat that it is my duty to make this exposure, spreading betl/re you the 8 proofs of that personal government, which will only pass without censure when it passes with- out observation. Insisting upon reelection, the President challenges inquiry and puts him- self upon the country. But even if his press- ure for reelection did not menace the tran- quillity of the country, it is important that the personal pretensions he has set up should be exposed, that no President hereafter may ven- ture upon such ways and no Senator presume to defend them. The case is clear as noon. TWO TYPICAL INSTANCES. In opening this catalogue I select two typical instances, Nepotism and Gift-taking otficially compensated, each absolutely inde- fensible in the head of a Republic, most per- nicious in example, and showing beyond question ihat surpassing egotism of pretension which changed thu presidential office into a personal inslrumeiitality, not. unlike the trunk of an elephant, apt for all tilings, small as well as great, from provision for a relation to forcing a treaty on a reluctant Senate or forcing a reiilection on a reluctant people. NEPOTISM OF THE PRESIDENT. Between these two typical instances I hesi- tate which to place foremost, but since the nepotism of the I'resident is a ruling passion revealing the primary instincts of his nature ; since it is maintained by him in utter uncon- sciousness of its offensive character ; since instead of blushing for it as an unhappy mis- take he continues to uphold it; since it has been openly del'ended by Senators on this floor, and since no true patriot anxious for republican institutions can doubt that it ought to be driven with hissing and scorn from all possibility of repetition, 1 begin with this undoubted abuse. There has been no call of Congress for a return of the relations holding office, stipend or money-making opportunity under the Pres- ident. The country is left to the press for in- formation on this important subject. If there is any exaggeration the President is in fault, since knowing the discreditable allegations he has not hastened to furnish the precise facts, or at least his partisans have failed in not call- ing for the official information. In the mood which they have shown in this Chamber it is evident that any resolution calling for it moved by a Senator not known to be lor his reelec- tion would meet with opposition, and an effort to vindicate republican institutions would be denounced as an assault on the President. But the newspapers have placed enough beyond question for judgment on this extraordinary case, although thus far there has been no attempt to appreciate it, especially in the light of history. One list makes the number of beneficia- ries as many as forty-two — being probably every known person allied to the President by blood or marriage. Persons seeming to speak for the President, or at least alter careful in- quit ies, have denied the accuracy of this list, reducing it to thirteen. It will not be ques- tioned that there is at least a baker's dozen in this category — thirteen relations of the Presi- de'ni billeted on the country, not one of whom but for this relationship would have been brought forward, the whole constituting a case of nepotism not unworthy of those worst Gov- ernments where office is a family possession. Beyond the list of thirteen are other revela- tions, showing that this strange abuse did not stop with the President's relations, but that these obtained appointments for others ia their circle, so that every relation became a cen- ter of influence, while the presidential family extended indefinitely. Only one President has appointed relations, and that was John Adams; but he found pub- lic opinion, inspired by the example of Washington, so strong against it that afYer a slight experiment he replied to an applicant, " You know it is impossible for me to appoint my own relations to anythingwithout drawing forth a torrent of obloquy." (Letter to Ben- jamin Adams, April 2, 1799; John Adams's Works, vol. VIII, p. 634.) The judgment af the country found voice in Thomas Jefferson, who, in a letter written shortly after he became President, used these strong words: "Mr. Adams degraded himself infinitely by his con- duct on this subject." But John Adams, besides transferring his son, John Quincy Adams, from one diplomatic post xo another, appointed only two relations. Pray, sir, what words would Jefferson use if he were here to speak on the open and multifarious nepotism of our President? ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF NEPOTISM. The presidential pretension is so important in every aspect, and the character of repub- lican institutions is so absolutely compromised by its toleration, that it cannot be treated in any perfunctory way. It shall not be my fault if hereafter there is any doubt with regard to it. The word "nepotism" is of Italian origin. First appearing at Rome when the papal power was at its height, it served to designate the authority and influence exercised by the nephews, or more generally the family of a Pope. All the family of a Pope were nephews and the Pope was universal uncle. As far bacjt as 1667 this undoubted abuse occupied attention to sucli a degree that it became the subject of an able historical work in two vol- umes, entitled // Nipotismo di Roma, which is lull of instruction and warning even tor our Republic. From Italian the word passed into other European languages, but in the lapse of time or process of ualuralizalioa, it 9 has come to denote the misconduct of the appointing power. Addison, who visited Kome at the beginning ol' llie last centuiy, described it as "undue patronage bestowed by the I'opes upon the members of their fam- ily." But the word has amplitied since, so as to embrace others besides I'opes who appoint relations to office. Johnson in his Dictionary defined it simply as "fondness for nephews ;"' but our latest, and best lexicographer, Wor- cester, supplies a definition more complete and satisfactory: " Favoritism shown to rela- tions ; patronage bestowed in consideration of family relationship and not of merit.'" Such untioubtedly is the meaning of the word as now received and employed. The character of this pretension appears in its origin and history. In the early days of the Church, Popes are described as discarding ail relationship, whether of blood or alliance, in their appointments, and inclining to merit alone, although there were some wi;h so large anumber of nephews, grand- nephews, brothers- in-law, and relations as to baffl'^ belief, and yet it is recorded that no sooner did the good Pope enter the Vaiican, which is the Executive Man- sion of Piome, than relations fled, brothers-in- law hid themselves, grand nephews removed away, and nephews got at a long distance. Such was the early virtue. Nepotism did not exist, and the woid itself was unknown. At last, in 1471, twenty-one years before the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, Sixtus IV became Pope, and with him began that nepotism which soon became famous as aKoinan institution. Born in 1411, the son of a hsherman, the eminent founder was already titty-tseven years old, and lie reigned thirteen years, bringing to his functions large experience as a successful preacher and as general of the Franciscan friars. Though cradled in poverty, and by the vows of his order bound to mendicancy, he began at once to heap office and riches upon the various members of his family, so that his conduct, from its bare- faced inconsistency with the obligation of his lile, excited, according to the historian, " the amazement and wonder of all." The useful reforms he attempted are forgotten, and this remarliable poniiti'is chiefly remembered now as the earliest nepotist. Difl'erent degrees of severity are employed by different authors in characterizing this unhappy fame. Bouillet, in his Dictionary of History, having Catholic approbation, describes him sl* " feeble toward his nephews," and our own Cyclopaedia, in a brief exposition of his character, says " he made himself odious by excessive nepotism." But in all varieties of expression the offense stands out for judgment. The immediate successor of Sixtus was Innocent Vill, wliom the historian describes as "very cold to his relations," since two only obtained preferment at his hands. But the example of the founder so far prevailed that for a century nepotism, as was said, " lorded it in Rome," except in a few instances worthy of commemoration and examjile. Of these exceptions, the first in time was Julius II, founder of St. Peter's at Rome, wliose remarkable countenance is so beau- tifully preserved by Raffaelle. 'I'hmigh the nephew of the nepotist, and not declining to appoint all relations, he did it with such mod- eration that nepotism was said to be dying out. Adrian VJ, early teacher of Charles V, and successor of Leo X, seta better example by refusing absolutely. But so accustomed had Rome become to this abuse, that not only by the embassadors but by the peojile was he condemned as "too severe wiih his relations." A son of his cousin, studying in Siena, started for Rome, trusting to obtaru important recognition. But the Pope, with- out seeing him, sent him back on a hired hor.se. Relations thronged from other places and even from across the Alps, longing for that great- ness w'hich other Popes had lavished on family ; but Adrian dismissed ihem with a slight change of clothing and an allowance of money for the journey. Une who from poverty came on foot was permitted to return on foot. This Pope carried abnegation of his family so far as to make relationship an excuse for not re- warding one who had served the Cliurch well. Similar in character was Marcellus II, who became Pope in 15-5o. He was unwilling that any of iiis family should come to Rome; even his brother was forbidden; but this good example was closed by death after a reign of twenty days only. And yet this brief period of exemplary virtue has made this pontiff famous. Kindred in spirit was Urban Vll, who reigned thirteen days only in 1590, but long enough to repel his relations, and also Leo Xl, who reigned twenty-five days in 1605. To this list may be added Innocent IX, who died after two months of service. It is related that his death displeased his relations much, and dissolved the air-castles they had built. They had hurried from Boiogna, but except a grand nephew, all were obliged to return poor as they came. In this list I must not forget Pius V, ^ho reigned from 15(35 to 1572. He set himself so