fy 6g5 Ti9 Wif m^mm^i, liili LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Shelf T'?^ UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. T h: E Duty of the People IN :^0-YEMBER l^EXT. BY J. DKLAFIELD TREN-QR. r-K^ j3j^rf%C/ COPYRIGHTED, 1880. NEW YORK: John Polhemus, Publisher, 102 Nassau Street. ^ Z THE DEED, THE METHODS, THE MEN. Since these States became an independent people, there has been no presidential election weighted with one main issue so completely dwarfing all others as the present. Antagonistic views of great national problems have, in other elections, severed the country into two or more mutually hostile camps. Thereto has been superadded the natural desire for place and x)Ower. Many of these problems were of such a character that men of honor and conscience could reasonably take opposite sides. To-day most of them— one may say nearly all— are solved. Some reached that solution by the bloody arbitrament of war ; others by the nobler process of discussion in the national councils. The American people are now, at last, confronted by one capital issue, which forces upon all patriotic citizens the duty of sternl}^ holding over every minor question, and of deciding once for all, at the forthcoming election, whether the popular will, speaking through the voice of the majority of the citizens, and sacred until 1876, shall or shall not be the sole and prime source and fountain from which are derived the jjowers of those claiming the right to govern.* This master issue, distinguishing the present from all previous campaigns, ought, for the time being, to fuse patriotic citizens, of whatever political stripe, into one grand party — that of the American people itself. Many may exclaim — "But this question has already, once for all, been settled." In theory such is the case ; but the party at j)resent in power are there solely by having trampled in the dust this chief and prime right of the majority of the American people. This they effected by fraud, by forgery on the part of those acting for men ruling or leading the minority, by jDerjury and by force— not actually brought into play, but held in tJie leash, ready to be slipped in favor of those who were stifling the nation s voice, and therefore just as efficient as if used. Here let it be noted that the Republican voters, as a body, had no part in the original acts by which this outrage on tlie majesty of the American people was wrought. The men who dared that outrage and consummated in the dark the violation of that majesty, were, at the outset, a small band of political conspirators. They could at first be counted on the fingers. But, when one wing of the nation's council accepted the results of the crime, the face of affairs was changed. Still, let it be repeated, that with the deeds which rudely ousted Liberty from her seat, the Republican voters of the country, as a body, had nothing whatever to do. Had Note.— This of course means the majority of the electoral votes representing the voices of the various States, which, violence apart, would undonbtedly have been cast for the Democratic candi- date at the last election. An overwhehning majority of the popular vote coincided with the electoral votes of the States which would have been thus cast but for the reasons given in this paper. It is with this qualification that the terms "voice of the majority of the nation," "people," &c., are to be understood throughout. they been fully cognizant of any such conspiracy, they would certainly have done their utmost to crush it. It must he laid solely to the charge of the conspirators and of the Republican representatives who aided and abetted them. In dealing, therefore, witli this question, and in discuss- ing how this great issue should be decided, it must be fully and clearly borne in mind that the application of the term •'Republican Party" is by no means extended to the vast body of the Republican voters of the country. In commenting on the transactions with which Ave are dealing, the widest meaning intended to apply to the term Republican Party " is : tliose claiming to be its leaders, and its representatives in Congress. AYhatever of fraud, Avhatever of perjury- or forgery, what- ever of constructive force was employed, either directly or in- directl}^, by those who throttled Liberty in her exalted seat, was sanctioned not by the Republican voters of the countr3% but by the "Republican Party," in the sense just applied tO' that term — by men recreant to the highest trust coniided to them b}^ those very Republican voters — by men responsible to their own constituents for this great wrong-doing just as equalh^as to the Party against Avhom and whose constituents it was aimed. This viral matter involves considerations of far higher import and grander proportions than as to whether or not one political party saw its chosen and elected leader excluded for four years from the White House, or as to whether the huge patronage of the Federal government was for the same period contiolled by those who had no lawful power over it. This the actual, dejure President of the United States, ^fr. Tilden, has laid down in language of noble hrmness and breadth. Such questions are the veriest trifles when placed side hy side with the one pregnant query : " Did tlie liberty of tlie whole American people suffer violence at the hands of these men?" And here let it be at once boldly stated that if it can be made clear that the voice and will of the majority of the American people did suffer violence at their hands, then it was not only that majority against whom this high outrage was done. It involved a crime against every citizen of this land, of what political stripe soever— inasmuch as it was a conspiracy against the very foundation upon which rests the whole fabric of republican liberty. How, may it be asked, if, in such a conjuncture, the voice and will of only a majority of the American people suffered violence, can it be maintained that such violence was suffered by the wliole American people \ Because the very essence of representative republican in- stitutions lies in the principle that the voice of the majority shall prevail. It matters nothing, in so far as that principle is concerned, whether such majority happen, for the time being, to consist of one political party or the other. Violence done to the will of the majority by the acts of the minority's representatives, is a direct blow lemlled at the very right lohich either minority or majority has to Dote at all. It is like inflicting a mortal wound on one side of the human body. Death comes equally to both sides. If this position be not unassailable, then any expression of the popular will by voting is mere dumb show, and any at- tempt at ascertaining that will, either by ballot or otherwise, had better be altogether abolished. To abandon it is to surrender the people's right to the only practicable method of self-government. To disallow it is to adopt a set of principles the dreadful history of whose workings has, for the last quarter of a cen- tuiy, been written in torrents of blood in nearly every other American republic from Mexico to Patagonia, One tremendous experiment of a departure from this principle was tried among our own States. It has suf- ficed ! These are the reasons for which it may be most properly urged