Section 1. All Men Are by Nature Free and Independent, and Have Certain

inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and defending property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

* * * * *

SEC. 17. Foreigners who are or who may hereafter become bona fide residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment, and inheritance of property, as native-born citizens.

In the Revised Statutes, section 1999, Congress in the most solemn manner declare that the right of expatriation is beyond the lawful control of government:

SEC. 1999. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and

Whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship.

This is a re-enactment, in part, of the statute of 1868, of which Mr. Conness, then a California Senator, of Irish birth, was, if not the author, the chief advocate.

The California Senator called up the bill day after day. The bill originally provided that the President might order the arrest and detention in custody of “any subject or citizen of such foreign government” as should arrest and detain any naturalized citizen of the United States under the claim that he still remained subject to his allegiance to his native sovereign. This gave rise to debate.

But there was no controversy about the part of the bill which I have read. The preamble is as follows:

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for the protection of which the Government of the United States was established; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations and vested them with the rights of citizenship, &c.

Mr. Howard declares that—

The absolute right of expatriation is the great leading American principle.

Mr. Morton says:

That a man’s right to withdraw from his native country and make his home in another, and thus cut himself off from all connection with his native country, is a part of his natural liberty, and without that his liberty is defective. We claim that the right to liberty is a natural, inherent, God-given right, and his liberty is imperfect unless it carries with it the right of expatriation.

The bill containing the preamble above recited passed the Senate by a vote of 39 to 5.

The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from the one country to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents.

“The bill which passed Congress two years ago and was vetoed by President Hayes, the treaty of 1881, and the bill now before the Senate, have the same origin and are parts of the same measure. Two years ago it was proposed to exclude Chinese laborers from our borders, in express disregard of our solemn treaty obligations. This measure was arrested by President Hayes. The treaty of 1881 extorted from unwilling China her consent that we might regulate, limit, or suspend the coming of Chinese laborers into this country—a consent of which it is proposed by this bill to take advantage. This is entitled “A bill to enforce treaty stipulations with China.”

“It seems necessary in discussing the statute briefly to review the history of the treaty. First let me say that the title of this bill is deceptive. There is no stipulation of the treaty which the bill enforces. The bill where it is not inconsistent with the compact only avails itself of a privilege which that concedes. China only relaxed the Burlingame treaty so far as to permit us to ‘regulate, limit, or suspend the coming or residence’ of Chinese laborers, ‘but not absolutely to prohibit it.’ The treaty expressly declares ‘such limitation or suspension shall be reasonable.’ But here is proposed a statute which for twenty years, under the severest penalties, absolutely inhibits the coming of Chinese laborers to this country. The treaty pledges us not absolutely to prohibit it. The bill is intended absolutely to prohibit it.

“The second article of the treaty is this:

“Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as traders, students, or merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers, who are now in the United States, shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nations.

“Yet it is difficult to believe that the complex and cumbrous passport system provided in the last twelve sections of the bill was not intended as an evasion of this agreement. Upon what other nation, favored or not, is such a burden imposed? This is the execution of a promise that they may come and go ‘of their own free will.’

“What has happened within thirteen years that the great Republic should strike its flag? What change has come over us that we should eat the bravest and the truest words we ever spoke? From 1858 to 1880 there was added to the population of the country 42,000 Chinese.

“I give a table from the census of 1880 showing the Chinese population of each State:

Statement showing the Chinese population in each State and Territory, according to the United States censuses of 1870 and of 1880.

Alabama 4 Alaska Arizona 20 1,630 Arkansas 98 134 California 49,310 75,025 Colorado 7 610 Connecticut 2 124 Dakota 238 Delaware 1 District of Columbia 3 13 Florida 18 Georgia 1 17 Idaho 4,274 3,378 Illinois 1 210 Indiana 33 Iowa 3 47 Kansas 19 Kentucky 1 10 Louisiana 71 481 Maine 1 9 Maryland 2 5 Massachusetts 97 237 Michigan 2 27 Minnesota 53 Mississippi 16 52 Missouri 3 94 Montana 1,949 1,764 Nebraska 18 Nevada 3,152 5,420 New Hampshire 14 New Jersey 15 176 New Mexico 55 New York 29 924 North Carolina Ohio 1 114 Oregon 3,330 9,513 Pennsylvania 14 160 Rhode Island 27 South Carolina 1 9 Tennessee 26 Texas 25 141 Utah 445 501 Vermont Virginia 4 6 Washington 234 3,182 West Virginia 14 Wisconsin 16 Wyoming 143 914 —————— ——————— Total 63,254 105,463

“By the census of 1880 the number of Chinese in this country was 105,000—one five-hundredth part of the whole population. The Chinese are the most easily governed race in the world. Yet every Chinaman in America has four hundred and ninety-nine Americans to control him.

The immigration was also constantly decreasing for the last half of the decade. The Bureau of Statistics gives the numbers as follows, (for the first eight years the figures are those of the entire Asiatic immigration:)

The number of immigrants from Asia, as reported by the United States Bureau of Statistics is as follows, namely:

1871 7,236 1872 7,825 1873 20,326 1874 13,857 1875 16,498 1876 22,943 1877 10,640 1878 9,014 ——————— Total 108,339

And from China for the year ended June 30—

1879 9,604 1880 5,802 ————— Total 15,406 ——————— Grand Total 123,745

“See also, Mr. President, how this class of immigrants, diminishing in itself, diminishes still more in its proportion to the rapidly increasing numbers who come from other lands. Against 22,943 Asiatic immigrants in 1876, there are but 5,802 in 1880. In 1878 there were 9,014 from Asia, in a total of 153,207, or one in seventeen of the entire immigration; and this includes all persons who entered the port of San Francisco to go to any South American country. In 1879 there were 9,604 from China in a total of 250,565, or one in twenty-six. In 1880 there were 5,802 from China in a total immigration of 593,359, or one in one hundred and two. The whole Chinese population, then, when the census of 1880 was taken, was but one in five hundred of our people. The whole Chinese immigration was but one in one hundred and two of the total immigration; while the total annual immigration quadrupled from 1878 to 1880, the Chinese was in 1880 little more than one-half what it was in 1878, and one-fourth what it was in 1876.

“The number of immigrants of all nations was 720,045 in 1881. Of these 20,711 were Chinese. There is no record in the Bureau of Statistics of the number who departed within the year. But a very high anti-Chinese authority places it above 10,000. Perhaps the expectation that the hostile legislation under the treaty would not affect persons who entered before it took effect stimulated somewhat their coming. But the addition to the Chinese population was less than one seventy-second of the whole immigration. All the Chinese in the country do not exceed the population of its sixteenth city. All the Chinese in California hardly surpass the number which is easily governed in Shanghai by a police of one hundred men. There are as many pure blooded Gypsies wandering about the country as there are Chinese in California. What an insult to American intelligence to ask leave of China to keep out her people, because this little handful of almond-eyed Asiatics threaten to destroy our boasted civilization. We go boasting of our democracy, and our superiority, and our strength. The flag bears the stars of hope to all nations. A hundred thousand Chinese land in California and everything is changed. God has not made of one blood all the nations any longer. The self-evident truth becomes a self-evident lie. The golden rule does not apply to the natives of the continent where it was first uttered. The United States surrender to China, the Republic to the despot, America to Asia, Jesus to Joss.

“There is another most remarkable example of this prejudice of race which has happily almost died out here, which has come down from the dark ages and which survives with unabated ferocity in Eastern Europe. I mean the hatred of the Jew. The persecution of the Hebrew has never, so far as I know, taken the form of an affront to labor. In every other particular the reproaches which for ten centuries have been leveled at him are reproduced to do service against the Chinese. The Hebrew, so it was said, was not a Christian. He did not affiliate or assimilate into the nations where he dwelt. He was an unclean thing, a dog, to whom the crime of the crucifixion of his Saviour was never to be forgiven. The Chinese quarter of San Francisco had its type in every city of Europe. If the Jew ventured from his hiding-place he was stoned. His wealth made him the prey of the rapacity of the noble, and his poverty and weakness the victim of the rabble. Yet how has this Oriental conquered Christendom by the sublimity of his patience? The great poet of New England, who sits by every American fireside a beloved and perpetual guest, in that masterpiece of his art, the Jewish Cemetery at Newport, has described the degradation and the triumph of these persecuted children of God.

How came they here? What burst of Christian hate, What persecution, merciless and blind, Drove o’er the sea—that desert desolate— These Ishmaels and Hagars of mankind? They lived in narrow streets and lanes obscure, Ghetto and Judenstrass, in mirk and mire; Taught in the school of patience to endure The life of anguish and the death of fire.

· · · · ·

Anathema maranatha! was the cry That rang from town to town, from street to street; At every gate the accursed Mordecai Was mocked and jeered, and spurned by Christian feet.

Pride and humiliation hand in hand Walked with them through the world where’er they went; Trampled and beaten were they as the sand, And yet unshaken as the continent.

Forty years ago— Says Lord Beaconsfield, that great Jew who held England in the hollow of his hand, and who played on her aristocracy as on an organ, who made himself the master of an alien nation, its ruler, its oracle, and through it, and in despite of it, for a time the master of Europe—

Forty years ago—not a longer period than the children of Israel were wandering in the desert—the two most dishonored races in Europe were the Attic and the Hebrew. The world has probably by this discovered that it is impossible to destroy the Jews. The attempt to extirpate them has been made under the most favorable auspices and on the largest scale; the most considerable means that man could command have been pertinaciously applied to this object for the longest period of recorded time. Egyptian Pharaohs, Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, Scandinavian crusaders, Gothic princes, and holy inquisitors, have alike devoted their energies to the fulfillment of this common purpose. Expatriation, exile, captivity, confiscation, torture on the most ingenious and massacre on the most extensive scale, a curious system of degrading customs and debasing laws which would have broken the heart of any other people, have been tried, and in vain.

“Lord Beaconsfield admits that the Jews contribute more than their proportion to the aggregate of the vile; that the lowest class of Jews are obdurate, malignant, odious, and revolting. And yet this race of dogs, as it has been often termed in scorn, furnishes Europe to-day its masters in finance and oratory and statesmanship and art and music. Rachel, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Disraeli, Rothschild, Benjamin, Heine, are but samples of the intellectual power of a race which to-day controls the finance and the press of Europe.

“I do not controvert the evidence which is relied upon to show that there are great abuses, great dangers, great offenses, which have grown out of the coming of this people. Much of the evil I believe might be cured by State and municipal authority. Congress may rightfully be called upon to go to the limit of the just exercise of the powers of government in rendering its aid.

“We should have capable and vigilant consular officers in the Asiatic ports from which these immigrants come, without whose certificate they should not be received on board ship, and who should see to it that no person except those of good character and no person whose labor is not his own property be allowed to come over. Especially should the trade in human labor under all disguises be suppressed. Filthy habits of living must surely be within the control of municipal regulation. Every State may by legislation or by municipal ordinance in its towns and cities prescribe the dimension of dwellings and limit the number who may occupy the same tenement.