completely against aegrandizing his own family, thai he was with difiiculty per- suaded to make a sister's son cardinal, and would not have done it hud not all the car- dinals united on grounds of conscience against ihe denial of this dignity to one most worthy of it. Such virtue was [)art of that elevated character which caused his subsequent canoa- izalion. These good Popes were short-lived. The reigns of all except Pius counted by days only; but they opened happy glimpses of aa 10 administration where the powers of govern- ment were not treated as a personal per- quisite. The opposite list had the advantage of time. Conspicuous among nepotists was Alex- ander VI, whose family name of Borgia is damned to fame. With him nepotism as- sumed its most, brutal and barbarous develop- ment, reflecting the character of its pontifical author, who was without the smallest ray of good. Other Popes were less cruel and bloody, but not less determined in providing for their families. Paul 111, who was of the great house of Farnese, would have had the Estates of the Church a garden for the "lilies" which flourish on the escutcheon of his family. It is related that when Urban VIII, who was a Barberini, commenced his historic reign, all his relations at a distance flew to Rome like the "bees" on the fd,mily arms, to suck the honey of the Church, but not leaving behind the sting wiih which they pricked while they sucked. Whether lilies or bees it was the same. The latter pontiff gave to nepotism fullness of power when he resolved "to have no business with any one not dependent upon his house." In the same spirit he excused himself from making a man cardinal because he had been " the enemy of his nephews." Although nothing so positive is recorded of Paul V, who was a Borghese, his nepotism appears in the Roman saying, that while serv- ing the Church as a good shepherd he "gave too much wool to his relations." These instructive incidents, illustrating the pon- tifical pretension, reflect light on the history of palaces and galleries at Rome which are now admired by the visitor from distant lands. If not created, they were at least enlarged by nepotism. it does not always appear how many rela- tions a Pope endowed. Often it was all, as in the case of Gregory XIII, who, besides advancing a nephew actually at Rome, called thither all his nephews and grand-nephews, whether from brothers or sisters, and gave them offices, dignities, governments, lord- ships, and abbacies. Caesar Borgia and his sister Lucrezia were not the only rela- tions of Alexander VI. I do not find the number adopted by Sixtus, the founder of the system. Pius IV, who was of the grasping ^ledicean family, favored ho less than twenty- five. Alexander VII, of the Chigi family, had about him five nephews and one brother, which a contemporary characterized as " ne- potism all complete." This pontiff" began his reign by forbidding his relations to appear at Rome, which redounded at once to his credit throughout the Christian world, while the astonisbed people discoursed of his holiness and the purity of his life, expecting even to Bee miracles. In making the change he yielded evidently to immoral pressure and the example of predecessors. The performances of papal nephews figure in history. Next after the Borgias, were the Caraffas, who obtained power through Paul IV, but at last becoming too insolent and rapacious, their uncle was compelled to strip them of their dignities and drive them from Rome. Sometimes nephews were employed chiefly in ministering to pontifical pleasures, as in the case of Julius III, who, according to the historian, "thought of nothing but ban- queting with that one and with this one, keep- ing his relations in Rome, rather to accom- pany him at banquets than to aid him in the government of 'the holy Church, of which he thought little." This occasion for relations does not exist at Rome now, as the pontiff leads a discreet life, always at home and never ban- quets abroad. These historic instances make us see nepo- tism in its original home. Would you know how it was regarded there? Sometimes it was called ahydra with many heads, sprouting anew at the election of a pontiff; then again it was called Ottoman rather than Christian in char- acter. The contemporary historian who has described it so minutely says that those who merely read of it without seeing it will find it difficult to believe or even imagine. The qualities of a Pope's relation were said to be " ignorance and cunning." It is easy to be- lieve that this prostitution of the head of the Church was one of the abuses which excited the cry for Reform, and awakened even in Rome the echoes of Martin Luther. A brave Swiss is recorded as declaring himself unwill- ing to be the subject of a pontiff who was himself the subject of his own relations. But even this pretension was not without open defenders, while the general effrontery with which it was maintained assumed that it was above question. If some gave with eyes closed, most gave with eyes open. It was said that Popes were not to neglect their own blood, that they should not show themselves worse than the beasts, not one of whom failed to caress his relations, and the case of bears and lions, the most ferocious of all, was cited as authority for this recognition of one's own blood. All this was soberly said, and it is doubtless true. Not even a Pope can justly neglect his own blood; but help and charity must be at his own expense and not at the expense of his country. In appointments to office merit and not blood is the only just recommendation. That nepotism has ceased to lord itself in Rome; that no pontiff billets his relations upon the Church; that the appointing power of the Pope is treated as a public trust and not as a personal perquisite — all this is tho present testimony with regard to that govern- 11 ment which knows from experience the bane- ful character of this abuse. ASrERICAN ADTH0RITIK3 ON NEPOTISM. The nepotism of Rome was little known in our country, and I do not doubt that Wash- ington, when declining to nnake the presiden- tial office a j)erHonal perquisite, was governed by that instinct of duty and patriotism which rendered him so preeminent. Throngli all the perils of a seven years' war, he had battled with that kingly rule which elevates a whole family without regard to merit, fastening all upon the nation, and he bad learned that this royal system could find no place in a republic. Therefore he rejected the claims of relations, and in nothing was his example more beauti- ful. His latest biographer, Washington Irving, records him as saying: " So far as I know in.v own mind, I would not be in the remotest dugroo influenced in malciog nomina- tions bv motives nrising iVom the ties of family or blood."— Z/i/e of Washington, Vol. V, p. 22. 'J'hen again he declared his purpose, " To discharge the duties of office with that im- partiality and zeal for the public good which ought never to suffer connections of blood or friendship to mingle so as to iiave the least sway on decisions of a public nature." This excellent rule of conduct is illustrated by the advice to his successor with regard to the transfer of his son, John Quincy Adams. After giving it as his decided opin- ion that the latier was the most valuable char- acter we had abroad, and promising to be the able.-t of all our diplomatic corps, Washing- ton declares : "If he was now to be brought into that line, or into any other public walk, I could not, upon the principle which has regulated my own conduct, disapprove of the caution which is hinted at in the letter."— John Adams's Works, Vol. VIII, p. 530. Considering the importance of the rule it were better if it had prevailed over parental regard and the extraordinary merits of the son. In vindicating his conduct at a later day John Adams protested against what he called "the hypersuperlative virtue " of Washing- ton, and insisted: "A President ouebt not to appoint a man be- cause he is his relation ; nor ought ho to refuse or neglect to appoint him for that reason." With absolute certainty that the President is above all prejudice of family and sensitive to merit only, this rule is not unreasonable; but who can be trusted to apply it? Jefferson developed and explained the true principles in a manner worthy of republican institutions. In a letter to a relation immedi- ately after becoming President, he wrote: "The public will never be made to believe that an appointment of a relation i^j made on the ground of merit alone, uninfluenced by faiuily views, nor can thry rvcr kc wuh approbation njjicrs, the dinpoKnl of lehich (hfv intruttio their Prendents for public pur- potes, divided out us family property. Mr. Adams degraded hitn.^elf infinitely by his conduct on thia subject, as \V.i'r«on, March 2T, 18U1 ; JefTerson's Works, Vol. iV, p. 38S. After his retirement from the Presidency, in a letter to a kinsiwan, he asserts the rule again : "Toward acquiring the confidence of the people, the very first measure is to satisfy them of his dis- interestedness, and that ho is directing their affiirs with a single eye to their good, and not to build up fortunes tor himself and family, and espe- cially that the officers appointed to transact their business, are appointed because they are the fittest men, not because they are his relations. So prone are they to suspicion, that where a President ap- points a relation of his own, however worthy, they will believe that f.ivor, and not merit, was the motive. I therefore laid it down as a law of con- duct for myself, never to give an appoin'mcnt to a relation." — Letter to J. Garland Jefferson, January 25, 1810; Ibid., Vol. V, p. 493. That statement is unanswerable. The elect of the people must live so as best to maintain their interests and to elevate the national sen- timent. This can be only by an example of unsf'lfish devotion to the public weal which shall be above suspicion. A Pr8sid^^nt sus- pected of weakness for his relations is already shorn of strength. In saying that his predecessor "degraded himself infinitely by his conduct on this sub- ject," Jefferson shows the rigor of his require- ment. Besides the transfer of his son, John Quincy Adams, from one di((lomaiic mission to another, John Adams is respon8il)lu for the appointment of his son-inlaw, Colonel Smith, as surveyor of the port of New York, and liis wife's nephew, William Cranch, as i-liiefjustice of thecircuit courtot'ihe Distiictof Columbia — both persons of mfrit, and the former •' serving through the war with high applause of his supe- riors." The public senliment appears in the condemnation of these appointments. In re- fusing another of his relations, we have already seen that John Adams wrote: "You know it is impossible for mo to appoint my own relations to anything without drawing forth a torrent of obloquy." But this torrent was nothing but the judg- ment of the American people unwilling that republican institutions at that early day should sufier. Thus far John Adams stands alone. If any other President has made appointments from his own family, it has been on so petty a scale as not to be recognized in history. John Quincy Adams, when President, did not follow his father. An early letter to his mother fore- shadows a rule not unlike that of Jefferson: " I hope, my ever dear and honored mother, that you arc fully convinced tViun my letters, which you have betbre this received, th it upon the contingency of my father's being placed in the first magistracy, I shall never give him any trouble by solicitation for office of any kind. Your late letters have re- peated so many tiraps that I shall in that c ise have nothing to expect, that I am afraid yo;i hjve im- agined it possible that //atp/i^furmexpectaLiuaafroa 12 such an event. I had hoped that my mother knew me better; that she did me the justice to believe that I have not been so totally regardless or forget- ful of the principles which my education had in- stilled, nor so totally deitituteof a;je/-«oij.