that, outside the mere question of one or the other can- didate holding office, the Republicans of the country suf- fered just as grave an affront and injustice as their opponents, in the very assumption that they would, through their repre- sentatives, lend themselves to any such deadly assault on tlie elective principle as was involved in this overthrow of the voice of the majority, which at the last election happened to be Democratic. Hence the conclusion that it was not the Democratic party merely, but the lohole American people, whose majesty was outraged at the last election ; for it was not simply a tactical evasion of a defeat suffered b}^ a party minority on ^.jyoUtlcal measure or view supported by them ; it was a defiant over- throw of the chief pillar of republican institutions, as recog- nized in this and in all coiiimonwealths of all ages. So much being established, the question arises, " Can the fact of this violence to the will of the majority of the people be established beyond a doubt % " Unfortunately for the honor of the United States of iVni erica, it can. The history of the Southern Returning Boards, of the " vis- iting statesmen," of the Electoral Commission, of the memora- ble eiglit to sereii vote and the other means by which the elec- toral votes of two Southern States were wrested from the. Democratic candidate, and the presidency finally awarded tO' Mr. Hayes, are matters familiar to every man in the land. As to whether in these Southern States awarded to his oj)- 8 ponent the majority of the popular vote was or was not cast for the Democratic candidate, and whether or not the elec- toral vote was also really his, it is but necessary to refer to the sworn testimony of the very men who themselves admit- ted having falsified the returns, having forged signatures to the electoral certificates, and done everything needful to con- summate the crime. The details of these doings are matters of common notoriety and are recorded in the files of every newsi)aper in the country. The question of fact, therefore, stands established. Indeed, the evidence, given at the time of the formal inquiry by Congress, against themselves and their accomplices, by the prime movers in these iniquities, is so clear and decisive that there are few honest Republicans unconvinced that the will of the majority of the people was defiantly set at naught, and that the doings of the Returning Boards (stimulated by promises held out to them) were that which carried to accomplishment the defeat of the popular voice and will. The services of these miscreants were duly recognized and rewarded by the gentleman whom they had foisted on the peojile as lawfully elected President. They claimed, and were in a position to demand, the " pound of fiesh." An opinion prevailed at the time, and still lingers among the people, that Mr. Evarts' great forensic effort against their rights lifted him into the Secretaryship of State. But then he was not the consort of conspirators, he merely covered their flank ! The grounds advanced as justifying the action of the "visiting statesmen," who induced the Returning Boards to throw out the votes of whole Democratic districts or parishes, are, from a legal and constitutional point of view, instructive. It was assumed by these superserviceable Republican patriots that the political bias of these districts or parishes was in favor of their party, and that, therefore, the vote in these would surely have been cast for their party, unless the voters had been menaced or intimidated, vulgo, hulldozed. 9 No general complaint, indeed, no complaint of any large proportions, on the part of the Republican voters, such as would justify even legal interference with the general result of the elections in these districts, was borne to the popular ear. It was upon vague, shapeless rumors that these con- scientious gentlemen acted. But then evidence would be forthcoming ! Of course it would ! How easily it was made to order was subsequently disclosed during the Washington inquiry ! The testimony there given was a nauseating sur- prise to every man of honor in the Republican ranks. And yet it was upon such evidence that unbiassed Republican umpires could induce the Returning Boards to throw out the votes of whole districts wJiere the majority was Democratic. The Returning Boards did not confine themselves simply to adding to the Republican side votes in cases of clearly estab- lished intimidation. That would have been too uncertain a way of procuring a Republican majority. The process would have been tedious and thorny. It was safer and more ex- peditious to throw out the whole vote and rely on Republican majorities elsewhere to carry the count ! This eminently judicial method met with the warm approval of the Republi- can " visiting statesmen." Discerning men throughout the country had, long previous to their "visit," reached tlie conclusion that the inexplicable difficulty exi)erienced in counting the vote, simply j^ortended an attempt of the Republican managers to undo, somehow or other, the j^opular decision which had, according to universal opinion, called Mr. Tilden to the presidential chair. The event proved ho^v sound was that judgment. In the case of one of these "visiting statesmen," it has to be especially noted that, witliout authority of law, and simply at the request of General Grant, he went to New Orleans. He had subsequently to admit, on oath, that he had charge of the returns of West Feliciana parish; that, in one of the inner rooms of the Custom-house, then in charge of Packard, he examined the affidavits, and, when they toere not sufficient- 10 lyfidl, he prepared, or had prepared, additional interrogato- ries (!) to bring them within the rules adopted by the Return- ing Board. This testimony, tJtus prepared^ went back to the Returning Board, and West Feliciana, with its Democratic ma- jority, was thrown out. This gentleman, after having so acted, sat on the Electoral Commission as a judge upon his own doings, and voted down any enquiry into them ! He is now the Republican nominee for the presidency. As it would be unfair to pass over so marked a service to his country without signalling him out, it is proper the reader should know his name. It is James A. Garfield. It may be further observed that, whereas, previous to the appearance of the "visiting statesmen" the delay in reaching a count had been protracted beyond all precedent, that result was reached very soon after the "visit." It did not, however, produce a like effect upon the two contending parties. By the Republican party it was hailed with joy. By those who, all over the country, were tacitly if not oj^enly allowed to have on their side an overwhelming majority of the popu- lar vote, it was at once pronounced to be the result of willful and deliberate fraud. The Congressional struggle which resulted in the compro- mise by which an Electoral Commission was appointed to sit in judgment upon this most weighty matter, may be dismissed briefly. With such a vast-reaching issue before them, it was plainly the duty of the whole House of Representatives to have taken cognizance at once of the alleged falsification of returns, no matter in favor of, or against, whom ; of the forgeries said to have been committed in the signatures to the electoral certi- ficates, and