“But it is urged—and this in my judgment is the greatest argument for the bill—that the introduction of the labor of the Chinese reduces the wages of the American laborer. ‘We are ruined by Chinese cheap labor’ is a cry not limited to the class to whose representative the brilliant humorist of California first ascribed it. I am not in favor of lowering any where the wages of any American labor, skilled or unskilled. On the contrary, I believe the maintenance and the increase of the purchasing power of the wages of the American working man should be the one principal object of our legislation. The share in the product of agriculture or manufacture which goes to labor should, and I believe will, steadily increase. For that, and for that only, exists our protective system. The acquisition of wealth, national or individual, is to be desired only for that. The statement of the accomplished Senator from California on this point meets my heartiest concurrence. I have no sympathy with any men, if such there be, who favor high protection and cheap labor.

“But I believe that the Chinese, to whom the terms of the California Senator attribute skill enough to displace the American in every field requiring intellectual vigor, will learn very soon to insist on his full share of the product of his work. But whether that be true or not, the wealth he creates will make better and not worse the condition of every higher class of labor. There may be trouble or failure in adjusting new relations. But sooner or later every new class of industrious and productive laborers elevates the class it displaces. The dread of an injury to our labor from the Chinese rests on the same fallacy that opposed the introduction of labor-saving machinery, and which opposed the coming of the Irishman and the German and the Swede. Within my memory in New England all the lower places in factories, all places of domestic service, were filled by the sons and daughters of American farmers. The Irishmen came over to take their places; but the American farmer’s son and daughter did not suffer; they were only elevated to a higher plane. In the increased wealth of the community their share is much greater. The Irishman rose from the bog or the hovel of his native land to the comfort of a New England home, and placed his children in a New England school. The Yankee rises from the loom and the spinning-jenny to be the teacher, the skilled laborer in the machine shop, the inventor, the merchant, or the opulent landholder and farmer of the West.”

* * * * *

A letter from F. A. Bee, Chinese Consul, approving the management of the estate, accompanied the report of the referee:

“Mr. President, I will not detain the Senate by reading the abundant testimony, of which this is but the sample, of the possession by the people of this race of the possibility of a development of every quality of intellect, art, character, which fits them for citizenship, for republicanism, for Christianity.

“Humanity, capable of infinite depths of degradation, is capable also of infinite heights of excellence. The Chinese, like all other races, has given us its examples of both. To rescue humanity from this degradation is, we are taught to believe, the great object of God’s moral government on earth. It is not by injustice, exclusion, caste, but by reverence for the individual soul that we can aid in this consummation. It is not by Chinese policies that China is to be civilized. I believe that the immortal truths of the Declaration of Independence came from the same source with the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount. We can trust Him who promulgated these laws to keep the country safe that obeys them. The laws of the universe have their own sanction. They will not fail. The power that causes the compass to point to the north, that dismisses the star on its pathway through the skies, promising that in a thousand years it shall return again true to its hour and keep His word, will vindicate His own moral law. As surely as the path on which our fathers entered a hundred years ago led to safety, to strength, to glory, so surely will the path on which we now propose to enter ring us to shame, to weakness, and to peril.”

On the 3d of March the debate was renewed. Senator Farley protested that unless Chinese immigration is prohibited it will be impossible to protect the Chinese on the Pacific coast. The feeling against them now is such that restraint is difficult, as the people, forced out of employment by them, and irritated by their constantly increasing numbers, are not in a condition to submit to the deprivations they suffer by the presence of a Chinese population imported as slaves and absorbing to their own benefit the labor of the country. A remark of Mr. Farley about the Chinese led Mr. Hoar to ask if they were not the inventors of the printing press and of gunpowder. To this question Mr. Jones, of Nevada, made a brief speech, which was considered remarkable, principally because it was one of the very few speeches of any length that he has made since he became a Senator. Instead of agreeing with Mr. Hoar that the Chinese had invented the printing press and gunpowder, he said that information he had received led him to believe that the Chinese were not entitled to the credit of either of these inventions. On the contrary, they had stolen them from Aryans or Caucasians who wandered into the kingdom. Mr. Hoar smiled incredulously and made a remark to the effect that he had never heard of those Aryans or Caucasians before.

Continuing his remarks, Mr. Farley expressed his belief that should the Mongolian population increase and the Chinese come in contact with the Africans, the contact would result in demoralization and bloodshed which the laws could not prevent. Pig-tailed Chinamen would take the place everywhere of the working girl unless Congress extended its protection to California and her white people, who had by their votes demanded a prohibition of Chinese immigration. Mr. Maxey, interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to bring out of it an argument against Chinese immigration, said he found nothing in it to justify the conclusion that the framers of it intended to bring into this country all nations and races. The only people the fathers had in view as citizens were those of the Caucasian race, and they contemplated naturalization only for such, for they had distinctly set forth that the heritage of freedom was to be for their posterity. Nobody would pretend to express the opinion that it was expected that the American people should become mixed up with all sorts of races and call the result “our posterity.” While the American people had, in consequence of their Anglo-Saxon origin, been able to withstand the contact with the African, the Africans would never stand before the Chinese. Mr. Maxey opposed the Chinese because they do not come here to be citizens, because the lower classes of Chinese alone are immigrants, and because by contact they poison the minds of the less intelligent.

Mr. Saulsbury had something to say in favor of the bill, and Mr. Garland, who voted against the last bill because the treaty had not been modified, expressed his belief that the Government could exercise properly all the powers proposed to be bestowed by this bill. Some time was consumed by Mr. Ingalls in advocacy of an amendment offered by him, proposing to limit the suspension of immigration to 10 instead of 20 years. Mr. Miller and Mr. Bayard opposed the amendment, Mr. Bayard taking the ground that Congress ought not to disregard the substantially unanimous wish of the people of California, as expressed at the polls, for absolute prohibition. The debate was interrupted by a motion for an executive session, and the bill went over until Monday, to be taken up then as the unfinished business.

On March 6th a vote was ordered on Senator Ingalls’ amendment. It was defeated on a tie vote—yeas 23, nays 23.

The vote in detail is as follows:

Yeas—Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Brown, Cockrell, Conger, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Harris, Hoar, Ingalls, Jackson, Lapham, McDill, McMillan, Mitchell, Morrell, Saunders, Sewell, Sherman and Teller—23.

Nays—Messrs. Bayard, Beck, Call, Cameron of Wisconsin, Coke, Fair, Farley, Garland, George, Hale, Hampton, Hill of Colorado, Jonas, Jones of Nevada, McPherson, Marcy, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Ransom, Slater, Vest and Walker—23.

Pairs were announced between Davis, of West Virginia, Saulsbury, Butler, Johnson, Kellogg, Jones, of Florida, and Grover, against the amendment, and Messrs. Windom, Ferry, Hawley, Platt, Pugh, Rollins and Van Wyck in the affirmative. Mr. Camden was also paired.

Mr. Edmunds, partially in reply to Mr. Hoar argued that the right to decide what constitutes the moral law was one inherent in the Government, and by analogy the right to regulate the character of the people who shall come into it belonged to a Government. This depended upon national polity and the fact as to most of the ancient republics that they did not possess homogeneity was the cause of their fall. As to the Swiss Republic, it was untrue that it was not homogeneous. The difference there was not one of race but of different varieties of the same race, all of which are analogous and consistent with each other. It would not be contended that it is an advantage to a republic that its citizens should be made of diverse races, with diverse views and diverse obligations as to what the common prosperity of all required. Therefore there was no foundation for the charge of a violation of moral and public law in our making a distinction as to the foreigners we admit. He challenged Mr. Hoar to produce an authority on national law which denied the right of one nation to declare what people of other nations should come among them. John Hancock and Samuel Adams, not unworthy citizens of Massachusetts, joined in asserting in the Declaration of Independence the right of the colonies to establish for themselves, not for other peoples, a Government of their own, not the Government of somebody else. The declaration asserted the family or consolidated right of a people within any Territory to determine the conditions upon which they would go on, and this included the matter of receiving the people from other shores into their family. This idea was followed in the Constitution by requiring naturalization. The Chinaman may be with us, but he is not of us. One of the conditions of his naturalization is that he must be friendly to the institutions and intrinsic polity of our Government. Upon the theory of the Massachusetts Senators, that there is a universal oneness of one human being with every other human being on the globe, this traditional and fundamental principle was entirely ignored. Such a theory as applied to Government was contrary to all human experience, to all discussion, and to every step of the founders of our Government. He said that Mr. Sumner, the predecessor of Mr. Hoar, was the author of the law on the coolie traffic, which imposes fines and penalties more severe than those in this bill upon any master of an American vessel carrying a Chinaman who is a servant. The present bill followed that legislation. Mr. Edmunds added that he would vote against the bill if the twenty-year clause was retained, but would maintain the soundness of principle he had enunciated.

Mr. Hoar argued in reply that the right of expatriation carried with it the right to a home for the citizen in the country to which he comes, and that the bill violated not only this but the principles of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments which made citizenship the birthright of every one born on our soil, and prohibited an abridgement of the suffrage because of race, color, etc.

Mr. Ingalls moved an amendment postponing the time at which the act shall take effect until sixty days after information of its passage has been communicated to China.

After remarks by Messrs. Dawes, Teller and Bayard, at the suggestion of Mr. Brown Mr. Ingalls modified his amendment by providing that the act shall not go into effect until ninety days after its passage, and the amendment was adopted.

On motion of Mr. Bayard, amendments were adopted making the second section read as follows: “That any master of any vessel of whatever nationality, who shall knowingly on such vessel bring within the jurisdiction of the United States and permit to be landed any Chinese laborer,” &c.

Mr. Hoar moved to amend by adding the following: “Provided, that this bill shall not apply to any skilled laborer who shall establish that he comes to this country without any contract beyond which his labor is the property of any person besides himself.”

Mr. Farley suggested that all the Chinese would claim to be skilled laborers.

Mr. Hoar replied that it would test whether the bill struck at coolies or at skilled labor.

The amendment was rejected—Yeas, 17; nays, 27.

Mr. Call moved to strike out the section which forfeits the vessel for the offense of the master. Lost.

Mr. Hoar moved to amend by inserting: “Provided that any laborer who shall receive a certificate from the U.S. Consul at the port where he shall embark that he is an artisan coming to this country at his own expense and of his own will, shall not be affected by this bill.” Lost—yeas 19, nays 24.

On motion of Mr. Miller, of California, the provision directing the removal of any Chinese unlawfully found in a Customs Collection district by the Collector, was amended to direct that he shall be removed to the place from whence he came.

On motion of Mr. Brown an amendment was adopted providing that the mark of a Chinese immigrant, duly attested by a witness, may be taken as his signature upon the certificate of resignation or registration issued to him.

The question then recurred on the amendment offered by Mr. Farley that hereafter no State Court or United States Court shall admit Chinese to citizenship.