(/sense of delicacy as lobe susceptible of a wish tending in that direction." — /oAft Adams's Works, Vol. VIII xia 529, 530, note. ' " To Jefferson's -sense of public duty Johti Quincy Adams added the sense of personal delicacy, both strong, against the appointment of relations. To the irresistible jad'^ment against this abuse, a recent moralist, of lofty nature, Theodore Parker, imparts new expres- sion when he says, "It is a dangerous and unjust practice." (Historic Americans, p. 211.) This is simple and moniiory. PRESIDENIIAL APOLOGIES FOR NEPOTISM. Without the avalanche of testimony against this presidential pretension, it is only necessary to glance at the defenses sometimes set up; for such is the insensibility bred by presidential example, that even this intolerable outrage is not without voices, speaking for the Presi- dent. Sometimes it is said that his salary being far from royal, the people will not scati closely an attempt to help relations, which, being interpreted, means that the President may supplement the pettiness of his salary by the appointing power. Let John Adams, who did not hesitate to bestow office upon a few relations of unquestioned merit, judge this pretension. I quote his words; " Every public mau should be honestly paid for his services. But he should be restrained from every perqiuske not known to the laws, and he should make no claims upon the gratitude of the public, nor ever confer au office witliia his patron- age upon a son, a brother, a friend, upon pretense that he is not paid for his services by tbe profits of his o&ce."— Letter to John Jebh, August 21, 1785 : Works, Vol. IX, p. 535. It is impossible to deny the soundness of this requirement and its completeness as an answer to one of the presidential apologies. Sometimes tbe defender is more audacious, insisting openly upon the presidential preroga- tive without question, until we seem to he.ir in aggravated form the obnoxious cry, "To the victor belong the spoils." I did not suppose that this old cry could be revived in any form ; but since it is heard again, I choose to expose it, and here I use the language of Madison, whose mild wisdom has illumined so much of constitutional duty. In his judgment the pretension was odious, "that offices and emoluments were the spoils of victory, the per- sonal property oi the successful candidate for the Presidency," and be adds in words not to be forgotten at this moment: "The principle if avowed without the practice, or practiced without the avowal, could not fail to degrade any Aduaiuistration— both together com- pletely so."— Letter to Edward Cole. August 29, 1834. Letters and Writings, Vol. IV, p. 353. These are strong words. The rule in its early form could not fail to degrade any j Administration. But now this degrading rule is extended, and we are told that to the President's family belong the spoils. Another ajjology, vouchsafed even on thia floor, is, that if tlie President cannot appoint his relations they alone of all citizens are excluded from office, which, it is said, should not be. But is it not for the public good that they should be excluded? Such was the wise judgmetit of Jefferson, and such is the testi- mony from another quarter. That eminent pre- late, Bishop Butler, who has given to English literature one of its most masterly productions, known as " Butler's Analogy," after his ele- vation to the see of Durham with its remark- able patronage, was so self denying with regard to his family that a nephew said to him, '* Methinks, my lord, it is a misfortune to be related to you." Golden words of honor for the English bishop ! But none such have been earned by the American President. Assuming that in case of positive merit desig- nating a citizen for a pariicular post the Presi- dent might appoint a relation, it would be only where ihetuerit was so shining that his absence would be noticed. At least it must be such as to make the citizen a candidate without regard to family. But no such merit \i attrib- uted to the beneficiaries of our President, some of whom have done little but bring scandal upon the public service. At least one is tainted with fraud, and another, with the commission of the Republic abroad, has been guilty of indis- cretions inconsistent with his trust. Appointed originally in open defiance of republican prin- ciples, they have been retained in office after their unfitness became painfully conspicuous. By the testimoti}^ before a congressional com- mittee, one of these, a brother-in-law, was im- plicated in bribery and corruption. It is said that at last, after considerable delay, the Presi- dent has consented to his removal. Here 1 leave for the present this enormous pretension of nepotism, waiting to hear if it can again fi nd an apologist. Is there a single Senator who will not dismiss it to judgment? GIPT-TAKINO OFFleiALLY COMPENSATED. From one typical abuse I pass to another. From a dropsical nepotism swollen to ele- phantiasis, which nobody can defend, I pass to gift-taking, which with our President has assumed an unprecedented form. Sometimes public mea even in our country have takea gifts, but it is not known that any President before has repaid the patron with office. For a public man to take gifts is reprehensible; for a President to select Cabinet councilors and other officers among those from whom he has taken gifts is an anoiaaly in republican annals. Observe, sir, that I speak of it gently, unwilling to exhibit the indignation which such a presidential preteusioa is calculated to 13 arouse. The country will judge it, and blot it out as an example. There have been throughout history corrupt characters in otlicial station, but, whether in ancient or nuidern times, the testimony is con- stant against the taking of gifts, and nowhere with more i'orce than in our Scriptures, where it is said, "Thou shalt not wrest judgment, thou shalt not respect persons, neilher take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of tlie wise." (Deuteronomy, XVI, 19.) Hereisthe inhibition and also the reason, which slight observation shows to be true. Does not a gift blind the eyes of the wise? The influence of gifts is represented by Plutarch in the life of a Spartait king: " For ho thought those ways of intrapping men by gifts nml presents, which other kings use, dishonest and inarlilicial : and it seemed lo liiui to be the most nuble method and most suitable to a king to win the affections of those that came near him by personal iiitcroourse and agreeable conversation, since between a Iriend and a mercenary the only distinction is, that we gain the one by our char- acter and conversation and the other by our money." — Plutarch's Lives; Vlough's Edition ; Vol. IV, p. 479, What is done under the influence of gift is mercenary ; but whether from ruler to subject or from subject to ruler, the gift is equally per- nicious. An ancient patriot feared ''the Greeks bearing gifts," and these words have become a proverb, but there are Ureeks bearing gilts elsewhere than at i'roy. A public man can traffic with such only at his peril. At their appearance the prayer ."hould be said, "Lead us not into temptation." The best examples testify. Thus in the auto- biogra|)hy of Lord Brougham, posthumously published, it appears that at a great meeting in Glasgow £500 were subscribed as a gift to him tor his [lublic service, to be put in such form as he might think best. He hesitated. "It required," he records, "much considera- tion, as such gifts were liable to abuse." Not content with his own judgment, he assembled his friends to discuss it, " Lord Holland, Lord Erskine, llomilly and Baring," and he wrote Earl Grey, afterward Prime Minister, who replied : " Both (Jranville and I accepted a piece of plate from the Catholics in Glas- gow, of no great value indeed, after we were turned ovt. If you still feel scruples, I can only add that it is imfiossible to err on the Bide of delicacy with respect to matters of this nature." It ended in his accepting a Bmall gold inkstand. In our country Washington keeps his lofty heights, setting himself against gift-taking as against nepotism. In 1785, while in private life, two years after he ceased to be com- mander-in-chief of our armies and four years before he became President, he could not be induced to accept a certain amount of canal stock offered him by the Slate of Virginia, as appears in an official communication ; " It gives me great pic.