to have probed this grave matter to the very bot- tom. What, even supposing this searching scrutiny had de- prived one or the other party of power for four years ? Were they not the representatives of the wJiole people ? And was it not imperative upon them to determine wliat had been the expressed will of the majority of the people, and to see that 11 will respected and enforced ? What had party politics to do with the deciding of sncli a question as this to patriotic men ? If the Bepublican party feared tliey had been defeated in the election, did not lionor and duty alike malve it incumbent on them, in their twofold character of American citizens and rep- resentatives of the j)eople, rather to be instant than reluctant in demanding that no power should be intrusted to their lead- ers or themselves which was not borne to them on the voice of a majority of the people ? This was their grand opportunity. Pure patriotism beck- oned them one way. Interest led them another. It will be long before they again have such a glorious oi^^oortunity (by sacrificing, if right demand it, their power for a term) of stamping themselves with the sign of unflinching and uncom- promising patriotism. They have wTitten this page of their history and leff it for posterity. It is grim and scorching ! Suffice it to say that their determination not to examine into these charges was so manifest that the appointment of an Electoral Commission was proposed and accepted by both sides as a compromise. Whether this action was or was not constitutional, need form no part of this statement. Let us come to the Electoral Com- mission itself. This body was composed largely of judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, therefore of men to whom the whole country looked up as to the inflexible dispensers of even- handed justice, men to the foot of whose justice-seat not even the whisper of popular distrust had ever yet penetrated ; men upon whom the eye of the country and of the whole world was fastened in the stress of this great crisis of the Great Re- public. This High Court of Equity comprised judges whose political principles and affiliations, in so far as tluy loere simphj citi- zens, drew a majority of them towards the Rej^jublican party. 12 Being in this case judges alone, and not politicians, by reason of the character and in virtue of the commission intrusted to them, to decide between the two great parties in the gravest and weightiest cause ever presented for adjudication in any country, who would dare, in their regard, even to hint the sus- picion of partisanship ? They were to inquire into and determine the q uestion : which of the two candidates for the office of President of the United States had received the electoral votes of the States in dis- pute. As was fitting, both parties to this great national case were represented by counsel whose names, as of the greatest in their profession, are household words in the land. One would naturally suppose that these advocates were there to elicit and watch evidence for their respective clients, the two great parties ; and that the Electoral Commission, with its majority of Republican judges, was there to receive and give judgment upon that evidence. The contrary being- supposed, there was, to the ordinary mind, no reason whatever for the existence of the Commission. The Republican advocate contended that the members of the commission had no right to go behind the returns alleged to have been altered; that it was not within their competence to inquire into the forging of signarures to the electoral cer- tificates, although the other side offered to j)rove thsit forged signatures had been appended to them. In other words, he maintained that they had no right to take evidence at all. The Democratic advocate had actually to take in hand to prove to this Commission, or rather to its Republican mem- bers, that it was not only competent to them to take the evi- dence offered, but that, in virtue of their commission, it was their bounden duty to receive and pronounce upon this evi- dence. The Democratic members of the Commission, among them 13 tlie minority of the judges, maintained the soundness of this claim. The Republican members of the commission, among them the majority of the judges (all Republicans), denied it to a man. There being no tribunal superior to themselves to which recourse could be had for the decision of this most knotty point : they appealed to themselves and voted. On the point in question, and on all the issues collateral to it, the minority of secen (Democrats) voted in the negative, thereby affirming the competence of the commission to take evidence. The majority, eight (with the majority of the judges, Republicans), noted their own and their colleagues" incompetence to take evidence in the very case for the trial of lohich they had been constituted a tribunal of last resoft^ and in lohich the evidence offered was not only pertinent to^ hut absolutely decisive of the case ! They were not, however, consistent even with their own de- cision, for whereas in the case of Louisiana they refused to go behind the Governors certificate, on the plea that they had no right to do so ; in the case of Oregon they insisted on going behind the Governor's certificate and threw out the Democratic electoral vote. These astounding partisan decisions of eight Republicans^ among them the majority of the judges, resulted in the valida- tion of returns alleged, and subsequently proved to have been altered in favor of the Republican candidate, also in the vali- dation of the electoral certificates bearing forged signatures, in the rejection of the Democratic electoral vote of Oregon, and in the seating of the Republican candidate in the presi- dential chair. It is unnecessary to dilate upon this great national shame and humiliation. 14 A question, however, as applying to the case of Louisiana, may be asked : supposing the Secretary of the Treasury were informed that counterfeit thousand dollar bonds of the United States were being negotiated in New York ; but that it had been ascertained beyond a doubt that the counterfeiters were Treasury officials ; that they had committed their crime in the Treasury, and supposing, furthermore, the Secretary were to say that, under the circumstances, he could not question the genuineness of the bonds ? What then ? How long would he remain at the head of the Treasury Department ? Or, supposing the Secretary, taking another view of the case, should procure the arrest of the counterfeiters, and that, upon the ground that these counterfeit bonds had been en- graved and the signatures to them forged in the Treasury, a judge were to refuse to go heMnd the returns, and decline to receive evidence as to the character of the bonds \ What then ? Well, this is substantially what was done by the eight He- publicans who refused to take evidence that electoral returns had been falsified, and signatures to electoral certificates forged in favor of a Republican candidate for the presidency. The title to govern a great nation was in cause, and they would take no evidence, except such as was in favor of their own party ! How, had they been certain all the evidence would have turned out in their favor ? Strict regard for the laws of inductive enquiry renders it undesirable to