Mr. Hawley, of Conn., on the following day spoke against what he denounced as “a bill of iniquities.”

On the 9th of March what proved a long and interesting debate was closed, the leading speech being made by Senator Jones (Rep.) of Nevada, in favor of the bill. After showing the disastrous effects of the influx of the Chinese upon the Pacific coast and answering some of the arguments of the opponents of restriction, Mr. Jones said that he had noticed that most of those favoring Chinese immigration were advocates of a high tariff to protect American labor. But, judging from indications, it is not the American laborer, but the lordly manufacturing capitalist who is to be protected as against the European capitalist, and who is to sell everything he has to sell in an American market, one in which other capitalists cannot compete with him, while he buys that which he has to buy—the labor of men—in the most open market. He demands for the latter free trade in its broadest sense, and would have not only free trade in bringing in laborers of our own race, but the Chinese, the most skilful and cunning laborers of the world. The laborer, however, is to buy from his capitalist master in a protective market, but that which he himself has to sell, his labor, and which he must sell every day (for he cannot wait, like the capitalist, for better times or travel here and there to dispose of it), he must sell in the openest market of the world. When the artisans of this country shall be made to understand that the market in which they sell the only thing they have to sell is an open one they will demand, as one of the conditions of their existence, that they shall have an open market in which to buy what they want. As the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Dawes) said he wanted the people to know that the bill was a blow struck at labor, Mr. Jones said he reiterated the assertion with the qualification that it was not a blow at our own, but at underpaid pauper labor. That cheap labor produces national wealth is a fallacy, as shown by the home condition of the 350,000,000 of Chinamen.

“Was the bringing of the little brown man a sort of counter balance to the trades unions of this country? If he may be brought here, why may not the products of his toil come in? Now, when the laborer is allowed to get that share from his labor that civilization has decided he shall have, the little brown man is introduced. He (Mr. Jones) believed in protection, and had no prejudice against the capitalist, but he would have capital and labor equally protected. Enlarging upon the consideration that the intelligence or creative genius of a country in overcoming obstacles, not its material resources, constitutes its wealth, and that the low wages of the Chinese, while benefiting individual employers, would ultimately impoverish the country by removing the stimulant to create labor-saving machinery and like inventions. Mr. Jones spoke of what he called the dearth of intellectual activity in the South in every department but one, that of politics.

“This was because of the presence of a servile race there. The absence of Southern names in the Patent Office is an illustration. We would not welcome the Africans here. Their presence was not a blessing to us, but an impediment in our way. The relations of the white and colored races of the South were now no nearer adjustment than they were years ago. He would prophesy that the African race would never be permitted to dominate any State of the South. The experiment to that end had been a dismal failure, and a failure not because we have not tried to make it succeed, but because laws away above human laws have placed the one race superior to and far above the other. The votes of the ignorant class might preponderate, but intellect, not numbers, is the superior force in this world. We clothed the African in the Union blue and the belief that he was one day to be free was the candle-light in his soul, but it is one thing to aspire to be free and another thing to have the intelligence and sterling qualities of character that can maintain free government. Mr. Jones here expressed his belief that, if left alone to maintain a government, the negro would gradually retrograde and go back to the methods of his ancestors. This, he added, may be heresy, but I believe it to be the truth. If, when the first ship-load of African slaves came to this country the belief had spread that they would be the cause of political agitation, a civil war, and the future had been foreseen, would they have been allowed to land?

“How much of this country would now be worth preserving if the North had been covered by Africans as is South Carolina to-day, in view of their non-assimilative character? The wisest policy would have been to exclude them at the outset. So we say of the Chinese to-day, he exclaimed, and for greater reason, because their skill makes them more formidable competitors than the negro. Subtle and adept in manipulation, the Chinaman can be put into almost any kind of a factory. His race is as obnoxious to us and as impossible for us to assimilate with as was the negro race. His race has outlived every other because it is homogeneous, and for that reason alone. It has imposed its religion and peculiarities upon its conquerors and still lived. If the immigration is not checked now, when it is within manageable limits, it will be too late to check it. What do we find in the condition of the Indian or the African to induce us to admit another race into our midst? It is because the Pacific coast favor our own civilization, not that of another race, that they discourage the coming of these people. They believe in the homogeneity of our race, and that upon this depends the progress of our institutions and everything on which we build our hopes.

Mr. MORILL, (Rep.) of Vt., said he appreciated the necessity of restricting Chinese immigration, but desired that the bill should strictly conform to treaty requirements and be so perfected that questions arising under it might enable it to pass the ordeal of judicial scrutiny.

Mr. SHERMAN, (Rep.) of Ohio, referring to the passport system, said the bill adopted some of the most offensive features of European despotism. He was averse to hot haste in applying a policy foreign to the habits of our people, and regarded the measure as too sweeping in many of its provisions and as reversing our immigration policy.

After remarks by Messrs. Ingalls, Farley, Maxey, Brown and Teller, the amendment of Mr. Farley, which provides that hereafter no court shall admit Chinese to citizenship, was adopted—yeas 25, nays 22.

The following is the vote:

YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Beck, Call, Cameron of Wisconsin, Cockrell, Coke, Fair, Farley, Garland, George, Gorman, Harris, Jackson, Jonas, Jones of Nevada, Maxey, Morgan, Pugh, Ransom, Slater, Teller, Vance, Vest, Voorhees and Walker—25.

NAYS—Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Brown, Conger, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Hill of Colorado, Hoar, Ingalls, Lapham, McDill, McMillan, Miller of New York, Mitchell, Morrill, Plumb, Saunders and Sawyer—22.

Mr. Grover’s amendment construing the words “Chinese laborers,” wherever used in the act, to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining prevailed by the same vote—yeas 25, nays 22.

Mr. BROWN, (Dem.) of Ga., moved to strike out the requirement for the production of passports by the permitted classes whenever demanded by the United States authorities. Carried on a viva voce vote, the Chair (Mr. Davis, of Illinois) creating no little merriment by announcing, “The nays are loud but there are not many of them.”

MR. INGALLS’ AMENDMENT.

Upon the bill being reported to the Senate from the Committee of the Whole Mr. INGALLS again moved to limit the suspension of the coming of Chinese laborers to ten years.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada, said this limit would hardly have the effect of allaying agitation on the subject as the discussion would be resumed in two or three years, and ten years, he feared, would not even be a long enough period to enable Congress intelligently to base upon it any future policy.

Mr. MILLER, of California, also urged that the shorter period would not measurably relieve the business interest of the Pacific slope, inasmuch as the white immigrants, who were so much desired, would not come there if they believed the Chinese were to be again admitted in ten years. Being interrupted by Mr. Hoar, he asserted that that Senator and other republican leaders, as also the last republican nominee for President, had heretofore given the people of the Pacific slope good reason to believe that they would secure to them the relief they sought by the bill.

Mr. HOAR, (Rep.) of Mass., briefly replied.

The amendment was lost—yeas 20, nays 21.

The vote is as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Brown, Conger, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Hoar, Ingalls, Lapham, McDill, McMillan, Mahone, Morrill, Plumb, Sawyer and Teller—20.

NAYS—Messrs. Bayard, Beck, Call, Cameron of Wisconsin, Coke, Fair, Farley, Garland, George, Gorman, Jackson, Jonas, Jones of Nevada, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Ransom, Slater, Yance, Voorhees and Walker—21.

Messrs. Butler, Camden, McPherson, Johnston, Davis of West Virginia, Pendleton and Ransom were paired with Messrs. Hawley, Anthony, Sewell, Platt, Van Wyck, Windom and Sherman.

Messrs. Hampton, Pugh, Vest, Rollins and Jones of Florida were paired with absentees.

PASSAGE OF THE BILL.

The question recurred on the final passage of the bill, and Mr. EDMUNDS closed the debate. He would vote against the bill as it now stood, because he believed it to be an infraction of good faith as pledged by the last treaty; because he believed it injurious to the welfare of the people of the United States, and particularly the people on the Pacific coast, by preventing the development of our great trade with China.

The vote was then taken and the bill was passed—yeas 29, nays 15.

The following is the vote in detail:—

YEAS—Messrs. Bayard, Beck, Call, Cameron of Wisconsin, Cockrell, Coke, Fair, Farley, Garland, George, Gorman, Hale, Harris, Hill of Colorado, Jackson, Jonas, Jones of Nevada, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Pugh, Ransom, Sawyer, Teller, Vance, Vest, Voorhees and Walker—29.

NAYS—Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Brown, Conger, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hoar, Ingalls, Lapham, McDill, McMillan and Morrill—15.

Pairs were announced of Messrs. Camden, Davis of West Virginia, Grover, Hampton, Butler, McPherson, Johnston, Jones of Florida and Pendleton in favor of the bill, with Messrs. Anthony, Windom, Van Wyck, Mitchell, Hawley, Sewell, Platt, Rollins and Sherman against it.

Mr. FRYE, (Rep.) of Me., in casting his vote, stated that he was paired with Mr. Hill, of Georgia, on all political questions, but that he did not consider this a political question, and besides, had express permission from Senator Hill to vote upon it.

Mr. MITCHELL, (Rep.) of Pa., in announcing his pair with Mr. Hampton stated that had it not been for that fact he would vote against the bill, regarding it as un-American and inconsistent with the principles which had obtained in the government.

The title of the bill was amended so as to read, “An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,” though Mr. Hoar suggested that “execute” ought to be stricken out and “violate” inserted.

The Senate then, at twenty minutes to six, adjourned until to-morrow.

PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.

The Chinese Immigration bill as passed provides that from and after the expiration of ninety days after the passage of this act and until the expiration of twenty years after its passage the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States shall be suspended, and prescribes a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding one year and a fine of not more than $500 against the master of any vessel who brings any Chinese laborer to this country during that period. It further provides that the classes of Chinese excepted by the treaty from such prohibition—such as merchants, teachers, students, travelers, diplomatic agents and Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the 17th of November, 1880—shall be required, as a condition for their admission, to procure passports from the government of China personally identifying them and showing that they individually belong to one of the permitted classes, which passports must have been indorsed by the diplomatic representative of the United States in China or by the United States Consul at the port of departure. It also provides elaborate machinery for carrying out the purposes of the act, and additional sections prohibit the admission of Chinese to citizenship by any United States or State court and construes the words “Chinese laborers” to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.

The sentiment in favor of the passage of this bill has certainly greatly increased since the control of the issue has passed to abler hands than those of Kearney and Kalloch, whose conduct intensified the opposition of the East to the measure, which in 1879 was denounced as “violating the conscience of the nation.” Mr. Blaine’s advocacy of the first bill limiting emigrants to fifteen on each vessel, at the time excited much criticism in the Eastern states, and was there a potent weapon against him in the nominating struggle for the Presidency in 1880; but on the other hand it is believed that it gave him strength in the Pacific States.

Chinese immigration and the attempt to restrict it presents a question of the gravest importance, and was treated as such in the Senate debate. The friends of the bill, under the leadership of Senators Miller and Jones, certainly stood in a better and stronger attitude than ever before.