-isurc to inform you thattho Assembly, without ;i dissent in? voice, eotnpliniented you with fifty sliiires in tho Poti'mac C'liunmv and one hunilred in the Jam<>s Kivcr Ci)mpaiiy." — Waih- iiif/ioii'n WritiiioH, Vol. IX, p. 83; Letter uf Benjamia Harrison. January tj, 1775. Fully to a[>preciate the reply of Washington it must be borne iu mind that, according to Washington Irving, his biographer, "'Some degree of economy was necessary, for his financial affairs had suffered during tho war, and tht! products of his esta:e had fallen off." But he was not tempted. Thus he wrote : " How would this matter be viewed by the eye of the world, and what would be its opinion when it comes to be related that George Washington accepted S20.0U0? Under whatever pretense, and however customarily these gills are made in other countries, if I accepted this should I not henceforward becon- sidered as a dependent? I nover for a moment entertained the idea of accepting it." — llild., p. 85. Lellvr lu Beiijaiulii Unrrinoii, Jantiuru 22, 178.5. How admirably he touches the point when he asks, "If I accepted this, should I not henceforward be considered as a dependent?" According to our Scripture the gift blinds the eyes; according to Washington it makes the receiver a dependent. lu harmonv with this sentiment was his subsequent refusal when President, as is recorded by an ingenious writer : "He was exceedingly careful about committing himself, would receioe no favitm of any kind, and scrupulously paid for everything. A large house was set apart forhim on Ninth street, on the grounds now covered by the Pennsylvania, University, %ohich he refuiied to accept," — Colonel Forneu'i Anecdotes. By such instances brought to light recently, and shining in contrast with our times, we learn to admire anew the virtue of Washington. It would he easy to show how in ail ages the refusal of gifts has been recognized as the sign of virtue, if not the requirement of duty. The story of St. Louis of France is beautiful and suggestive. Leaving on a crusade he charged the Queen Regent, who remained be- hind, " not to accept presents for herself or her children." Such was one of the injunc- tions by which this monarch, when far away on a pious expedition, impressed hiavself upon his country. My own strong convictions on this presiden- tial pretension were aroused in a conversation which it was my privilege to enjoy with .Joha Quincy Adams, as he sat in his sick-chamber at his son's house in Boston, a short time before he fell at his post of duty in the House of Representatives. In a voice trembling with age and with emotion, he saiil that no public man could take gifts without peril, and he confessed that his own judgment had been quickened by the example of Count Roman- zoff, the eminent chancellor of the Russian empire, who, after receiving costly gilts from 14 foreign sovereigns with whom he had nego- tiated treaties, felt, a difficulty of conscience in keeping them, and at last handed over their value to a hospital, as he related to Mr. Adams, then minister at St. Petersburg. The latter was impressed by this Russian example, and through his long career, as minister abroad. Secretary of Slate, President, and Representa- tive, always refused gifts, unless a book or some small article in its nature a token and not a reward or bribe. The Constitution testifies against the taking of gifts by officers of the United States, when it provides that no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present or emolument, from any king, prince, or foreign State. The acceptance of a pres- ent or emolument from our own citizens was left without constitutional inhibition, to be constrained by the public 'Conscience and the just aversion to any semblance of bargain and sale or bribery in the public service. The case of our President is exceptional. Notoriously he has taken gifts while in the IDublic service, some at least after he had been elected President, until '' the Galena tanner of a few hundred dollars a year," to borrow the words of my colleague, [Mr. Wilson,] one of his supporters, is now rich in houses, lands, and stock, above his salary, being prob- ably the richest President since George Wash- ington. Notoriously he has appointed to his Cabinet several among these " Greeks bearing gifts," without seeming to see the indecorum, if not the indecency of the transaction. At least two if not three of these Greeks, hav- ing no known position in the Republican party or influence in the country, have been selected as his counselors in national affairs, and heads of great departments of Govern- ment. Again do I repeat the words of our Scriptures, "A gift doth blind the eyes of the •wise." Again, the words of Washington, "If I accepted this should I not henceforward be considered a dependent?" Nor does the case of the first Secretary of State differ in character from th§ other three. The President, feeling under personal obliga- tion 10 Mr. Washburae for important support, gave him a complimentary nomination, with the understanding that after confirmation he should forthwith resign. I cannot forget the indignant comment of the late Mr. Fesseiiden as we passed out of the Senate Chamber, im- mediately after the confirmation: "Who," said he, " ever heard before of a man nomin- ated Secretary of State merely as a compli- ment ?" But this is only another case of the public service subordinated to personal con- eiderations. Not only in the Cabinet but in other offices there is reason to believe that the President has been under the influence of patrons. Why was he so blind to Thomas Murphy? The custom- hotise of New York, with all its capacity as a political engine, was handed over to this agent, whose want of recognitioa in the Republican party was outbalanced by presidential favor, and whose gifts have be- come notorious. And when the demand for his removal was irresistible the President accepted his resignation with an effusion of sentiment natural toward a patron, but with- out justification in the character of the retiring officer. Shakspeare, who saw intuitively the springs of human conduct, touches more than once on the operation of the gift. "Plldo thee service for so good a gift," said Gloster to Warwick. Then, again, how truly spoke tha lord, who said of Timon, "no gift to him But breeds the giver a return exceeding All use of quittance ;" and such were the returns made by the Presi- dent. Thus much for gift-taking, reciprocated by office. The instance is original and without precedent in our history. THE PRESIDENOy A PERQUISITE. I have now completed the survey of the two typical instances — nepotism and gift-takingoffi- cially compensated — in which we are compelled to see the President. In these things he shows himself. Here is no portrait drawn by critic or enemy; it is the original who stands forth, saying, " Behold the generosity I practice to my relations at the expense of the public ser- vice, also the gifts I take, and then my way of rewarding the patrons always at the expense of the public service." In this open exhibi- tion we see how the Presidency, instead of a trust, has become a perquisite. Bad as are these two capital instances, and important as is their condemnation, so that they may not become a precedent, I dwell on them now as illustrating the Administration. A President that can do such things and not recognize at once the error he has committed, shows that supereminence of egotism under which Con- stitution, International Law, and municipal law, to say nothing of Republican Govern-i; ment in its primary principles, are all subor-* dinated to the presidential will, and this is personal government. Add an insensibility to the honest convictions of others, and you have a qharacteristic incident of this preten- sion. INSTANCES. Lawyers cite what are called "leading cases." A few of these show the presidential will in constant operation with little regard to precedent or reason, so as to be a caprice, if k were not a pretension. Imitating the Popes 16 in nepotism, the President has imitated them in osleiitatious assumption of infallibility. THE president's INAUGURAL ADDRESS. Other Presidents have entered upon their high office with a certain modesty and distrust. Washington in his Inaugural address declared his "anxieties," also his sense of "the mag- nitude and difficulty of the trust" — " awaken- ing a distrustful scrutiny into his qualihca- tions." Jefferson in his famous Inaugural, so replete with political wisdom, after declaring his "sincere consciousness that the task is above his talents," says: "I approach it with those anxious and awful pre- sertimeuts wbioU lliegieatiiess of iLecharguaud the weaknes:s of my powors so justly inspire," * ♦ * "iiiid I humble myself betore the mag- nitude of the undertaking. " Uur soldier, absolutely untried in civil life, entirely a new man, entering upon the sub- limest duties, before which Washington and Jefferson had shrunk, said in his Inaugural: •'The responsibilities of the position 1 feel, but accept them tvitkout fear.^' Great prede- cessors, vviib ample preparation for the re- sponsibilities, had shrunk back with fear. He had none. Eitber he did not see the responsi- bilities, or the Cajsar began to stir in his bosom. In either case he was disqualified. SELECTION OF HIS CABINET. Next after the Inaugural address, his first official act was the selection of his Cabinet, and here the general disappointment was equaled by the general wonder. As the President was little known except from the victories •which had commended him, it was not then seen iiow completely characteristic was this initial act. Looking back upon it we recog- nize the pretension by which all tradition, usage, and propriety were discarded, by which the just expectaiions of the party that had elected him were set at naught, and the safeguards of constitutional government were subordinated to the personal pretensions of One Man. In this Cabinet were persons having small relations with the Republican party, and little position in the country, some absolutely without claims from public service, and Bome absolutely disqualified by the gifts they had made to the President. Such was the political phenomenon presented for the first time in American history, while reported sayings of the President showed the simpli- city with which he acted. To a committee he described his Cabinet as his "family" with which no stranger could be allowed to interfere, and to a member of Congress he announced that he selected his Cabinet "to please himself and noboily else" — being good rules unquestionably for the organiaation of a household and ihe choice of domestics, to which the Cabinet seem to have been likened. This personal goverumeut flowered in the Navy Department, where a gift-bearing Greek was suddenly changed to a Secretary. No less a personage than the grand old Admiral, the brave, yet modest Farragut, was reported as asking, on the 5th of March, the very day when the Cabinet was announced, in unaffected igno- rance, "Do you know anything of Borie?" And yet this unconspicuous citizen, bearer of gifts to the President, was constituted the naval superior of that historic character. If others were