assert that the unvarying unanimity of the votes of these eight Republican members of the Commission was the result of a conspiracy. In so far, however, as the resulting opinion of the nation is concerned, this unanimity must be held to have covered the most grievous series of coincident conmctions to which the collective judgment of eight men ever drove them. In any case, and this is the main point, this refusal to re- 15 ceive evidence, the substantiation of which would undoubtedly have barred the way of their own X3olitical candidate to the presidency, did do violence to the voice and will of the ma- jority of the American people in the choice of their Chief Magistrate. And, in so far as regards the Republican judges on the Com- mission, this violence was done to the voice of the Ameri- can people, by reason of refusal on the part of these same judges to do, or suffer to be done, that which, according to the code of every civilized nation in the world, they were bound to do ; that which sitting elsewhere in their capacity as judges of the Supreme Court they dare not refuse to do, and this be- cause the admission of evidence would have put in jeopardy the chances of their own political candidate for the presi- dency ! Lastly, these Republican judges were simply refusing to hear through its representatives what was to them, presum- ably, at least, and what was really in fact, the majority of the American people, pleading for the first and highest of its rights. In view of all this, is it unfair to say that these eight Re- publican members of the Electoral Commission, many of them judges of the Supreme Court, not only bore a part, but the weightiest and most responsible part, in defeating the will of the American people, by judicially gagging its advocates at the very foot of the justice-seat ? Here it is proper again to observe that this monstrous de- parture from all recognized principles and methods of judicial procedure by these eight Republicans, in favor of their own incriminated RejDublican politicians, who, according to the evidence offered, were guilty of high crimes and mis- demeanors, smote not only those who represented the Demo- cratic party ; it struck with equal force every Republican voter in the land, who, whatever the event, had the high- est right and title to count upon the strictest impartiality 16 of these judges ; it was a blow to the faith and conscience of every man in the country, who had hitherto seen in these judges of the Supreme Court the living impersonation of Supreme Justice ! On this head one further consideration may be commended to the attention of the American people. As far as the con- stitutional powers of the President of the United States are concerned, he stands somewhat on a par with the sovereign of Great Britain. Were the British monarchy elective instead of hereditary, and had the doings of the Returning Boards and their abettors taken place in England instead of here, these doings would have constituted high-treason, and the inauguration of their candidate would have amounted to the usurpation of a throne ! Give what names one may to the crimes by which their object was compassed (regard being had to the terms by which offices and dignities are designated by us), there can be no question that, in character and degree, these crimes are sub- stantially identical with those bearing in Great Britain the names just given ; and of this treason against the whole American people, the parties implicated in defeating by fraud, by perjury, by forgery and by force in the leash, the will of the majority of the nation were most undoubtedly guilty. WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. THE DEFENCE AND PLEA. II. Political causes, of the miglity inherent force of tliose just described, are apt to work tliemselves oxit in correspondingly intense effects. Great crimes against the expressed will of a nation not unusually create a strain under which the moral endurance of ordinary men breaks down, and, among races of choleric tem- perament, the result is — blood. Our people have, since the outset of their history, displayed a singular jealousy of their liberty. They are possessed by this feeling as by a strong internal lire. But they have, in a larger measure than the majority of races, tlie power of niaster- ino' themselves; or, to use a trite phrase, of holding themselves well in hand. Still, on memorable occasions, they liave engaged in desper- ate and bloody wars rather tlian see one jot of their liberty abated. The spirit which thus urges them they have, for a tliousand years back, inherited from a warlike and liberty -loving an- cestry. 18 Did the political partisans wlio, in 1876, wrested from the majority of this people their prime right as freemen, measure the danger to whicli they were exposing the country when goading men thus constituted ? Did the elaborate military preparations made in Washing- ton previous to the installation of the unelected occupant of the White House, reflect any misgiving on this head among those who were violating the national will \ Because, if they did reflect any such misgiving, they also evi- denced a purpose, if necessary, to shed blood— the blood of American citizens, technically wrong should they have borne arms against the United States forces (wielded by the great Cap- tain of the war, himself a Republican, and in full sympathy with the usurpers), but most right in the demands for which those arms would have been taken up, just as right as the Union was when she crushed the South. How if one of those sudden impulses, which at times seize men smarting under a great wrong, had brought the United States troops, forced to support the wrong, into collision with those who most certainly represented the right. Can any of the conspirators against the popular will, or their abettors, inform the world what would have ensued, and what would have been the final result; how long it would have taken to reach that result, and what would have been the cost? The time of any such danger is now past ; but there were days when men spoke of such an event as of a not impossible thing. It is, on every hand, well that the people bore themselves calmly. But had any such popular outbreak occurrred, who shall measure the responsibility of those who gave the people a colorable excuse for it by the violation of their rights % And as Mr. Tilden was the lawfully elected President of the 19 United States, it must be said that his good sense and patriot- ism, in this crisis, are equalled only by the calm fortitude with which lie has borne the transcendent wrong suffered in his person by the American people, and the serene, disdain- ful silence by which he has met and vanquished the studied obloquy of triumphant crime. If the Republican managers, or consj^irators, aware of the high mettle of our people, looked this great danger fairly in the face and chose deliberately to encounter the risk, then they not only betrayed the highest trust reposed in them by their own constituents, but they played the peace and welfare of the whole nation as a stake for what Secretary Evarts has lately called " the success of a few individuals." And now, at last, -with this terrible record, they have once again to face the American people. Summoned, too, before this great tribunal are those of