The anti-Chinese bill passed the House just as it came from the Senate, after a somewhat extended debate, on the 23d of March, 1882. Yeas 167, nays 65, (party lines not being drawn) as follows:

Yeas—Messrs. Aikin, Aldrich, Armfield, Atkins, Bayne, Belford, Belmont, Berry, Bingham, Blackburn, Blanchard, Bliss, Blount, Brewer, Brumm, Buckner, Burrows, of Missouri; Butterworth, Cabell, Caldwell, Calkins, Campbell, Cannon, Casserley, Caswell, Chalmers, Chapman, Clark, Clements, Cobb, Converse, Cook, Cornell, Cox, of New York; Cox, of North Carolina; Covington, Cravens, Culbertson, Curtin, Darrell, Davidson; Davis, of Illinois; Davis, of Missouri; Demotte, Deuster, Dezendorf, Dibble, Dibrell, Dowd, Dugro, Ermentrout, Errett, Farwell, of Illinois; Finley, Flowers, Ford, Forney, Fulkerson, Garrison, Geddes, George, Gibson, Guenther, Gunter, Hammond, of Georgia; Hardy, Harmer, Harris, of New Jersey; Haseltine, Hatch, Hazelton, Heilman, Herndon, Hewitt, of New York; Hill, Hiscock, Hoblitzell, Hoge, Hollman, Horr, Houk, House, Hubbell, Hubbs, Hutchins, Jones, of Texas; Jones, of Arkansas; Jorgenson, Kenna, King, Klotz, Knott, Ladd, Leedom, Lewis, Marsh, Martin, Matson, McClure, McCook, McKenzie, McKinley, McLane, McMillan, Miller, Mills, of Texas; Money, Morey, Moulton, Murch, Mutchler, O’Neill, Pacheco, Page, Paul, Payson, Pealse, Phelps, Phister, Pound, Randall, Reagan, Rice of Missouri, Richardson, Robertson, Robinson, Rosecrans, Scranton, Shallenberger, Sherwin, Simonton, Singleton, of Mississippi, Smith of Pennsylvania, Smith of Illinois, Smith of New York, Sparks, Spaulding, Spear, Springer, Stockslager, Strait, Talbott, Thomas, Thompson of Kentucky, Tillman, Townsend of Ohio, Townsend of Illinois, Tucker, Turner of Georgia, Turner of Kentucky, Updegraff, of Ohio, Upson, Valentine, Vance, Van Horn, Warner, Washburne, Webber, Welborn, Whitthorne, Williams of Alabama, Willis, Willetts, Wilson, Wise of Pennsylvania, Wise of Virginia, and W. A. Wood of New York—167.

The nays were Messrs. Anderson, Barr, Bragg, Briggs, Brown, Buck, Camp, Candler, Carpenter, Chase, Crapo, Cullen, Dawes, Deering, Dingley, Dunnell, Dwight, Farwell of Iowa, Grant, Hall, Hammond, of New York, Hardenburgh, Harris, of Massachusetts, Haskell, Hawk, Henderson, Hepburn, Hooker, Humphrey, Jacobs, Jones of New Jersey, Joyce, Kasson, Ketchum, Lord, McCoid, Morse, Norcross, Orth, Parker, Ramsey, Rice of Ohio, Rice of Massachusetts, Rich, Richardson of New York, Ritchie, Robinson of Massachusetts, Russel, Ryan, Shultz, Skinner, Scooner, Stone, Taylor, Thompson of Iowa, Tyler, Updegraff of Iowa, Urner, Wadsworth, Wait, Walker, Ward, Watson, White and Williams of Wisconsin—65.

In the House the debate was participated in by Messrs. Richardson, of South Carolina; Wise and Brumm, of Pennsylvania; Joyce, of Vermont; Dunnell, of Minnesota; Orth, of Indiana; Sherwin, of Illinois; Hazelton, of Wisconsin; Pacheco, of California, and Townsend, of Illinois, and others. An amendment offered by Mr. Butterworth, of Ohio, reducing the period of suspension to fifteen years, was rejected. Messrs. Robinson, of Massachusetts; Curtin, of Pennsylvania, and Cannon, of Illinois, spoke upon the bill, the two latter supporting it. The speech of Ex-Governor Curtin was strong and attracted much attention. Mr. Page closed the debate in favor of the measure. An amendment offered by Mr. Kasson, of Iowa, reducing the time of suspension to ten years, was rejected—yeas 100, nays 131—and the bill was passed exactly as it came from the Senate by a vote of 167 to 65. The House then adjourned.

Our Merchant Marine.

An important current issue is the increase of the Navy and the improvement of the Merchant Marine, and to these questions the National Administration has latterly given attention. The New York Herald has given much editorial ability and research to the advocacy of an immediate change for the better in these respects, and in its issue of March 10th, 1882, gave the proceedings of an important meeting of the members of the United States Naval Institute held at Annapolis the day before, on which occasion a prize essay on the subject—“Our Merchant Marine; the Cause of its Decline and the Means to be Taken for its Revival,” was read. The subject was chosen nearly a year ago, because it was the belief of the members of the institute that a navy cannot exist without a merchant marine. The naval institute was organized in 1873 for the advancement of professional and scientific knowledge in the navy. It has on its roll 500 members, principally naval officers, and its proceedings are published quarterly. Rear Admiral C. R. P. Rodgers is president; Captain J. M. Ramsay, vice president; Lieutenant Commander C. M. Thomas, secretary; Lieutenant Murdock, corresponding secretary, and Paymaster R. W. Allen, treasurer. There were eleven competitors for the prize, which is of $100, and a gold medal valued at $50. The judges were Messrs. Hamilton Fish, A. A. Low and J. D. Jones. They awarded the prize to Lieutenant J. D. J. Kelley, U. S. N., whose motto was “Nil Clarius Æquore,” and designated Master C. T. Calkins, U. S. N., whose motto was “Mais il faut cultiver notre jardin” as next in the order of merit, and further mentioned the essays of Lieutenant R. Wainwright, United States Navy, whose motto was “Causa latet, vis est notissima,” and Lieutenant Commander J. E. Chadwick, United States Navy, whose motto was “Spes Meliora,” as worthy of honorable mention, without being entirely agreed as to their comparative merits.

STRIKING PASSAGES FROM THE PRIZE ESSAY.

From Lieut. Kelley’s prize essay many valuable facts can be gathered, and such of these as contain information of permanent value we quote:

“So far as commerce influences this country has a vital interest in the carrying trade, let theorists befog the cool air as they may. Every dollar paid for freight imported or exported in American vessels accrues to American labor and capital, and the enterprise is as much a productive industry as the raising of wheat, the spinning of fibre or the smelting of ore. Had the acquired, the ‘full’ trade of 1860 been maintained without increase $80,000,000 would have been added last year to the national wealth, and the loss from diverted shipbuilding would have swelled the sum to a total of $100,000,000.

“Our surplus products must find foreign markets, and to retain them ships controlled by and employed in exclusively American interests are essential instrumentalities. Whatever tends to stimulate competition and to prevent combination benefits the producer, and as the prices abroad establish values here, the barter we obtain for the despised one tenth of exports—$665,000,000 in 1880—determines the profit or loss of the remainder in the home market. During the last fiscal year 11,500,000 gross tons of grain, oil, cotton, tobacco, precious metals, &c., were exported from the United States, and this exportation increases at the rate of 1,500,000 tons annually; 3,800,000 tons of goods are imported, or in all about 15,000,000 tons constitute the existing commerce of this country.

“If only one-half of the business of carrying our enormous wealth of surplus products could be secured for American ships, our tonnage would be instantly doubled, and we would have a greater fleet engaged in a foreign trade, legitimately our own, than Great Britain has to-day. The United States makes to the ocean carrying trade its most valuable contribution, no other nation giving to commerce so many bulky tons of commodities to be transported those long voyages which in every age have been so eagerly coveted by marine peoples. Of the 17,000 ships which enter and clear at American ports every year, 4,600 seek a cargo empty and but 2,000 sail without obtaining it.

“Ships are profitable abroad and can be made profitable here, and in truth during the last thirty years no other branch of industry has made such progress as the carrying trade. To establish this there are four points of comparison—commerce, railways, shipping tonnage and carrying power of the world, limited to the years between 1850 and 1880:—

Increase Per 1850. 1880. Cent.

Commerce of all nations $4,280,000,000 $14,405,000,000 240

Railways (miles open) 44,400 222,600 398

Shipping tonnage 6,905,000 18,720,000 171

Carrying tonnage 8,464,000 34,280,060 304

“In 1850, therefore, for every $5,000,000 of international commerce there were fifty-four miles of railway and a maritime carrying power of 9,900 tons; and in 1880 the respective ratios had risen to seventy-seven miles and 12,000 tons; this has saved one-fourth freight and brought producer and consumers into such contact that we no longer hear “of the earth’s products being wasted, of wheat rotting in La Mancha, wool being used to mend wads and sheep being burned for fuel in the Argentine Republic.” England has mainly profited by this enormous development, the shipping of the United Kingdom earning $300,000,000 yearly, and employing 200,000 seamen, whose industry is therefore equivalent to £300 per man, as compared with £190 for each of the factory operatives. The freight earned by all flags for sea-borne merchandise is $500,000,000, or about 8 per cent. of the value transported. Hence the toll which all nations pay to England for the carrying trade is equal to 4 per cent. (nearly) of the exported values of the earth’s products and manufactures; and pessimists who declare that ship owners are losing money or making small profits must be wrong, for the merchant marine is expanding every year.

“The maximum tonnage of this country at any time registered in the foreign trade was in 1861, and then amounted to 5,539,813 tons; Great Britain in the same year owning 5,895,369 tons, and all the other nations 5,800,767 tons. Between 1855 and 1860 over 1,300,000 American tons in excess of the country’s needs were employed by foreigners in trades with which we had no legitimate connection save as carriers. In 1851 our registered steamships had grown from the 16,000 tons of 1848 to 63,920 tons—almost equal to the 65,920 tons of England, and in 1855 this had increased to 115,000 tons and reached a maximum, for in 1862 we had 1,000 tons less. In 1855 we built 388 vessels, in 1856 306 vessels and in 1880 26 vessels—all for the foreign trade. The total tonnage which entered our ports in 1856 from abroad amounted to 4,464,038, of which American built ships constituted 3,194,375 tons, and all others but 1,259,762 tons. In 1880 there entered from abroad 15,240,534 tons, of which 3,128,374 tons were American and 12,112,000 were foreign—that is, in a ratio of seventy-five to twenty-five, or actually 65,901 tons less than when we were twenty-four years younger as a nation. The grain fleet sailing last year from the port of New York numbered 2,897 vessels, of which 1,822 were sailing vessels carrying 59,822,033 bushels, and 1,075 were steamers laden with 42,426,533 bushels, and among all these there were but seventy-four American sailing vessels and not one American steamer.