less obscure, the Cabinet asaunit was none the less notable as the creature of presidential will where chance vied with favor- itism as arbiter. All this is so strange when we consider the true idea of a Cabinet. Though not named in theConsiitution,yetby virtue ot unbroken usage among us, and in harmony with constitutional governments everywhere, the Cabinet has be- come a constitutional body, hardly less than if expressly established by the Constitulion^itself. Its members, besides being the heads of great Departments, are the counselors of the Presi- dent, with the duty to advise him of all matters within the sphere of his office, being nothing less than the great catalogue in the preamble of the Constitution, beginning with duty to the Union, and ending with the duty to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos- terity. Besides undoubted fitness for these exalted responsibilities as head of a Depart- ment, and as counselor, a member should have such acknowledged position in the coun- try that his presence inspires conlidence and gives strength to the administration. How little these things were regarded by the Presi- dent need not be said. Unquestionably the President has a discre- tion in the appointment of his Cabinet, but il is a constitutional discretion, regulated by regard for the interests of thii country, and not by mere personal will ; by statesmanship and not by favoritism. A Cabinet is a national institution and not a presidential perquisite, unless our President is allowed to copy the example of imperial France. In all consti- tutional governments, the Cabinet is selected on public reasons, and with a single eye to the public service ; it is not in any respect the "family" of the sovereign, nor is it " to please himself and nobody else." English monarchs have often accepted statesmen personally dis- agreeable when they had become representa- tives of the prevailing party, as when George III, the most obstinate of rulers,' accepted Fox, and George IV, as prejudiced as his father was obstinate, accepted Canning, each bring- ing to the service commanding abilities. By such instances in a constitutional government is the Cabinet fixed as a constitutional and not a personal body. It is only by some extraor- dinary hallucination that the President of a iiepublic deJicaCed to constitutional liberty 16 can imagine himself invested with a transform- ing prerogative above that of any English sov- ereign, by which his counselors are changed from public officers to personal attendants, and a great co-wslitutional body, in which all citizens have a common interest, is made a perquisite of the President. APPROPRIATION OF THE OFFICES. Marked among the spectacles which fol- lowed, and kindred in character with the appro- priation of the Cabinet as individual property, was the appropriation of the offices of the country, to which 1 refer in this place even at the expense of repetition. Obscure and unde- serving relations, marriage connections, per- sonal retainers, Army associates, friends of unknown fame and notable only as personal friends or friends of his relations, evidently absorbed the presidential mind during those months of obdurate reticence when a generous people supposed the Cabinet to be the ail- absori)ing thought. Judging by the facts, it would seem as if the chief and most spontan- eotas thougiit was how to exploit the appoint- ing power to his own personal behoof. At this period the New York custom-house presented itself to the imagination, and a letter was writ- ten consigning a military dependent to the generosity of the collector. You know the rest. Dr. Johnson, acting as executor in sell- ing the distillery of Mr. Thrale, said, " We are not selling a parcel of tubs and vats ; we are selling the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice." If the Presi- dent did not use the sounding phrase of the great English moralist, it is evident that his military dependent felt in that letter all the '• potentiality" advertised in the earlier case, and he acted accordingly. Jt is not necessary to say that in these things there was departure from the require- ments of law, whether in the appointment of his Cabinet or of personal favorites, even in return for personal benefactions, although it was plainly unrepublican, otfensive, and inde- fensible ; but this same usurping spirit, born of an untutored egotism, brooking no restraint, showed itself in another class of transactions, to which I have already referred, where law and Constitution were little rega,rded. PRESIDENTIAL ASSAULT ON SAFEGUARD OP THE TREASURY. First in time and very indigenous in char- acter was the presidential attempt against one of the sacred safeguards of the Treasury, the original workmanship of Alexander Hamilton, being nothing less than the '' act to establish the Treasury Department." Here was an import- ant provision that no person appointed to any office instituted by the act "shall directly or indirectly be concerned or interested in car- rying oa the business of trade or commerce," and any person so offending was declared guilty of a high misdemeanor, and was to for- feit to the United States $3,000, with removal from office, and forever thereafter to be inca- pable of holding any office under the United States. [Statiiies-al-Large, Vol. I, p. 67, September 2, 1789.) From ihe beginning this statute had stood unquestioned, until it had acquired the character of fundamental law. And yet the President, by a special message dated March 6, 1869, being ihe second day of his first service as a civilian, asked Congress to set it aside so as to enable Mr. Stewart, of New York, already nominated and confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury, to enter upon the duties of this office. This gentleman was unquestionably the largest merchant who had trausaded business in our country, and his imports were of such magnitude as to clog the customhouse. If the statute was any- thing but one of those cob-webs which catch the weak but yield to the rich, this was the occasion for it, and the President should have yielded to no temptation against it. The inde- corum of his etfort stands out more painfully eminent when it is considered that the mer- chant for whom he wished to set aside a time- honored safeguard was one of those from whom he had received gifts. Such was the accommodating disposition of the Senate, that a bill exempting the presi- dential benefactor from the operation of the statute was promptly introduced, and even read twice, until, as it seemed about to pass, 1 felt it my duty to object to its consideration, saying, according to the Globe, '"I think it ought to be most profoundly considered before it is acted on by the Senate." This objection caused its postponement. The country was startled. By telegraph the general anxiety was communicated to Washington. At the next meeting of the Senate, three days later, the President sent a message requesting per- mission to withdraw the former message. But he could not withdraw the impression produced by such open disregard of the law to pro- mote his personal desire. ILLEGAL MILITARY RING AT EXECUTIVE MANSION. The military spirit which tailed in the effort to set aside a fundamental law as if it were a transient order was more successful at the Executive Mansion, which at once assumed the character of military headquarters. I'o the dishonor of the civil service and in total dis- regard of precedent, the President surrounded himself wuh officers of the Army, and substi- tuted military forms Tor those of civil life, detailing for this service members of his late staff. The earliest public notice of this mili- tary occupation appeared in the Daily Morn- ing Chronicle of March 8, 18(J9, understood to be the official orgctn of the Administrauon : "President Urant was not at the White House 17 yesterday, but the follovfing members of his staff were occupying the Secretaries' rooms and acting as such : Generals Babcock, Porter, Badoau, and Dent." This is to be regarded not only in its strange blazonry of the presidential pretension, but also as the first apparition of that minor inili- tary ring in which the President has lived ever since. Thus installed, Army ofBcers became secre- taries of the President, delivering his messages to both Houses of Congress, and even authen- ticating presidential acts as if they were mili- tary orders. Ilere, for instance, is an official communication : Executive Mansion, March 15, 1869. To Robert Martin DouGi/As, esq. Sir: You are hereby appointed Assistant Private Secretary to the Prusidout, to date from March 15, 1869. By order of the President. UORACE PORTER, Brevet Brigadier General, Secretary, Mark the words, "by order ot the Presi- dent," and then the signature, " Horace Porter, Brevet Brigadier General, Secretary." The presidential pretension which I exhibit on the simple facts, besides being of doubttul legality to say the least, was of evil example, demoralizing alike to the military and civil service, and an undoubted reproach to repub- lican institutions in that primary principle, announced by Jetferson in his first Inaugural Address, " the supremacy of the civil over the military authority." It seemed only to remain that the President should sign his messages '•Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States." Evidently a new order of things had arrived. Observe the mildness of my language when I call this presidential pretension of doubt- ful legality. The law shall speak for itself. Obviously it ifixa the same for our military President aa for his predecessors, and it was recent also : "The President is hereby authorized to appoint a private secretary at an annual salary of $3,500, an asswlant secretary at an annual salary of S2,500, a short-hand writer at an annual salary of S2,500, a clerk of pardons at an annual salary of $2,000, and three clerks of the fourth class." — Siatufes at Large, Vol. XIV, p. 206. It cannot be doubted that this provision was more than ample, for Congress by act of July 23, 18(58, repealed so much as authorized a clerk of pardons, and also one of the three clerks of the fourth class. Therefore, there could be no necessity for a levy of soldiers to perform the duties of secretaries, and the con- duct of the President can be explained only by the supposition that he preferred to be sur- rounded by Army oflicers rather than civilians, continuing in the Executive Mansion the tra- ditions ot headquarters — all of which, though agreeable to him and illustrating his character, wa3 an