the participants in this ignoble drama who still remain in Congress, all strong in the belief that the great wrong has been condoned and forgotten, un- mindful of the fact that the day— not of any man or of any party — but the day of the whole American people, united to right this great wrong had yet to come ; the day when they were to be taught, from the high places, of the mighty injustice they had suffered, \vhen light was to be flooded in on these transactions, when the finger of inexorable history was to beckon them back four years, and point to the elect from among their Republican representatives tearing the diadem from the brow of Liberty and Hinging it in the dust, whilst the whole body of those representing the Republican voters of the land looked on approvingly, and applauded as though for a national triumph ; the day, in line, when patriotic men of all parties were to grasp each other by the hand, and ask with kindling eye : " Shall this again heV That day has come at last ! It has, and with it to the American people the high dut}' of signally vindicating to the world the one principle which lies at the very root of Republican liberty. 20 Had the " Republican party'' (in the restricted sense given to that term in this argument) known the day of its oppor- tunity, no such vindication of the right of the majority woukl now be needed at the Jiands of the nation. Had they seen what their solidarity witli the conspirators imported — when fully apprized by their leaders of what was going forward- had they been able to compass the truth that hi the defeat of the voice of the majority of the nation, the minority— their own constituents— sustained equal outrage, that outrage, as before pointed out, being wrought in their favor, then, even if conscience and honor had not urged them, the highest kind of x)olicy would have bent them to the most searching investi- gation. They would have joinc-d hands with their political opponents in this keen scrutiny, and, having been mainly in- strumental in forcing the discovery of their own defeat at the hands of the majority of the people, they would have sui'- rendered the high places of the nation to their opponents, and have stood before the country and tlie world as Republicans in the highest and truest sense of the term; they would have raised up a beacon to the light of which all the peoples of the earth would have bent their gaze with joy; they would have erected a monument to the genius of true Republican liberty destined to outlive 2ii\y and every trophy raised by the hand of man. Instead of this, they are to-day on trial for treason to the American peox)]e. Already the iirst voices in their defense have been flung across the land. The great Teutonic political chameleon*, losing sight of the majestic and irritated presence in which his (pro. tern.) "party " stands, has tried to narrow the issue down to a question of the general material well-being and prosperity of the country. This, he calndy assumes, having come to the people under the rule of a Republican administration, has, therefore, come through it. Trade revived, specie payments resumed, the wheels of industry in quasi-perpetual motion, * What might be classically termed Mr. Schurz's sartorial versatility, or, in other words, the ease with which he can turn his political coat, needs but a passing allusion. 21 America the gTcanary of the \vorkl--all tliis, if he ho believed, is due to a sagacious, and mucli-combining and contriving Ri- publican administration. Any one skei)tical about tlie soundness of this claim, might be disposed to aslv whetlier the unpropitious slvies wliich hist year destroyed the harvests of the old world, and tlie genial weather which tilled our granai'ies to overfloAving, were special! \- and exclusively at the disposal of Republican administrations; also, whether the great influx of gold which came to us in ex- change for our crops, crossed the Atlantic at the beck of Mr Schurz's colleagues; further, whether the revival of trade and industry was not more due to the enforced economy and keener business foresight of the people during the last seven years, than to any profound combination of a handful of politicians. For, if the Republican party claim, perforce, that these great benefits have accrued to the nation through their administra- tion, then they must, in all consistency, lay to their souls all the balm which can come from the great flnancial crisis of 1873 and the dreadful depression of subsequent years. But, even allowing all these extravagant claims in favor of the Republican administration to be well-founded, does the political Sunjfoioer who has advanced them imagine that the American people are already so degenerate as to hold mere material prosperity higher than any other good i Has the long period of years spent by him in this country taught him nothing better or higher with regard to the whole business community of this land than that they are ready and willing to barter away their chief right as freemen to the first comer who will offer them gold in exchange '. Does he think that this nation can be coerced by a factious minority, as though it were a petty German princedom, and then cajoled into acquiescence in the wrong, like a woman to whom a hand- ful of costly trinkets is tendered as a solace for her lost virtue< If so, he strangely mistakes the temper and mettle of this 22 people. He gravely underrates the fire of liberty by which it is i^ossessed, and which, genial enough when unfanned by vio- lence done that liberty, is terrible when it bursts into flame ! Mr. Schurz will do well to place this among his few 'perma- nent political convictions anent the American people. Next in the order of time (as a mouthpiece of the "party"), vastly prior in the order of intellect, comes the Secretary of State, the renowned, but ethereal advocate, whose greatest forensic feat it will ever remain to have argued the highest judges in the land (Rei^ublicans) into the conviction (?) that, in a cause where the majority of the nation was pleading for its prime right, and offering conclusive evidence in assertion and vindication of that right, the aforesaid judges and the whole Electoral Commission were not competent to receive that evidence. He, too, using one of the great journals of the day as his mouthpiece, dilates upon the iDrosperity of the country, avoids the great issue upon which men of all parties are already pronouncing, and exclaims: "What is there, I say, in the " political agitations of the day, that equals the magnitude of " a policy which the statistics of our commercial relations " for the last year would naturally suggest to any man who " prefers the prosperity of the country to the success of a few "individuals?" This is not surprising from the pocket Demosthenes, wlio could persuade judges it was their duty, according to the con- stitution, not to take evidence. His argument is, in drift, identical with that of the Teutonic chameleon, but, as would naturally be exjjected, is more carefully constructed and insidiously advanced. It is proper to be liberal in the space accorded to so great an advocate and statesman. First, then, Mr. Evarts claims that the prosperity of the 23 country, as seen in the statistics of onr commercial rela- tions for tlie past year, is due to the magnitude