“While this poison of decay has been eating into our vitals the possibilities of the country in nearly every other industry have reached a plane of development beyond the dreams of the most enthusiastic theorizers. We have spread out in every direction and the promise of the future beggars imaginations attuned even to the key of our present and past development. We have a timber area of 560,000,000 acres, and across our Canadian border there are 900,000,000 more acres; in coal and iron production we are approaching the Old World.

1842. 1879. Coal— Tons. Tons. Great Britain 35,000,000 135,000,000 United States 2,000,000 60,000,000

Iron— Great Britain 2,250,000 6,300,000 United States 564,000 2,742,000

During these thirty-seven years the relative increase has been in coal 300 to 2,900 per cent., in iron 200 to 400 per cent., and all in our favor. But this is not enough, for England, with a coal area less than either Pennsylvania or Kentucky, has coaling stations in every part of the world and our steamers cannot reach our California ports without the consent of the English producers. Even if electricity takes the place of steam it must be many years before the coal demand will cease, and to-day, of the 36,000,000 tons of coal required by the steamers of the world, three-fourths of it is obtained from Great Britain.

“It is unnecessary to wire-draw statistics, but it may, as a last word, be interesting to show, with all our development, the nationality and increase of tonnage entering our ports since 1856:—

Country. Increase. Decrease. England 6,977,163 Germany 922,903 Norway and Sweden 1,214,008 Italy 596,907 France 208,412 Spain 164,683 Austria 226,277 Belgium 204,872 Russia 104,009 United States 65,901

“This,” writes Lindsay, “is surely not decadence, but defeat in a far nobler conflict than the wars for maritime supremacy between Rome and Carthage, consisting as it did in the struggle between the skill and industry of the people of two great nations.”

We have thus quoted the facts gathered from a source which has been endorsed by the higher naval authorities. Some reader will probably ask, “What relation have these facts to American politics?” We answer that the remedies proposed constitute political questions on which the great parties are very apt to divide. They have thus divided in the past, and parties have turned “about face” on similar questions. Just now the Democratic party inclines to “free ships” and hostility to subsidies—while the Republican party as a rule favors subsidies. Lieutenant Kelley summarized his proposed remedies in the two words: “free ships.”

Mr. Blaine would solve the problem by bounties, for this purpose enacting a general law that should ignore individuals and enforce a policy. His scheme provides that any man or company of men who will build in an American yard, with American material, by American mechanics, a steamship of 3,000 tons and sail her from any port of the United States to any foreign port, he or they shall receive for a monthly line a mail allowance of $25 per mile per annum for the sailing distance between the two ports; for a semi-monthly line $45 per mile, and for a weekly line $75 per mile. Should the steamer exceed three thousand tons, a small advance on these rates might be allowed; if less, a corresponding reduction, keeping three thousand as the average and standard. Other reformers propose a bounty to be given by the Government to the shipbuilder, so as to make the price of an American vessel the same as that of a foreign bought, equal, but presumably cheaper, ship.

Mr. Blaine represents the growing Republican view, but the actual party views can only be ascertained when bills covering the subject come up for consideration.

Current Politics.

We shall close this written history of the political parties of the United States by a brief statement of the present condition of affairs, as generally remarked by our own people, and by quoting the views of an interesting cotemporaneous English writer.

President Arthur’s administration has had many difficulties to contend with. The President himself is the legal successor of a beloved man, cruelly assassinated, whose well-rounded character and high abilities had won the respect even of those who defamed him in the heat of controversy, while they excited the highest admiration of those who shared his political views and thoughts. Stricken down before he had time to formulate a policy, if it was ever his intention to do so, he yet showed a proper appreciation of his high responsibilities, and had from the start won the kindly attention of the country. Gifted with the power of saying just the right thing at the right moment, and saying it with all the grace and beauty of oratory, no President was better calculated to make friends as he moved along, than Garfield. The manifestations of factional feeling which immediately preceded his assassination, but which cannot for a moment be intelligently traced to that cause, made the path of his successor far more difficult than if he had been called to the succession by the operation of natural causes. That he has met these difficulties with rare discretion, all admit, and at this writing partisan interest and dislike are content to “abide a’ wee” before beginning an assault. He has sought no changes in the Cabinet, and thus through personal and political considerations seems for the time to have surrendered a Presidential prerogative freely admitted by all who understand the wisdom of permitting an executive officer to seek the advice of friends of his own selection. Mr. Blaine and Mr. MacVeagh, among the ablest of the late President’s Cabinet, were among the most emphatic in insisting upon the earliest possible exercise of this prerogative—the latter upon its immediate exercise. Yet it has been withheld in several particulars, and the Arthur administration has sought to unite, wherever divided (and now divisions are rare), the party which called it into existence, while at the same time it has by careful management sought to check party strife at least for a time, and devoted its attention to the advancement of the material interests of the country. Appointments are fairly distributed among party friends, not divided as between factions; for such a division systematically made would disrupt any party. It would prove but an incentive to faction for the sake of a division of the spoils. No force of politics is or ought to be better understood in America than manufactured disagreements with the view to profitable compromises. Fitness, recognized ability, and adequate political service seem to constitute the reasons for Executive appointments at this time.

The Democratic party, better equipped in the National Legislature than it has been for years—with men like Hill, Bayard, Pendleton, Brown, Voorhees, Lamar and Garland in the Senate—Stephens, Randall, Hewitt, Cox, Johnson in the House—with Tilden, Thurman, Wallace and Hancock in the background—is led with rare ability, and has the advantage of escaping responsibilities incident to a majority party. It has been observed that this party is pursuing the traditional strategy of minorities in our Republic. It has partially refused a further test on the tariff issue, and is seeking a place in advance of the Republicans on refunding questions—both popular measures, as shown in all recent elections. It claims the virtue of sympathy with the Mormons by questioning the propriety of legal assaults upon the liberty of conscience, while not openly recording itself as a defender of the crime of polygamy. As a solid minority it has at least in the Senate yielded to the appeal of the States on the Pacific slope, and favored the abridgment of Chinese immigration. On this question, however, the Western Republican Senators as a rule were equally active in support of the Miller Bill, so that whatever the result, the issue can no longer be a political one in the Pacific States. The respectable support which the measure has latterly received has cast out of the struggle the Kearneys and Kallochs, and if there be demagoguery on either side, it comes in better dress than ever before.

Doubtless the parties will contest their claims to public support on their respective histories yet a while longer. Party history has served partisan purposes an average of twenty years, when with that history recollections of wars are interwoven, and the last war having been the greatest in our history, the presumption is allowable that it will be freely quoted so long as sectional or other forms of distrust are observable any where. When these recollections fail, new issues will have to be sought or accepted. In the mere search for issues the minority ought always to be the most active; but their wise appropriation, after all, depends upon the wisdom and ability of leadership. It has ever been thus, and ever will be. This is about the only political prophecy the writer is willing to risk—and in risking this he but presents a view common to all Americans who claim to be “posted” in the politics of their country.

What politicians abroad think of our “situation” is well told, though not always accurately, by a distinguished writer in the January (1882) number of “The London Quarterly Review.” From this we quote some very attractive paragraphs, and at the same time escape the necessity of descriptions and predictions generally believed to be essential in rounding off a political volume, but which are always dangerous in treating of current affairs. Speaking of the conduct of both parties on the question of Civil Service Reform, the writer says:

“What have they done to overthrow the celebrated Jacksonian precept ‘to the victors belongs the spoils?’ What, in fact, is it possible for them to do under the present system? The political laborer holds that he is worthy of his hire, and if nothing is given to him, nothing will he give in return. There are tens of thousands of offices at the bestowal of every administration, and the persons who have helped to bring that administration into power expect to receive them. ‘In Great Britain,’ once remarked the American paper which enjoys the largest circulation in the country, ‘the ruling classes have it all to themselves, and the poor man rarely or never gets a nibble at the public crib. Here we take our turn. We know that, if our political rivals have the opportunity to-day, we shall have it to-morrow. This is the philosophy of the whole thing compressed into a nutshell.’ If President Arthur were to begin to-day to distribute offices to men who were most worthy to receive them, without reference to political services, his own party would rebel, and assuredly his path would not be strewn with roses. He was himself a victim of a gross injustice perpetrated under the name of reform. He filled the important post of Collector of the Port of New York, and filled it to the entire satisfaction of the mercantile community. President Hayes did not consider General Arthur sufficiently devoted to his interests, and he removed him in favor of a confirmed wire-puller and caucus-monger, and the administration papers had the address to represent this as the outcome of an honest effort to reform the Civil Service. No one really supposed that the New York Custom House was less a political engine than it had been before. The rule of General Arthur had been, in point of fact, singularly free from jobbery and corruption, and not a breath of suspicion was ever attached to his personal character. If he had been less faithful in the discharge of his difficult duties, he would have made fewer enemies. He discovered several gross cases of fraud upon the revenue, and brought the perpetrators to justice; but the culprits were not without influence in the press, and they contrived to make the worse appear the better cause. Their view was taken at second-hand by many of the English journals, and even recently the public here were gravely assured that General Arthur represented all that was base in American politics, and moreover that he was an enemy of England, for he had been elected by the Irish vote. The authors of these foolish calumnies did not perceive that, if their statements had been correct, General Garfield, whom they so much honored, must also have been elected by the Irish vote; for he came to power on the very same ‘ticket.’ In reality, the Irish vote may be able to accomplish many things in America, but we may safely predict that it will never elect a President. General Arthur had not been many weeks in power, before he was enabled to give a remarkable proof of the injustice that had been done to him in this particular respect. The salute of the English flag at Yorktown is one of the most graceful incidents recorded in American history, and the order originated solely with the President. A man with higher character or, it may be added, of greater accomplishments and fitness for his office, never sat in the Presidential chair. His first appointments are now admitted to be better than those which were made by his predecessor for the same posts. Senator Frelinghuysen, the new Secretary of State, or Foreign Secretary, is a man of great ability, of most excellent judgment, and of the highest personal character. He stands far beyond the reach of all unworthy influences. Mr. Folger, the Secretary of the Treasury, possesses the confidence of the entire country, and the nomination of the new Attorney-General was received with universal satisfaction. All this little accords with the dark and forbidding descriptions of President Arthur which were placed before the public here on his accession to office. It is surely time that English writers became alive to the danger of accepting without question the distorted views which they find ready to their hands in the most bigoted or most malicious of American journals.