anomaly and a scatidal. In extenuation of this indefensible preten- sion, we have been reminded of two things : ! first, that according to the record Washington I sent his first mossnge by General Kno.T, when in fact General Knox lield no military office at that time, but was actually Secretary of War; and secondly, that the military officers now occupying the Executive Mansion, are detailed for this service without other salary than that of their grade. As the Knox prece- dent is moonshine, the minor military ring can be vindicated only as a "detail" for service in the Executive Mansion. Here again the law shall speak. By act of Congress of March 3, 18(J3, it is provided that "details to special service shall only be made with the consent of the commanding officer of forces in the field; " but this, it will be seen, refers to a state of war. Congrt-ss by act of July 16, 1806, authorized the President "to detail from the Army all the officers and agents of this Bureau." [for the reiiefof Freedmen and Refugees.] {Statutes-at- Large. Vol. XIV, p. 174;) also by act of July 28.1868, to "detail" officers of the Army, not exceeding twenty at any time, to act aa President, Superintendent, or Professor in certain colleges. {Ibid . Vol. XIV. p. 336.) And then again by July 15, 1870, it provided that " any retired officer may, on his own application, be detailed to serve as piofessor in any college." [Ibid., Vol. XVl, p. 320.) As there is no other statute authorizing details, this exceptional transfer of Army offi- cers to the Executive Mansion can be main- tained only on some undefined prerogative. The presidential pretension, which is con- tinued to the present time, is the more unnat- ural when it is considered that there are at least three different statutes in which Congress has shown its purpose to limit the employment of military officers in civil service. As long ago as July 5, 1838, it was explicitly provided that no Army officers should be separated from their regiments and corps "for employ- ment on civil works of internal improvement or be allowed to engage in the service of in- corporated companies;" nor any line officer to be acting paymaster or disbursing agent for the Indian department, if such extra employment require ihat he be separated from his regiment or company or otherwise inter- fere with the performance of the military duties proper." {Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 200.) Obviously the will of Congress is here declared that officers should not be allowed to leave their posts for any service which might inter- fere with the performance of the military duties proper. This language is explicit. Then came the act of March 30, 1867, which provides that "any officer of the Army or Navy of the United States who shall, after the passage of this act, accept or hold any appointment in the diplomatic or consular ser- vice of the Government, shall be considered 18 as having resigned his said ofEce, and the place held by bim in the military or naval service shall be deemed and taken to be vacant." {Ibid., Vol. XV, p. 125.) To a considerate and cir- cumspect President who recognized the law in its spirit as well as its letter this provision, especially when reenforced by the earlier stat- ute, would have been a rule of action in anal- ogous cases, and therefore an insurmountable obstacle to a pretension which takes Army officers from their proper duties and makes them presidential secretaries. A later statute adds to the obstacle. By act of Congress of July 15, 1870, it is provided — "That it shall not be lawful for any ofBcer of the Army of the United Slates on the active list to hold any civil offi,"e, whether by election or appointment, and any such otJioer accepting or exercising the/unctions of a civil oJiceiihAl\ at onee cease to be an officer of the Army, and hiscommi.-ision shall be vacated there- by."— ^'e, even when ill had been spoken of himself." Our soldier Pres- ident could not err in following this knightly exatnple. If this were too much then at least might we ho|>e that he would consent to limit the sphere of his quarrelsome operations, so that the public service might not be disturbed. Of this be assured. In every quarrel he is the offender, according to the fact, as according to every reasonable presumption ; es[)ecially is he responsible for its continuance. The President can always choose his relations with any citizen. But he chooses discord. With the arrogance of arms he resents any imped- iment in his path, as when, in the spring of 1870, without allusion to himself, I fell it my duty to oppose his St. Domingo contrivance. The verse of Juvenal, as translated by Drydeu {Satires, 111,464, 468,) describes his conduct. " Poor me he fights, if that be fighting, where Ue only cudguls, and I only boar." "Answer or answer not, 'tis all the same, lie lays mo on and makes me boar the blame." Another scholarly translator gives to this description of the presidentitil quarrel another form, which is also applicable: " If that be deemed a quarrel ^here. heaven knows, lie only gives and I receive the blows— Across my path he strides and bids me stand I — I bow obsequious to the dread command." If the latter verse is not entirely true in my case, something must be pardoned to that liberty in which I was born. Men take their places in history according to their deeds. The flattery of life is then superseded by the truthful record, and ru'era do not escape judgment. Loui'^ X, of France, has the designation of Le Hntin or '' Tne Quarreler," by which he is known in the long 1 line of French kings. And so iu the long lin* 24 of American Chief Magistrates has our Pres- ident vindicated for himself the same title. He must wear it. The French monarch was younger than our President; but there are other points in his life which are not without parallel. According to a contemporary chron- icle he was " well-disposed but not very atten- tive to the needs of the kingdom" — volenti/ inais pas bieii eatentif en ce qu'au royaume il falloit ; and then again it was his rare foriune to sign one of ihegreatest ordinances of French history, declaring that according to nature all men have the right to be free; but the Quar- reler was in no respect author of this illus- trious act, and was moved to its adoption by considerations of personal advantage. It will be for impartial history to determine if our Quarreler, who treated his great ofBce as a personal perquisite, and all his life long was against that Enfranchisement to which he put his name, does not fall into the same category. DUTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Here I stop, and now the question of duty is presented to the Republican party. I like that word It is at the mandate ofduty that ■we must act. Do the presidential pretensions merit the sanction of the party ? Can Repub- licans without departing from all obligations, •whether of party or patriotism, recognize our ambitious Caesar as a proper representative? Can we take the fearful responsibility of his prolonged empire? I put these questions solemnly, as a member of the Republican party, wiih all the earnestness of a life devoted to the triumph of this party, but which I served always with the conviction that I gave up nothing that was meant for country or mankind. With me the party was country and mankind; but with the adoption of all these presidential pretensions, the pariy loses its distinctive character and drops from its sphere. Its creed ceases to be Republicanism and becomes Grantism ; its members cease to be Republicans and become Grant-men. It is no longer a political party, but a jiersonal party. For myself, I say openly, 1 am no man's man; nor do I belong to any personal party. ONE TERM FOE PRESIDENT. The attempt to cKange the character of the Republican party begins by assault on the principle of One Term for President. There- fore must our support of this requirement be made manifest; and here we have the testimony of our President and what is stronger, his example, sliowing the necessity of such limita- tion. Auihi-ntic report attests that before his nomination he declared that " The liberties of the country cannot be maintained without a One Term amendment of the Constitution." At this time Mr. Wade was pressing this very amendment. Then after his nomination, and while his election was pending, the organ of the Republican party at. Washington, where he resided, commended him constantly as faithful to the principle. The Morning Chronicle of June 3, 1869, after the canvass had commenced, proclaimed of the candidate, '^He is, moreover^ an advocate of the One Term principle as con- ducing toward the proper administration of the law — a principle with which so many prominent Republicans have identified themselves that it may be accepted as an article of party faith." Then again, July 14, the same organ insisted, " Let not Congress adjourn without passing the One Term amendment to the Constitution. There has never been so favorable an opportun- ity. All pariiesareiufavorof it. General Grant is in favor of it. The party that supports Gen- eral Grant demands it, and above all else pub- lic morality calls for it." Considering that these pledges were made by an organ of the party, and in his very presence, they may be accepted as proceeding from him. His name must be added to the list with Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Henry Clay, and Benjamin F. Wade, all of whom are enrolled against the reeliglbility of a President. But his example as President is more than his testimony in showing the necessity of this limitation. Andrew Jackson did not hes- itate to say that it was required in order to place the President " beyond the reach of any improper influence and uncommitted to any other course th.iu the strict liue of constitu- tional duty." William Henry Harrison fol- lowed in declaring that with the adoption of this principle "the incumbent would devote all his time to the public interest and there would be no cause to misrule the country." Henry Clay was satisfied after much observa- tion and reflection " that too much of the time the thoughts and the exertions of the incumbent are occupied during the first term in Securing his reelection." Benjamin F. Wade, after denouncing the reelis^ibility of the President, said: "There are defects in the Constitution, and this is among the most glaring." And now our President by his example, besides his testimony, vindicates all these authorities. He makes us see how all that has been predicted of Presidents seeking reelec- tion is fulfilled ; how this desire dominates official conduct; how naturally the resources of the Government are employed to serve a personal purpose; how the national interests are subordinate to individual advancement; how all questions, foreign or dcmesiic, whether of treaties or laws, are handled with a view to electoral votes; how the appointing power lends itself to a selfish will, acting now by the temptation of oSce and then by the menace of removal; and, since every otSceholder and every oiEceseeker has a brevet commission in 25 the preHoniinant political pHrly, how the Pres- ident, desiring reelt-ciion, becomes the active head of three cdoperiniiig armies, the army of officeholders eighty thousand strong, the larger army of oQiceseekers, and the army of the political party, the whole constituting a consolidated power which no candidate can possess without peril to his country. Of these vast cooperating armies the President is com- mander-in-ciiief and generalissimo. 