of the policy of the Rejmblican administration. " The magnitude of a iiolicy'- has an amplitude of sound about it which reminds one of the " ampuUas et sesquipedalia verba,''- against the use of which Mr. Evarts should have been warned when he read Horace. The irreverent public may be tempted to ask whether it was the "magnitude of the Republican administration's poli- cy" which gave us such enormous crops and such favorable markets for them last year ; whether it was this same "mag- nitude" which induced buyers in Europe to pay for them ; whether it was this "magnitude" which tempted the railways of the country to make immense sums by carrying them to the seaboard; whether, finally, it was this "m.agnitude" which sent our enormous gains circulating through every channel of trade and industry. A curious problem would be, how large a proportion of this ^'magnitude" is claimed for the State Papers of Mr, Evarts. In the second place, Mr. Evarts claims that, to any man who prefers the prosperity of the country to the success of a feio individuals, this pet "magnitude" of his is indefinitely greater than any "magnitude" to be found in the political agitations of the day. About this the American people will have something to say in November. It may turn out that their idea of comparative "magnitudes" differs slightly from that entertained by the illustrious Electoral Commission advocate. Pending this expression of the nation's idea in November, it may be pertinent to observe that tliQfew indimduals whose success must be postponed to the prosperity brought about by this "magnitude," may, according to the statement of the illustrious advocate, be either Republicans or Democrats. 24 The feio individuals of the Republica.n party whose success in 1876 was purchased by violence to the people's will, in other words, by high treason, will have again to attempt success in November next. They will then be confronted b^^ the /etc individuals whose success at the last election (/. e., the vote of the majority of the nation) was wrested from them, but, from all appearances, with a much greater majority of the American people at their back, and they in no mood to be trifled with. According to this statesman, the summons, by the vote of the majority of the nation, to wield the powers of the whole American people, simply means ^^the success of a few indi- Diduals.^'' This is the impression under which the conspira- tors of 1876, their counsellors and abettors evidently labored, thinking that in stifling the voice of the nation, they were merely thwarting " the success of a few individuals ^ Again, unless Mr. Evarts means to claim that it is absolute- ly essential to the continuance of the present prosperit}^ of the country, that ^HJie few indioiduals'''' (of whose success the eliciting of the nation s voice is, according to him, a mere incident), should be Republican, then he must acknowl- edge that a further lease of x)Ower to himself and colleagues is a matter of no moment whatever to the people. More might be said upon this point, but here leave will be taken of Mr. Evarts' "magnitude," and of ''■the success of a few indimduals ,^^ and a moment will be devoted to another of his enunciations. " If," says the great Electoral Commission advocate, "the supporters of the Ri^publican platform to-day had given the administration their hearty support three years ago, it would not be a question of doubt to-day as to which party will suc- ceed in the coming election " (New York Herald, Sunday, August 15th, 1880). Then there really is a doubt in the mind of the Secretary of State, as to who the few individuals will be, of whose success the election is to be a trifling incident, as it were. 25 Mr. Evarts may console himself: there is but very slender doubt in the mind of the American people. But here it is to the purpose to inquire how it came tliat *'Hhe supporters of the RepuUlcan platform of to-day, did not give the administration their hearty s^tpport three years ago ? " Because, knowing the work they had done was in the highest degree criminal, and that, in accomplishing it, they had run great risks, they discovered that, after his inauguration, tlie chief beneficiary of the crime was grievously incommoded by a species of stunted conscience. Even this mitigated form of the ailment has, for some j^ears past, been the " unknown quantity," in the great equation of Republi- can politics. The unexpected solution of the problem in the unelected President disconcerted them. They wanted to have him body and soul, and therefore insisted on the excision of this, to them, mental or moral tumor. The patient was obstinate and the physicians deserted him. After having used this amiable but colorless nullity for tlie fuithei-- ance of their designs, tliey shrank from him as soon as the discovery was made that he had a " conscience," of what de- gree of tenuity soever it might be. Conscience was the one instrument discarded by them in elevating him ; how then would they allow him to use it as a weapon against them now \ This is why the actual props of the Republican plat- form gave the present incumbent of the White House no sup- port at the outset of his administration; this is why they have never fully countenanced him, and wliy to day he excites the pity of magnanimous opponents, avIio see in liini a tool disdainfully thrown aside by the ^\feio iiidiDkludls'^ who have used him, and that without even the mention of his name. This is why they boldly defy him, and, in the teeth of his Civil Service Reform professions, levy an oppressive tax on every officeholder in the country, he, meanwhile, a power- less spectator of this tyranny, wrought to secure, as Mr. Evarts tersely puts it, the success of a few individuals. 26 It is an evil thing to be leagued with wrong-doers, especially when the aggrieved party is a nation nerved to smite. And although the great advocate of the Electoral Commis- sion will, as he says, '"contribute in due time his voice toward the victory," whicli the Republican nominees are to achieve in November (always Mr. Evarts), he would nevertheless do well to bear in mind that the victory in which he sees simply the " success of a few individuals^'''' has to be borne to those who win it on the voice of the majority of the American peo- ple. Have his ^'■feio individuals'" fully counted this time with that great constituency 'i '•J TWO PICTURES. III. Those who directed the conspiracy by which the popular vote was overthrown in 1876, as well as the managers generally of the Republican party, are reputed to be men of uncommon political sagacity and fertility of resource. Unless blind to the signs of the times, and deaf to the omi- nous mutterings borne to them in divers shapes and ways, but chiefly through the press, they must long ago have made up their minds that the j)resent election was no common emer- gency to their party. They well knew that the betrayed vic- tors in the last election would arraign them for, and make a crucial issue of, the violence wrought against the popular will at the last election. As sagacious men, they would natu- rally be expected to cast about for some means of relieving the "party" from the stress of public opinion which would surely bear it down, if not diverted; as men of resource, they would presumably endeavor to effect that diversion by an exclusive ax)peal to the strongest side of their four years' ad- ministration (by whatever means the success of the few indl- mduals had been attained) and by selecting for the suffrages of the nation the man of the very cleanest record to be found in their party. Of the former of these two things, their appeal ad honum puMicitm, due notice has been taken. 