“Democrats and Republicans, then, alike profess to be in favor of a thorough reform in the Civil Service, and at the present moment there is no other very prominent question which could be used as a test for the admission of members into either party. The old issue, which no one could possibly mistake, is gone. How much the public really care for the new one, it would be a difficult point to decide. A Civil Service system, such as that which we have in England, would scarcely be suited to the “poor man,” who, as the New York paper says, thinks he has a right occasionally to ‘get a nibble at the public crib.’ If a man has worked hard to bring his party into power, he is apt, in the United States, to think that he is entitled to some ‘recognition,’ and neither he nor his friends would be well pleased if they were told that, before anything could be done for him, it would be necessary to examine him in modern languages and mathematics. Moreover, a service such as that which exists in England requires to be worked with a system of pensions; and pensions, it is held in America, are opposed to the Republican idea. If it were not for this objection, it may be presumed that some provision would have been made for more than one of the ex-Presidents, whose circumstances placed them or their families much in need of it. President Monroe spent his last years in wretched circumstances, and died bankrupt. Mrs. Madison ‘knew what it was to want bread.’ A negro servant, who had once been a slave in the family, used furtively to give her ‘small sums’—they must have been very small—out of his own pocket. Mr. Pierce was, we believe, not far removed from indigence; and it has been stated that after Andrew Johnson left the White House, he was reduced to the necessity of following his old trade. General Grant was much more fortunate; and we have recently seen that the American people have subscribed for Mrs. Garfield a sum nearly equal to £70,000. But a pension system for Civil Servants is not likely to be adopted. Permanence in office is another principle which has found no favor with the rank and file of either party in America, although it has sometimes been introduced into party platforms for the sake of producing a good effect. The plan of ‘quick rotation’ is far more attractive to the popular sense. Divide the spoils, and divide them often. It is true that the public indignation is sometimes aroused, when too eager and rapacious a spirit is exhibited. Such a feeling was displayed in 1873, in consequence of an Act passed by Congress increasing the pay of its own members and certain officers of the Government. Each member of Congress was to receive $7,500 a year, or £1,500. The sum paid before that date, down to 1865, was $5000 a year, or £1000, and ‘mileage’ free added—that is to say, members were entitled to be paid twenty cents a mile for traveling expenses to and from Washington. This Bill soon became known as the ‘Salary Grab’ Act, and popular feeling against it was so great that it was repealed in the following Session, and the former pay was restored. As a general rule, however, the ‘spoils’ system has not been heartily condemned by the nation; if it had been so condemned, it must have fallen long ago.

“President Arthur has been admonished by his English counsellors to take heed that he follows closely in the steps of his predecessor. General Garfield was not long enough in office to give any decided indications of the policy which he intended to pursue; but, so far as he had gone, impartial observers could detect very little difference between his course of conduct in regard to patronage and that of former Presidents. He simply preferred the friends of Mr. Blaine to the friends of Mr. Conkling; but Mr. Blaine is a politician of precisely the same class as Mr. Conkling—both are men intimately versed in all the intricacies of ‘primaries,’ the ‘caucus,’ and the general working of the ‘machine.’ They are precisely the kind of men which American politics, as at present practised and understood, are adapted to produce. Mr. Conkling, however, is of more imperious a disposition than Mr. Blaine; the first disappointment or contradiction turns him from a friend into an enemy. President Garfield removed the Collector of New York—the most lucrative and most coveted post in the entire Union—and instead of nominating a friend of Mr. Conkling’s for the vacancy, he nominated a friend of Mr. Blaine’s. Now Mr. Conkling had done much to secure New York State for the Republicans, and thus gave them the victory; and he thought himself entitled to better treatment than he received. But was it in the spirit of true reform to remove the Collector, against whom no complaint had been made, merely for the purpose of creating a vacancy, and then of putting a friend of Mr. Blaine’s into it—a friend, moreover, who had been largely instrumental in securing General Garfield’s own nomination at Chicago? Is this all that is meant, when the Reform party talk of the great changes which they desire to see carried out? Again, the new President has been fairly warned by his advisers in this country, that he must abolish every abuse, new or old, connected with the distribution of patronage. If he is to execute this commission, not one term of office, nor three terms, will be sufficient for him. Over every appointment there will inevitably arise a dispute; if a totally untried man is chosen, he will be suspected as a wolf coming in sheep’s clothing; if a well known partizan is nominated, he will be denounced as a mere tool of the leaders, and there will be another outcry against ‘machine politics.’ ‘One party or other,’ said an American journal not long ago, ‘must begin the work of administering the Government on business principles,’ and the writer admitted that the work would ‘cost salt tears to many a politician.’ The honor of making this beginning has not yet been sought for with remarkable eagerness by either party; but seems to be deemed necessary to promise that something shall be done, and the Democrats, being out of power, are naturally in the position to bid the highest. The reform will come, as we have intimated, when the people demand it; it cannot come before, for few, indeed, are the politicians in the United States who venture to trust themselves far in advance of public opinion. And even of that few, there are some who have found out, by hard experience, that there is little honor or profit to be gained by undertaking to act as pioneers.

“It is doubtless a step in advance, that both parties now admit the absolute necessity of devising measures to elevate the character of the public service, to check the progress of corruption, and to introduce a better class of men into the offices which are held under the Government. The necessity of great reforms in these respects has been avowed over and over again by most of the leading journals and influential men in the country. The most radical of the Republicans, and the most conservative of the Democrats, are of one mind on this point. Mr. Wendell Phillips, an old abolitionist and Radical, once publicly declared that Republican government in cities had been a complete failure. An equally good Radical, the late Mr. Horace Greeley, made the following still more candid statement:—‘There are probably at no time less than twenty thousand men in this city [New York] who would readily commit a safe murder for a hundred dollars, break open a house for twenty, and take a false oath for five. Most of these are of European birth, though we have also native miscreants who are ready for any crime that will pay.’ Strong testimony against the working of the suffrage—and it must have been most unwilling testimony—was given in 1875 by a politician whose long familiarity with caucuses and ‘wire-pulling’ in every form renders him an undeniable authority. ‘Let it be widely proclaimed,’ he wrote, ‘that the experience and teachings of a republican form of government prove nothing so alarmingly suggestive of and pregnant with danger as that cheap suffrage involves and entails cheap representation.’ Another Republican, of high character, has stated that ‘the methods of politics have now become so repulsive, the corruption so open, the intrigues and personal hostilities are so shameless, that it is very difficult to engage in them without a sense of humiliation.’”

Passing to another question, and one worthy of the most intelligent discussion, but which has never yet taken the shape of a political demand or issue in this country, this English writer says:

“Although corruption has been suspected at one time or other in almost every Department of the Government, the Presidential office has hitherto been kept free from its stain. And yet, by an anomaly of the Constitution, the President has sometimes been exposed to suspicion, and still more frequently to injustice and misrepresentation, in consequence of the practical irresponsibility of his Cabinet officers. They are his chief advisers in regard to the distribution of places, as well as in the higher affairs of State, and the discredit of any mismanagement on their part falls upon him. It is true that he chooses them, and may dismiss them, with the concurrence of the Senate; but, when once appointed, they are beyond reach of all effective criticism—for newspaper attacks are easily explained by the suggestion of party malice. They cannot be questioned in Congress, for they are absolutely prohibited from sitting in either House.

For months together it is quite possible for the Cabinet to pursue a course which is in direct opposition to the wishes of the people. This was seen, among other occasions, in 1873–4, when Mr. Richardson was Secretary of the Treasury, and at a time when his management of the finances caused great dissatisfaction. At last a particularly gross case of negligence, to use no harsher word, known as the ‘Sanborn contracts,’ caused his retirement; that is to say, the demand for his withdrawal became so persistent and so general, that the President could no longer refuse to listen to it. His objectionable policy might have been pursued till the end of the Presidential term, but for the accidental discovery of a scandal, which exhausted the patience of his friends as well as his enemies. Now had Mr. Richardson been a member of either House, and liable to be subjected to a rigorous cross-questioning as to his proceedings, the mismanagement of which he was accused, and which was carried on in the dark, never could have occurred. Why the founders of the Constitution should have thrown this protection round the persons who happen to fill the chief offices of State, is difficult to conjecture, but the clause is clear:—‘No person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.’ Mr. Justice Story declares that this provision ‘has been vindicated upon the highest grounds of public authority,’ but he also admits that, as applied to the heads of departments, it leads to many evils. He adds a warning which many events of our own time have shown to be not unnecessary:—‘if corruption ever eats its way silently into the vitals of this Republic, it will be because the people are unable to bring responsibility home to the Executive through his chosen Ministers. They will be betrayed when their suspicions are most lulled by the Executive, under the guise of an obedience to the will of Congress.’ The inconveniences occasioned to the public service under the present system are very great. There is no official personage in either House to explain the provisions of any Bill, or to give information on pressing matters of public business. Cabinet officers are only brought into communication with the nation when they send in their annual reports, or when a special report is called for by some unusual emergency. Sometimes the President himself goes down to the Capitol to talk over the merits of a Bill with members. The Department which happens to be interested in any particular measure puts it under the charge of some friend of the Administration, and if a member particularly desires any further information respecting it he may, if he thinks proper, go to the Department and ask for it. But Congress and Ministers are never brought face to face. It is possible that American ‘Secretaries’ may escape some of the inconvenience which English Ministers are at times called upon to undergo; but the most capable and honest of them forfeit many advantages, not the least of which is the opportunity of making the exact nature of their work known to their countrymen, and of meeting party misrepresentations and calumnies in the most effectual way. In like manner, the incapable members of the Cabinet would not be able, under a different system, to shift the burden of responsibility for their blunders upon the President. No President suffered more in reputation for the faults of others than General Grant. It is true that he did not always choose his Secretaries with sufficient care or discrimination, but he was made to bear more than a just proportion of the censure which was provoked by their mistakes. And it was not in General Grant’s disposition to defend himself. In ordinary intercourse he was sparing of his words, and could never be induced to talk about himself, or to make a single speech in defense of any portion of his conduct. The consequence was, that his second term of office was far from being worthy of the man who enjoyed a popularity, just after the war, which Washington himself might have envied, and who is still, and very justly, regarded with respect and gratitude for his memorable services in the field.