'Ihrough these he holds in submission even Represent- atives and Senators, and makes the country his vassal with a condition not unlike that of martial law whvre the disobedient are shot, while the various rings help secure the prize. That this is not too strong appears from testi- mony before a Senate Con)mitiee, where a pres- idential lieutenantboldly denouncedaneminent New York ciiizen, who was a prominent can- didate for Governor, as "obnoxious to General Grant," and, then with an effrontery like the presidential pretension, announced that. " President Grant was the representative and head of tlie Republican party, and all good Republicans should support him in all his measures and appointments, and any one who did not do it should be crushed out." Such things leach how wise were those statesmen who would not subject the President to the temptation or even the suspicion of using his vast powers in promoting personal ends. Unquestionably the One Man Power has in- creased latterly beyond example, owing panly to the greater facilities of intercourse, espe- cially by telegraph, so that the whole country is easily reached ; partly to improvements in or- ganization, by which distant places are brought into unity; and partly ihrough the protracted prevalence of the military spirit created by the war. There was a time in English history M"hen the House of Commons, on the motion of the famous lawyer, Mr. Dunning, adopted the resolution: "That the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." The same declaration is needed with regard to the President ; and the very words of the parliamentary patriot may be repealed. In his memorable speech, Mr. Dunnins;, alter saying that he did not rest ''upon proof idle to require," declared that the ques- tion '• must be decided by the consciences of those who, as a jury, were called to determine what was or was not within their own knowl- edge." {Hansard, Parliamentary History. April, 178U, Vol. XXI, p. 347.) It was on ground of notoriety cognizable to all that he acted. And precisely on ibis gri)und, but also with specitic proofs, do I insist that the intlu- ence of the President has increased, is increas- ing, and ought to be diminished. But in this excellent work, well worihy the best efforts of all, nothing is more important than is the Utnilutiou to cue term. There is a dt^mand for reform in the Civil Service, and the President formally adopts this demand ; but he neglects the lirsl step, which depends only on himself. Krom this we may judge his litile earnestness in the cause. Be- yond all question. Civil Service Rei'orm must begin by a limitation of the President to one term, so that the lemplalion to use ihe appoint- ing power for personal ends may disappear from our system, and this great disturbing force cease to exist. If the President is sincere for reform, it will be easy for him to set the exam- ple by declaring again his adhesion to the One- Term principle. But even if he fails we must do our duty. Therefore, in opposing the prolonged power of the present incumbent, I benin by insisting that, for the good of the country and without reference to any personal failure, no President should be a candidate for reelection ; and it is our duty now to set an example worihy of Re publican Insiimtions. In the name ol the One- Term principle, once recognized by him, and which needs no other evidence of its necessity than his own Presidency, I protest against his attempt to obtain another lease of power. But this protest is on the threshold. UNFITNESS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL OPFICR. I protest against him as radically unfit for the presidential office, being essentially mili- tary in nature, without experience in civil life, without aptitude for civil duties, and without kr>owledge of Republican Instiiuiions, all of which is perfectly apparent, unless we are ready to assume that the matters and things get forth to-day are of no account — and then declare in further support of the candidate, boldly that nepotism in a President is noih- ine, that gift-taking with repayment in official patronage is nothing,- that violation of the Constitution and of law international and mu- nicipal is nothing, ihat indignity to the African race is nothing, that quarrel with political as- sociates is nothing, and that all his presiden- tial pretensions in their motley a;;gregation, being a new Caesarism or personal govern- ment, are nothing. Bur if these are all noth- ing, then is the Republican party nothing; nor is there any safeguard for Republicao Institutions. APOLOOIES. Two apologies'l hear. The first is that he means well and errs from want of knowledge. This is not much. It was said of Louis the Quarreller, that he meant well; nor is there a slate head-stone in any village burial ground that does not record as mucli of the humble lodger beneath. Some- thing more is needed for a President. iNor can we afford to perpetuate power in a ruler who errs so mucli from ignorance. Chanty for the past 1 coacede ; but uo iuvestiture lor the future. 26 The other apolopy is that his Presidency has been successful. How? When? Where? Not to him can be attributed thatgeneral prosperity which is the natural outgrowth of our people and country, for his contribution is not traced in the abounding result. Our golden fields, pro- ductive mines, busy industry, diversified com- merce owe nothing to him. Show, then, his success. Is it in the finances? The national debt has been reduced ; but not to so large an amount as by Andrew Johnson in the same ppace of time. Little merit is due to either, tor each employed the means allowed by Congress. To ihe American people is this reduction due, and not to any President. And while our President in this respect is no better ihan his predecessor, he can claim no merit for any systematic effort to reduce taxa- tion or restore specie payments. Perhaps, then, it is in foreign relations that he claims the laurels he is to wear. Knowing some thing of these from careful study and years of practical acquaintance, I am bound to say that never betbre has their management been 80 wanting in ability and so absolutely without character. In every direction is muddle — muddle with Spain, muddle with Cuba, muddle ■with the Black Republic, muddle with distant Corea, muddle with Venezuela, muddle with Russia, muddle with England — on all sides one diversified muddle. To this condition are ■we reduced. When before in our history have we reached any such bathos as that to which we have been carried in our questions with England ? Are these the laurels for a presi- dential candidate? But where are they? Are they found on the Indian frontier? Let the cry of massacre and blood from that distant region answer. Are they in reform of the civil service? But here the initial point is the lim- itation of the President to one term, so that he may be placed above temptation ; but this he opposes. Evidently he is no true reformer. Are these laurels found in the administration of the Departments? Let the discreditable sale of arms to France in violation of neutral duties and of municipal statute be the answer, and let the custom houses of New York and New Orleans with their tales of favoritism and of nepotism, and with their prostitution as agencies, mercenary and political, echo, back the answer, while senatorial committees organ- ized contrary to a cardinal principle of Parlia- mentary Law as a cover to these scandals, tes- tify also. Where, then, are the laurels? At last I find them fresh and brilliant in the har- mony which the President has preserved among Republicans, ilarmony do 1 say ? This should have been his congenial task ; nor would any aid or homage of mine been wanting. But instead he has organized discord operating through a succession of rings, and for laurels we find only weeda aud thibtiea. But I hear that he is successful in the States once in rebellion. Strange that this should be said while we are harrowed by the reports of Ku Klux outrages. Here, as in paying the national debt, Congress has been the effect- ive power. Even the last extraordinary meas- ure became necessary, in my judgment, to supplement his little efficiency. Had the Pres- ident put into the protection of the colored people at tha South half the effort and earn- est will wiih which he maintained his St. Domingo contrivance, the murderous Ku Klux would have been driven from the field and peace assured. Nor has he ever exhibited to the colored people any true sympathy. His conduct to Frederick Douglass on his return from St. Domingo is an illustration, and so also was his answer to the committee of colored fellow-citizens seeking his countenance for the pending measure of Civil Rights. Some thought him indifferent ; others found him insulting. Then came his recent letter to the great meeting at Washington, May 9, 1872, called to assert these rights, whare he could say nothing more than this: "I beg to assure you, however, that I sympathize most cordially in any effort to secure for all our people of whatever race, nativity or color, the exercise of those rights to which every citizen should be entitled.