2S The opportunit}^ to do the latter offered itself to them at Chicago. Singularly enough, however, the names most prominently brought before them were those of General Grant, Senator Blaine and Secretary Sherman. In selecting the second of these candidates, the Republican "party" would have ]^ut forward a pronounced and tiery partisan, but withal a kind of statesman. For reasons previously given, however, no candidate, how- ever good, put forward by the Republican managers, could, with any show of right, claim the support of the Republican voters. The plain duty of these voters lay in putting (hefew individuals (of whose success Mr. Evarts makes the sole Q'alson d^etre of an election to consist) out of office as traitors to the whole people. Still if a form had to be gone through, Mr. Blaine was certainly the best man to bear the honors of the ceremony. The third term idea and the stupendous rascality of General Grant's subordinates during his terms of office, rendered it un- desirable to project him into the campaign. Secretaiy Sherman's financial ability inclined a large pro- portion of the business men of the country towards him. But he was deeply involved in tliose transactions which placed Mr. Hayes in the White House, and himself in the United States Treasury. Here the opportunity offers to do Secretary Sherman justice in another direction. For this purpose a slight digression is necessary. Mr. Sherman's skill in the realm of finance serves only to throw into relief his obtuseness elsewhere. In a dropsical speech made at Washington on the 19th o August, after attempting, to revive the already buried war- feeling of North against South, he draws a contrast between the RejDublican and Democratic candidates. 29 Of the former lie says : ''he sprang from the people." How could General Garfield liel]) that ? '' He was educated in a hard school." That special kind of academic cursus would certainly have been dispensed with if either General Garfield or his jmrents could have avoided it. Otherwise, if this fortuitous kind of training be so distinct a claim on popular favor, why does not the Secretary recommend the man zoJio hetrayed him at Chicago to bring up his sons as canal -boat boys? And why not abolish the public school system of education ? Again, Mr. Sherman informs the country that the Republi- can nominee "has pushed his way onward until he now occupies a i^iace of the greatest distinction." If by "place of the greatest distinction"' be meant the position of Republican candidate for the presidency, Mr. Garfield does undoubtedly occupy it ; but that j^osition he holds b}' having betrayed and sacrificed Mr. Sherman's own very self at Chicago. One cannot but admire the sturdy fortitude, worthy a better cause, with which Mr. Sherman lent his palate to all the bitterness which the enforced utterance of these words must have brought him. But the popular feeling on that point will be somewhat attenuated by the reflection that the "leek" had been previously tendered to Mi-. Sherman by the Hon. Roscoe Conkling, first in the person of Governor Cornell, and, secondly, in the nomination of Chester A. Arthur, and that, on both occasions, this historic luit unsavory esculent had been manfully swallowed by him to the last fibre ! jSTow, if by "distinction" be meant anything other than what has just been hinted, then it must be observed that the term "distinction" is one of great latitude andelasticit}^ TlK^e is a "distinction" which carries with it a measure of honorable 30 fame. There is also a "distinction" coupled in the minds of upright men with the idea of ill-reeking notoriety — even of infamy. To which of these does the Secretary refer in the case of his betrayer ? The Secretary having, for the nonce, assumed the role of portrait-painter in ordinary to the "/eio indim duals.'' must needs essay a likeness of the illustrious man, to whom the great call of his country has come unsought, and in whose hands her tlag has been gloriously upheld, from the time when, as a stripling, he first faced her foes on the bloody fields of Mexico, to the day when he shattered the array of her doughtiest antagonist on the hills of Gettysburg. The Republican financier first studies him from an economic point of view, and discovers that he has been "fed at the public expense." This from a man who has stood at the public crib as long as John Sherman, is the climax of self-scourging. What have the officers and soldiers of the United States Army to say to the concentrated meanness which could give voice to an utterance such as that ? Is there not another conspicuous soldier who has also under- gone this military suckling, as it were, at the public breast ? Can he be au}^ relative of John Sherman? He bears the same name ; has borne it well hitherto, and will bear it still better when he lays before the eye of the nation those letters of his which drew from the unsullied Democratic soldier such high- mettled, patriotic response. Now comes the honne-houche. ' '//, ' ' says the great utilitarian Secretary, " 7^e would desert tlie Democratic party ^ against which he had fought for four years, the Re-publicans loould elect Mm to some responsible offi.ce.'''' In presence of the unvarnished baseness which could prof- fer such a bribe, to so illustrious a commander, with such conditions attached, criticism itself recoils. 31 To resume the thread of the narrative. The straggle be- tween the Grant and Blaine men was so determined and protracted, and so slender the apparent possibility of either solution or compromise, the complimentary vote given to Secretary Sherman so large, that it was fairly open to the managers to have gone over to a capable and stainless can- didate if such could be found. This was their opportunity. Instead of embracing it, they cast their votes for the very man who had, in 1876, been fore- most in defeating the will of the people, and in fastening upon the honored title of President of the United States the scan- dal, the shame, and the stain of fraud ; the man in whose person is epitomized the history of the whole series of infamous transactions which resulted in the overthrow of tlie popular vote and the seating of an unelected President in the chair of Washington. Were the nominee of the Republican managers the best Republican in the Avorld, the argument for his exclusion from the presidency, in order that the popular will might he vindicated, which was outraged by his party in 1876, would still be overwhelming. Supposing the one great issue absent from this election, namely, the vindication of the principle that the voice of the majority shall j)revail, it might then be needful to closely scrutinize the character of candidates in order to determine a choice. But for the purposes of this argument it is unnecessary to inquire whether the terrible stains which are said to rest on Mr. Garfield's character exist in the full measure currently given them. It is fairer