“The same sentiment, to which we have referred as specially characteristic of the American people—hostility to all changes in their method of government which are not absolutely essential—will keep the Cabinet surrounded by irresponsible, and sometimes incapable, advisers. Contrary to general supposition, there is no nation in the world so little disposed to look favorably on Radicalism and a restless desire for change, as the Americans. The Constitution itself can only be altered by a long and tedious process, and after every State in the Union has been asked its opinion on the question. There is no hesitation in enforcing the law in case of disorder, as the railroad rioters in Pennsylvania found out a few years ago. The state of affairs, which the English Government has permitted to exist in Ireland for upwards of a year, would not have been tolerated twenty-four hours in the United States. The maintenance of the law first, the discussion of grievances afterwards; such is, and always has been, the policy of every American Government, until the evil day of James Buchanan. The governor of every State is a real ruler, and not a mere ornament, and the President wields a hundredfold more power than has been left to the Sovereign of Great Britain. Both parties as a rule, combine to uphold his authority, and, in the event of any dispute with a foreign Power, all party distinctions disappear as if by magic. There are no longer Democrats and Republicans, but only Americans. The species of politician, who endeavors to gain a reputation for himself by destroying the reputation of his country was not taken over to America in the ‘Mayflower,’ and it would be more difficult than ever to establish it on American ground to-day. A man may hold any opinions that may strike his fancy on other subjects, but in reference to the Government, he is expected, while he lives under it, to give it his hearty support, especially as against foreign nations. There was once a faction called the ‘Know-Nothings,’ the guiding principle of which was inveterate hostility to foreigners; but a party based upon the opposite principle, of hostility to one’s own country, has not yet ventured to lift up its head across the Atlantic. That is an invention in politics which England has introduced, and of which she is allowed to enjoy the undisputed monopoly. * * *

“Display and ceremonial were by no means absent from the Government in the beginning of its history. President Washington never went to Congress on public business except in a State coach, drawn by six cream-colored horses. The coach was an object which would excite the admiration of the throng even now in the streets of London. It was built in the shape of a hemisphere, and its panels were adorned with cupids, surrounded with flowers worthy of Florida, and of fruit not to be equalled out of California. The coachman and postillions were arrayed in gorgeous liveries of white and scarlet. The Philadelphia ‘Gazette,’ a Government organ, regularly gave a supply of Court news for the edification of the citizens. From that the people were allowed to learn as much as it was deemed proper for them to know about the President’s movements, and a fair amount of space was also devoted to Mrs. Washington—who was not referred to as Mrs. Washington, but as ‘the amiable consort of our beloved President.’ When the President made his appearance at a ball or public reception, a dais was erected for him upon which he might stand apart from the vulgar throng, and the guests or visitors bowed to him in solemn silence. ‘Republican simplicity’ has only come in later times. In our day, the hack-driver who takes a visitor to a public reception at the White House, is quite free to get off his box, walk in side by side with his fare, and shake hands with the President with as much familiarity as anybody else. Very few persons presumed to offer to shake hands with General Washington. One of his friends, Gouverneur Morris, rashly undertook, for a foolish wager, to go up to him and slap him on the shoulder, saying, ‘My dear General, I am happy to see you look so well.’ The moment fixed upon arrived, and Mr. Morris, already half-repenting of his wager, went up to the President, placed his hand upon his shoulder, and uttered the prescribed words. ‘Washington,’ as an eye-witness described the scene, ‘withdrew his hand, stepped suddenly back, fixed his eye on Morris for several minutes with an angry frown, until the latter retreated abashed, and sought refuge in the crowd.’ No one else ever tried a similar experiment. It is recorded of Washington, that he wished the official title of the President to be ‘High Mightiness,’ and at one time it was proposed to engrave his portrait upon the national coinage. No royal levies were more punctiliously arranged and ordered than those of the First President. It was Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic party, who introduced Democratic manners into the Republic. He refused to hold weekly receptions, and when he went to Congress to read his Address, he rode up unattended, tied his horse to a post, and came away with the same disregard for outward show. After his inauguration, he did not even take the trouble to go to Congress with his Message, but sent it by the hands of his Secretary—a custom which has been found so convenient that it has been followed ever since. A clerk now mumbles through the President’s Message, while members sit at their desks writing letters, or reading the Message itself, if they do not happen to have made themselves masters of its contents beforehand.”

The writer, after discussing monopolies and tariffs, closes with hopes and predictions so moderately and sensibly stated that any one will be safe in adopting them as his own.

“The controversies which have yet to be fought out on these issues [the tariff and corporate power] may sometimes become formidable, but we may hope that the really dangerous questions that once confronted the American people are set at rest for ever. The States once more stand in their proper relation to the Union, and any interference with their self-government is never again likely to be attempted, for the feeling of the whole people would condemn it. It was a highly Conservative system which the framers of the Constitution adopted, when they decided that each State should be entitled to make its own laws, to regulate its own franchise, to raise its own taxes, and settle everything in connection with its own affairs in its own way. The general government has no right whatever to send a single soldier into any State, even to preserve order, until it has been called upon to act by the Governor of that State. The Federal Government, as it has been said by the Supreme Court, is one of enumerated powers; and if it has ever acted in excess of those powers, it was only when officers in States broke the compact which existed, and took up arms for its destruction. They abandoned their place in the Union, and were held to have thereby forfeited their rights as States. In ordinary times there is ample security against the abuse of power in any direction. If a State government exceeds its authority, the people can at the next election expel the parties who have been guilty of the offense; if Congress trespasses upon the functions of the States, there is the remedy of an appeal to the Supreme Court, the ‘final interpreter of the Constitution;’ if usurpation should be attempted in spite of these safeguards, there is the final remedy of an appeal to the whole nation under the form of a Constitutional Amendment, which may at any time be adopted with the consent of three-fourths of the States. Only, therefore, as Mr. Justice Story has pointed out, when three-fourths of the States have combined to practice usurpation, is the case ‘irremediable under any known forms of the Constitution.’ It would be difficult to conceive of any circumstances under which such a combination as this could arise. No form of government ever yet devised has proved to be faultless in its operation; but that of the United States is well adapted to the genius and character of the people, and the very dangers which it has passed through render it more precious in their eyes than it was before it had been tried in the fire. It assures freedom to all who live under it; and it provides for the rigid observance of law, and the due protection of every man in his rights. There is much in the events which are now taking place around us to suggest serious doubts, whether these great and indispensable advantages are afforded by some of the older European systems of government which we have been accustomed to look upon as better and wiser than the American Constitution.”

A final word as to a remaining great issue—that of the tariff. It must ever be a political issue, one which parties cannot wholly avoid. The Democratic party as a mass, yet leans to Free Trade; the Republican party, as a mass, favors Tariffs and high ones, at least plainly protective. Within a year, two great National Conventions were held, one at Chicago and one at New York, both in former times, Free Trade centres, and in these Congress was petitioned either to maintain or improve the existing tariff. As a result we see presented and advocated at the current session the Tariff Commission Bill, decisive action upon which has not been taken at the time we close these pages. The effect of the conventions was to cause the Democratic Congressional caucus to reject the effort of Proctor Knott, to place it in its old attitude of hostility to protection. Many of the members sought and for the time secured an avoidance of the issue. Their ability to maintain this attitude in the face of Mr. Watterson’s declaration that the Democratic party must stand or fall on that issue, remains to be seen.

POLITICAL CHANGES IN 1882.

With a view to carry this work through the year 1882 and into part of 1883, very plain reference should be made to the campaign of 1882, which in several important States was fully as disastrous to the Republican party as any State elections since the advent of that party to national supremacy and power. In 1863 and 1874 the Republican reverses were almost if not quite as general, but in the more important States the adverse majorities were not near so sweeping. Political “tidal waves” had been freely talked of as descriptive of the situation in the earlier years named, but the result of 1882 has been pertinently described by Horatio Seymour as the “groundswell,” and such it seemed, both to the active participants in, and lookers-on, at the struggle.

Political discontent seems to be periodical under all governments, and the periods are probably quite as frequent though less violent under republican as other forms. Certain it is that no political party in our history has long enjoyed uninterrupted success. The National success of the Republicans cannot truthfully be said to have been uninterrupted since the first election of Lincoln, as at times one or the other of the two Houses of Congress have been in the hands of the Democratic party, while since the second Grant administration there has not been a safe working majority of Republicans in either House. Combinations with Greenbackers, Readjusters, and occasionally with dissenting Democrats have had to be employed to preserve majorities in behalf of important measures, and these have not always succeeded, though the general tendency of side-parties has been to support the majority, for the very plain reason that majorities can reward with power upon committees and with patronage.

Efforts were made by the Democrats in the first session of the 47th Congress to reduce existing tariffs, and to repeal the internal revenue taxes. The Republicans met the first movement by establishing a Tariff Commission, which was appointed by President Arthur, and composed mainly of gentlemen favorable to protective duties. In the year previous (1881) the income from internal taxes was $135,264,385.51, and the cost of collecting $4,327,793.24, or 3.20 per cent. The customs revenues amounted to $198,159,676.02, the cost of collecting the same $6,383,288.10, or 3.22 per cent. There was no general complaint as to the cost of collecting these immense revenues, for this cost was greatly less than in former years, but the surplus on internal taxes (about $146,000,000) was so large that it could not be profitably employed even in the payment of the public debt, and as a natural result all interests called upon to pay the tax (save where there was a monopoly in the product or the manufacture) complained of the burden as wholly unnecessary, and large interests and very many people demanded immediate and absolute repeal. The Republicans sought to meet this demand half way by a bill repealing all the taxes, save those on spirits and tobacco, but the Democrats obstructed and defeated every attempt at partial repeal. The Republicans thought that the moral sentiment of the country would favor the retention of the internal taxes upon spirits and tobacco (the latter having been previously reduced) but if there was any such sentiment it did not manifest itself in the fall elections. On the contrary, every form of discontent, encouraged by these great causes, took shape. While the Tariff Commission, by active and very intelligent work, held out continued hope to the more confident industries, those which had been threatened or injured by the failure of the crops in 1881, and by the assassination of President Garfield, saw only prolonged injury in the probable work of the Commission, for to meet the close Democratic sentiment and to unite that which it was hoped would be generally friendly, moderate tariff rates had to be fixed; notably upon iron, steel, and many classes of manufactured goods. Manufacturers of the cheaper grades of cotton goods were feeling the pressure of competition from the South—where goods could be made from a natural product close at hand—while those of the North found about the same time that the tastes of their customers had improved, and hence their cheaper grades were no longer in such general demand. There was over-production, as a consequence grave depression, and not all in the business could at once realize the cause of the trouble. Doubt and distrust prevailed, and early in the summer of 1882, and indeed until late in the fall, the country seemed upon the verge of a business panic. At the same time the leading journals of the country seemed to have joined in a crusade against all existing political methods, and against all statutory and political abuses. The cry of “Down with Boss Rule!” was heard in many States, and this rallied to the swelling ranks of discontent all who are naturally fond of pulling down leaders—and the United States Senatorial elections of 1883 quickly showed that the blow was aimed at all leaders, whether they were alleged Bosses or not. Then, too, the forms of discontent which could not take practical shape in the great Presidential contest between Garfield and Hancock, came to the front with cumulative force after the assassination. There is little use in philosophizing and searching for sufficient reasons leading to a fact, when the fact itself must be confessed and when its force has been felt. It is a plain fact that many votes in the fall of 1882 were determined by the nominating struggle for the Presidency in 1880, by the quarrels which followed Garfield’s inauguration, and by the assassination. Indeed, the nation had not recovered from the shock, and many very good people looked with very grave suspicion upon every act of President Arthur after he had succeeded to the chair. The best informed, broadest and most liberal political minds saw in his course an honest effort to heal existing differences in the Republican party, but many acts of recommendation and appointment directed to this end were discounted by the few which could not thus be traced, and suspicion and discontent swelled the chorus of other injuries. The result was the great political changes of 1882. It began in Ohio, the only important and debatable October State remaining at this time. The causes enumerated above (save the assassination and the conflict between the friends of Grant and Blaine) operated with less force in Ohio than any other section—for here leaders had not been held up as “Bosses;” civil service reform had many advocates among them; the people were not by interest specially wedded to high tariff duties, nor were they large payers of internal revenue taxes. But the liquor issue had sprung up in the Legislature the previous winter, the Republicans attempting to levy and collect a tax from all who sold, and to prevent the sale on Sundays. These brief facts make strange reading to the people of other States, where the sale of liquor has generally been licensed, and forbidden on Sundays. Ohio had previously passed a prohibitory constitutional amendment, in itself defective, and as no legislation had been enacted to enforce it, those who wished began to sell as though the right were natural, and in this way became strong enough to resist taxation or license. The Legislature of 1882, the majority controlled by the Republicans, attempted to pass the Pond liquor tax act, and its issue was joined. The liquor interests organized, secured control of the Democratic State Convention, nominated a ticket pledged to their interests, made a platform which pointed to unrestricted sale, and by active work and the free use of funds, carried the election and reversed the usual majority. Governor Foster, the boldest of the Republican leaders, accepted the issue as presented, and stumped in favor of license and the sanctity of the Sabbath; but the counsels of the Republican leaders were divided, Ex-Secretary Sherman and others enacting the role of “confession and avoidance.” The result carried with it a train of Republican disasters. Congressional candidates whom the issue could not legitimately touch, fell before it, probably on the principle that “that which strikes the head injures the entire body.” The Democratic State and Legislative tickets succeeded, and the German element, which of all others is most favorable to freedom in the observance of the Sabbath, transferred its vote almost as an entirety from the Republican to the Democratic party.