^' Of course everybody is in favor of "the rights to which every citizen should be entitled." But what are these rights? And this meaningless juggle of words, entirely worthy of the days of slavery, is all that is vouchsafed by the President for the equal rights of his colored fellow-citizens. I dismiss the apologies with the conclusion that in the matters to which ihey invite atten- tion, his Presidency is an enormous failure. THE PRESIDEXT AS CANDIDATE. Lookingat his daily life as it becomes known through the press or conversation, his chief employment seems the dispensation of patron- age, unless society is an employment. For tliis he is v'lsited daily by Senators and Repre- sentatives bringing distant constituents. The Executive Mansion has become that famous treasury trough, described so well by an early Congressional orator : "Such running, such jostling, such wriggling, such clambering over one another's backs, such squealing because the tub is so narrow and the company is so crowded." — ,S'i>ee<^ of Josidh (Juincy, January 30, 1811, Annals of Congress, page 851. To sit behind is the Presidential occnpatlon, watching and feeding the animals. 1 f this were an amusement only it might be pardoned ; but it must be seen in a more serious light. Some nations are governed by the sword, in other words by central force commanding obedience. Our President governs by offices, in other words by the appointing power, being a central force by whi<:li he coerces obedience to his personal 27 will. Let a Senator or Representative hesi tate in the support of his autocracy or doubt if he merits a second term, and forthwith eome disUnt consul or postmaster, appointed by his influence, begins to tremble. The "Head Centre" makes himself felt to the mostdistant circumference. Can such tyranny, where the miliiary spirit of our President finds a congenial Held, be permitted to endure? In adopting him as a candidate for reelec- tion we undertake to vindicate his Presidency, and adopt in all thint^s the insulting, incapable, aide-de-campish dictatorship which he hns inaugurated. Presenting his name we vouch for his fitness, not only ii\ original nattire, but in experience of civil life, in apiiiude for civil duties, in knowledge of Republican Institu- tions and elevation of purpose ; and we must be ready to defend openly what he has openly done. Can Republicans honestly do this thing ? Let it be said that he is not only the greatest nepotist -among Presidents, but greater than all others toge;her, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said that he is not only the greatest gifi-taker among Presidents, bui^ the only one who repaid his patrons at the public expense, and what Republican can re- ply? Let it be said that he has openly vio lated the Constitution and International Law, in the prosecution of a wretched contrivance against the peace of St. Domingo, and what Republican can reply? Let it be said that wielding the power of the Great Republic he has insulted ihe Black Republic with a menace of war, involving indignity to the Afiican race, and what Republican can reply ? Let it be said that he has set up presidential pretensions with- out number, constituting an undoubted Csesar- isin or personal government, and what Repub- lican can rcjdy? And let it be added that, unconscious of all this misrule, he quarrels without cause even with political supporters and on such a scale as to become the greatest presidential quarreler of our history, quarrel- ing more than all other Presidents together, and what Republican can reply? It will not be enough to say that he was triumphant in war. as Scipio, the victor of ilannibal, re- minded the Roman people that on this day he conquered at Zama. Others have been triumphant in war and failed in civil life, as Marlborough, whose heroic victories seemed unaccountable in the frivolity, the ignorance, and the hearilessness of his pretended states- manship. To Washington was awarded that rarest tribute, "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." Of our President it will be said willingly, "first in war," but the candid historian will add, "first in nepotism, first in git'i-taking repaid by otBcial patroiuige, first in presi- dential pretensions, and first in quarrel with his countrymen." Anxiously, earnestly, the country asks for reform, and stands tip-toe to greet the com- ing. But how expect reform from a President who needs it so much himself? Who shall reform the reformer? So, also, does the coun- try ask for purity. Rut is it not vain to seek this boon from one whose presidential p.-eten- sions are so demoralizing? Who shall purify the purifier? The country asks for reform in the civil service, but how expect any such, change from one who will not allow the pres- idential office to be secured against its worst teiTifitation? The country desires an e.^am- ple forthe youth of the land, where intelligence shall blend with character and both be elevated by a constant sense of duty with unselfish de- votion to the public weal. But how accord this place to a President who m ikei his great office a plaything and perquisite, while his highest industry is in quarreling? Since San- cho Panza at Barataria no Governor has done so well for his relations at the expense of his country, and if any other has made Cabinet appointments the return for personal favors, his name has dropped out of history. A man is known by his acts ; so, also, by the company he keeps. And is not our President known by his intimacy with those who are by words of distrust? But all these by-words look to another term for perpetuation of their power, riierefore, for the sake of reform and purity, which is a longing ot the people, and also that the Chief Magistrate may be an example, we must seek a remedy. See for one moment how pernicious must be the presidential example. First in place, his personal influence is far-reaching beyond that of any other citizen. What he does others will do. What he fails to do others will fail to do. His standard of conduct will he ac- cepted at least by his political supporter^. His measure of industry and his sense of duty will be the pattern for the country. If he ap' points relations to office and repays gifts by official patronage making his Presidency, " a great Gift Enterprise," may not every office- bolder do likewise, each in his sphere, so that nepotism and gift-taking officially compensated will be general and gilt enterprises be multi- plied indefinitely in the public service? If he tre'ats his trust as plaything and perquisite, why may not every office-holder do the same ? If he disregards constitution und law in the pursuit of personal objects how can we expect a just subordination from others? If he sets up pretensions without number, repugnant to Republican institutions, must not tiie good cause sutFer? If he is stubborn, obstinate, and perverse are not slubbirnness, obstinacy and perversity commended for imitation ? If he insults and wrongs associates iu official trust, who is safe from the malignant influence hav- ing its propulsiou from the Executive Man- 28 sion ? If he fraternizes with jobbers and Hes- sians, where is the limit to the demoralization that must ensue ? Necessarily the public ser- vice takes its character from its elected chief and the whole country reflects the President. His example is a law. But a bad example must be corrected as a bad law. APPEAL TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. To the Republican party, devoted to ideas and principles, I turn now with more than ordinary solicitude. Not willingly can I see it sacrificed. Not without earnest effort against the betrayal can I suffer its ideas and princi- ples to be lost in the personal pretensions of one man. Both the old parties are in a crisis, with this diS'erence between the two. The Democracy is dissolving; the Republican party is being absorbed. The Democracy is falling apart, thus visibly losing its vital unity ; the Republican party is submitting to a personal influence, thus visibly losing its vital charac- ter. The Democracy is ceasing to exist. The Republican party is losing its identify. Let the process be completed, and it, will be no longer that Republican party which I helped to found and have always served, but only a personal party, while instead of those ideas and principles which we have been so proud to uphold will be presidential pretensions, and instead of Republicanism there will be nothing but Grantism. Political parties are losing their sway. Higher than party are country and the duty to eave it from Cajsar. The caucus is at last un- derstood as a political engine, moved by wire- pullers, and it becomes more insupportable in proportion as directed to personal ends; nor is Its character changed when called a National Convention. Here too are wire-pullers, and ■when the great Officeholder and the great Officeseeker are one and the same, it is easy to eee how naturally the engine responds to the central touch. A political convention is an agency and convenience, but never a law, least ot alia despotism ; and when it seeks to impose a candidate whose name is a synonym of pre- tensions unrepublican in character and hostile to good government, it will be for earnest Republicans to consider well how clearly party is subordinate to country. Such a nomination can have no just obligation. Therefore with unspeakable interest will the country watch the National Convention at Piiiladelpbia. It may be an assembly (and such is ray hope!) where ideas and principles are above all per- sonal pretensions, and the unity of the party is symbolized in the candidate or it may add another to presidental rings, being an expan- sion of the military ring at the Executive Mansion, the senatorial ring in this Chamber, and the political ring in the custom houses of New York and New Orleans. A National Convention which is a presidental ring cannot represent the Republican party. Much rather would 1 see the party ,_ to which I am dedicated, under the image of a life-boat not to be sunk by wind or wave. How often have I said this to cheer my comrades. I do not fear the Democratic party. Nothing from them can harm our life- boat. But I do fear a quarrelsome pilot, unused to the sea, but pre- tentious in Qommand, who occupies himself in loading aboard his own unserviceable relations and personal patrons while he drives away the experienced seamen who know the craft and her voyage. Here is a peril which no life-boat can stand. Meanwhile I wait the determination of the National Convention, where are delegates from my own much honored Commonwealth with whom I rejoice to act. Not without anxiety do I wait, but with the earnest hope that the Convention will bring the Republican party into ancient harmony, saving it espe- cially from the suicidal folly of an issue on the personal pretensions of one man. L LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 789 490 7 ;>l>,>,V;i,l('.'^-,<