to him, as a candi- date already overweighted, to let him take his chance with the American people (and among them, more especially, with honorable Republican voters, unhampered by what is aptly termed "the machine"), on the broad basis of the issue raised in this paper. Sinkine: for a moment the consideration of this issue it re- 32 mains to be seen in what shape and with what manner of standard-bearer the party whose rights were wrested from them in 1876 now come before the nation. Among the many distinguished and honorable names pro- posed at the Cincinnati Convention, there were some eminent ones. Chief among these was that of the rightful President of the United States, Samuel J. Tilden. His conspicuous acquirements, his great services to his own state of New York, his generally acknowledged pre-eminence, apart from the fact that he had, as the phrase goes, been counted out at the election of 1876, which made him the lawful President, pointed to him as the man who would in all likelihood receive the largest vote of his party. Advancing years and failing health urged him positively to decline a renomination. Who then should carry high the banner of the nation smit- ten on the cheek in 1876 ? The question was soon answered. There sprung into life among the delegates one of those quickening instincts which, now and again in moments when high resolve is needed, are apt to sway the decision of even great minds rather than the tardy outcome of labored thouglit. Tlie spirit of nn ex- pectant nation, with arm nerved and uplifted to strike for its greatest right, was upon them. That nation wanted to-day no mere party tool init forward simply to do the behests of those placing him in power ; its voice called in miglity tones for one ui^on whom no party could have a claim save only the party represented in tlie whole body of the people. It would, this time at least, luive a man without i'les^ without fear, without stain, to lead it. Those to whom fell the great duty of making the choice, gave the nation this man in the person of Winfield Scott Hancock. Is there cause for wonder that men of all parties greeted his name with loud acclaim I or, that at its sound a sudden fear swept into the hearts of those who for four years had been the impersonation of violence done to the 33 majesty of the people ? or tliat there was seen in the ranks of the Republican voters all over the land, a loosening such as betokens a break in columns on a battle-field i No ! room for surprise there is none. For the record of his life is one unbroken story of stern per- formance of duly, unstained honor, sti-ict probity, high achievement in battle for the whole Union, magnanimous treat- ment of the vanquished — his j-ebellious brothers, but still his brothers — and lastly, profound resj^ect for the laws and con- stitution, in presence of which he sheathed his sword, when an almost absolute command made him responsible to him- self alone for his acts, and when higher authority, before which he quailed not in upholding the rights of a vanquished people, would have had that sword still unsheathed, stretching out his merciful hands over that people — the first to proclaim in tlie face of the victorious North, still heated from the dread- ful conflict, their inalienable rights as American citizens. By a strange stroke of fate, the man who, because of this signal service to the cause of freedom and country, denuinded his dismissal from the United States armv, is now soliciting the suffrages of the nation as liis Republican antagonist in the impending presidential election.* What wonder that the name of Hancock has spread dismay, as though an ague, through the ranks of those who dread, but can neither despise nor hate him ? What wonder if the unsullied lustre of a life's history sucli as his, should dazzle and bewilder those beyond whose power it lies to dim or tarnish it ? Verily, the day of the nation, the nation's man, and witli them the hour of retribution have come ! And now, forsooth, having despaired of finding even a speck upon the escutcheon of the people's leadei', those * For full details of Mr. Garfield's action in the premises see Appendix. 34 wlio cling to power witli tlie grip of the drowning have discovered that the President of the United States ought to be a statesman, and one learned in constitutional law ! It is, and will remain, one of General Hancock's chief rec- ommendations, that he has never been a statesman, in the sense of party managers, viz. : a politician. But if the word statesman be meant to import one who, knowing the constitution of his country, has championed it aloud when others similarly situated dared not uplift their voice ; if, to be a statesman means to be one who, in memor- able circumstances, chose to incur the high disi^leasure of those eager to disregard it rather than to shut his ears to its com- mands, then General Hancock is a statesman in an exalted sense of the term. At any rate, he appears to be quite states- man enough for the great majority of the American people. As to the President of the United States being equipped with a profound knowledge of constitutional law — this claim, coming from the men wlio advance it, does not lack a certain spice of the amusing. A party which was content for eight years with the amount of that commodity discoverable in the brain of General Grant, and which viewed with complacency the several ex- ceedingly constitutional acts to which its jDossession urged him, especially in the Southern states, ought not to be too fastidious ! The more especially so, as, at Chicago, they showed them- selves tolerably willing to accept that same amount of the commodity from him for a further term of four years. How far the mind of the harmless gentleman whom the Republican managers have so rudely and ignominiously dis- carded may be impregnated with this indispensable legal quintessence it is bootless here to inquire. That amiable weakling should be allowed to retire unmo- lested from his usurped position, and during the remnant of his term be given a chance to recover from the atmosphere in which he has been forced to live. No ! the truth is, the American people are neitlier in quest of profound statesmen of the type furnished by the Republi- can "party" for their work in the Soutliern States, nor of men widely acquainted with constitutional law, as under- stood CO by General Grant and the foremost promoter of the usurpation of 1876; they are just at present seeking- for nothing ; they are merely waiting for the early days of November, when they will vindicate their chief right as freemen, and put in the highest place of the nation truth, honor, j^robity, valor and reverence for the laws and consti- tution in the person of General Winfield Scott Hancock. .a^ff:eiii<»R. COI'YKHJII IKI). ISSi). NKW Vi.iii;>n -. I'lihlislur. UK N.i-s.ill Sr NOW READY. Single Copies. Tlie Honest American Voter's Little (^ateelvism for 1880. F>y IMvthe Harding, 10c. Duty of tlie People in November I IN^ext. By J. DelatieldTrenor, 15c. I The Same in German, - - 15c. j ! ]jife of (xeneral Hancock. i P>y (). (\ Gardiner, - 15c. Publislied and foi' Sale by JOHX. POLHEMIIS, 102 Xassan Street, >' LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 789 896 2 # 11 i\''l!.' .';'»'"■'' ij". Vi^i^Kt^i:.^^^^!^^- mmmmWi mm wfAH-