Ohio emboldened the liquor interests, and in their Conventions and Societies in other States they agreed as a rule to check and, if possible, defeat the advance of the prohibitory amendment idea. This started in Kansas in 1880, under the lead of Gov. St. John, an eloquent temperance advocate. It was passed by an immense majority, and it was hardly in force before conflicting accounts were scattered throughout the country as to its effect. Some of the friends of temperance contended that it improved the public condition; its enemies all asserted that in the larger towns and cities it produced free and irresponsible instead of licensed sale. The latter seem to have had the best of the argument, if the election result is a truthful witness. Gov. St. John was again the nominee of the Republicans, but while all of the remainder of the State ticket was elected, he fell under a majority which must have been produced by a change of forty thousand votes. Iowa next took up the prohibitory amendment idea, secured its adoption, but the result was injurious to the Republicans in the Fall elections, where the discontent struck at Congressmen, as well as State and Legislative officers.

The same amendment had been proposed in Pennsylvania, a Republican House in 1881 having passed it by almost a solid vote (Democrats freely joining in its support), but a Republican Senate defeated, after it had been loaded down with amendments. New York was coquetting with the same measure, and as a result the liquor interests—well organized and with an abundance of money, as a rule struck at the Republican party in both New York and Pennsylvania, and thus largely aided the groundswell. The same interests aided the election of Genl. B. F. Butler of Massachusetts, but from a different reason. He had, in one of his earlier canvasses, freely advocated the right of the poor to sell equally with those who could pay heavy license fees, and had thus won the major sympathy of the interest. Singularly enough, Massachusetts alone of all the Republican States meeting with defeat in 1882, fails to show in her result reasons which harmonize with those enumerated as making up the elements of discontent. Her people most do favor high tariffs, taxes on liquors and luxuries, civil service reforms, and were supposed to be more free from legal and political abuses than any other. Massachusetts had, theretofore, been considered to be the most advanced of all the States—in notions, in habit, and in law—yet Butler’s victory was relatively more pronounced than that of any Democratic candidate, not excepting that of Cleveland over Folger in New York, the Democratic majority here approaching two hundred thousand. How are we to explain the Massachusetts’ result? Gov. Bishop was a high-toned and able gentleman, the type of every reform contended for. There is but one explanation. Massachusetts had had too much of reform; it had come in larger and faster doses than even her progressive people could stand—and an inconsistent discontent took new shape there—that of very plain reaction. This view is confirmed by the subsequent attempt of Gov. Butler to defeat the re-election of Geo. F. Hoar to the U. S. Senate, by a combination of Democrats with dissatisfied Republicans. The movement failed, but it came very near to success, and for days the result was in doubt. Hoar had been a Senator of advanced views, of broad and comprehensive statesmanship, but that communistic sentiment which occasionally crops out in our politics and strikes at all leaders, merely from the pleasure of asserting the right to tear down, assailed him with a vigor almost equal to that which struck Windom of Minnesota, a statesman of twenty-four years’ honorable, able and sometimes brilliant service. To prejudice the people of his State against him, a photograph of his Washington residence had been scattered broadcast. The print in the photograph intended to prejudice being a coach with a liveried lackey. It might have been the coach and lackey of a visitor, but the effect was the same where discontent had run into a fever.

Political discontent gave unmistakable manifestations of its existence in Ohio, Massachusetts, New York (where Ex-Governor Cornell’s nomination had been defeated by a forged telegram), Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. The Republican position was well maintained in New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It was greatly improved in Virginia, where Mahone’s Republican Readjuster ticket carried the State by nearly ten thousand, and where a United States’ Senator and Congressman at large were gained, as well as some of the District Congressmen. The Republicans also improved the situation in North Carolina and Tennessee, though they failed to carry either. They also gained Congressmen in Mississippi and Louisiana, but the Congressional result throughout the country was a sweeping Democratic victory, the 48th Congress, beginning March 4, 1883, showing a Democratic majority of 71 in a total membership of 325.

In Pennsylvania alone of all the Northern States, were the Republican elements of discontent organized, and here they were as well organized as possible under the circumstances. Charles S. Wolfe had the year previous proclaimed what he called his “independence of the Bosses,” by declaring himself a candidate for State Treasurer, “nominated in a convention of one.” He secured 49,984 votes, and this force was used as the nucleus for the better organized Independent Republican movement of 1882. Through this a State Convention was called which placed a full ticket in the field, and which in many districts nominated separate legislative candidates.

The complaints of the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania were very much like those of dissatisfied Republicans in other Northern States where no adverse organizations were set up, and these can best be understood by giving the official papers and correspondence connected with the revolt, and the attempts to conciliate and suppress it by the regular organization. The writer feels a delicacy in appending this data, inasmuch as he was one of the principals in the negotiations, but formulated complaints, methods and principles peculiar to the time can be better understood as presented by organized and official bodies, than where mere opinions of cotemporaneous writers and speakers must otherwise be given. A very careful summary has been made by Col. A. K. McClure, in the Philadelphia Times Almanac, and from this we quote the data connected with the—

The Independent Republican Revolt In Pennsylvania.

The following call was issued by Chairman McKee, of the committee which conducted the Wolfe campaign in 1881:

HEADQUARTERS STATE COMMITTEE,

CITIZENS’ REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION, GIRARD HOUSE,

PHILADELPHIA, December 16, 1881.

To the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania:

You are earnestly requested to send representatives from each county to a State conference, to be held at Philadelphia, Thursday, January 12th, 1882, at 10 o’clock A.M., to take into consideration the wisdom of placing in nomination proper persons for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of Internal Affairs and Supreme Court Judge, and such other matters as may come before the conference, looking to the overthrow of “boss rule,” and the elimination of the pernicious “spoils system,” and its kindred evils, from the administration of public affairs. It is of the utmost importance that those fifty thousand unshackled voters who supported the independent candidacy of Hon. Charles S. Wolfe for the office of State Treasurer as a solemn protest against ring domination, together with the scores of thousands of liberty-loving citizens who are ready to join in the next revolt against “bossism,” shall be worthily represented at this conference.

I. D. MCKEE, Chairman.

FRANK WILLING LEACH, Secretary.

Pursuant to the above call, two hundred and thirteen delegates, representing thirty-three of the sixty-six counties, met at the Assembly Building, January 12th, 1882, and organized by the election of John J. Pinkerton as chairman, together with a suitable list of vice-presidents and secretaries. After a general interchange of views, a resolution was adopted directing the holding of a State Convention for the nomination of a State ticket, May 24th. An executive committee, with power to arrange for the election of delegates from each Senatorial district, was also appointed, consisting of Messrs. I. D. McKee, of Philadelphia; Wharton Barker, of Montgomery; John J. Pinkerton, of Chester; F. M. Nichols, of Luzerne; H. S. McNair, of York, and C. W. Miller, of Crawford. Mr. Nichols afterwards declining to act, George E. Mapes, of Venango, was substituted in his place. Before the time arrived for the meeting of the convention of May 24th, several futile efforts were made to heal the breach between the two wings of the Republican party. At a conference of leading Independents held in Philadelphia, April 23d, at which Senator Mitchell was present, a committee was appointed for the purpose of conferring with a similar committee from the regular organization, upon the subject of the party differences. The members of the Peace Conference, on the part of the Independents, were Charles S. Wolfe, I. D. McKee, Francis B. Reeves, J. W. Lee, and Wharton Barker. The committee on the part of the Stalwarts were M. S. Quay, John F. Hartranft, C. L. Magee, Howard J. Reeder, and Thomas Cochran. A preliminary meeting was held at the Continental Hotel, on the evening of April 29th, which adjourned to meet at the same place on the evening of May 1st; at which meeting the following peace propositions were agreed upon:

Resolved, That we recommend the adoption of the following principles and methods by the Republican State Convention of May 10th.

First. That we unequivocally condemn the use of patronage to promote personal political ends, and require that all offices bestowed within the party shall be upon the sole basis of fitness.

Second. That competent and faithful officers should not be removed except for cause.

Third. That the non-elective minor offices should be filled in accordance with rules established by law.

Fourth. That the ascertained popular will shall be faithfully carried out in State and National Conventions, and by those holding office by the favor of the party.

Fifth. That we condemn compulsory assessments for political purposes, and proscription for failure to respond either to such assessments or to requests for voluntary contributions, and that any policy of political proscription is unjust, and calculated to disturb party harmony.

Sixth. That public office constitutes a high trust to be administered solely for the people, whose interests must be paramount to those of persons or parties, and that it should be invariably conducted with the same efficiency, economy, and integrity as are expected in the execution of private trusts.

Seventh. That the State ticket should be such as by the impartiality of its constitution and the high character and acknowledged fitness of the nominees will justly commend itself to the support of the united Republican party.

Resolved, That we also recommend the adoption of the following permanent rules for the holding of State Conventions, and the conduct of the party:

First. That delegates to State Conventions shall be chosen in the manner in which candidates for the General Assembly are nominated, except in Senatorial districts composed of more than one county, in which conferees for the selection of Senatorial delegates shall be chosen in the manner aforesaid, and the representation of each county shall be based upon its Republican vote cast at the Presidential election next preceding the convention.

Second. Hereafter the State Convention of the Republican party shall be held on the second Wednesday of July, except in the year of the Presidential election, when it shall be held not more than thirty days previous to the day fixed for the National Convention, and at least sixty days’ notice shall be given of the date of the State Convention.

Third. That every person who voted the Republican electoral ticket at the last Presidential election next preceding any State Convention shall be permitted to participate in the election of delegates to State and National Conventions, and we recommend to the county organizations that in their rules they allow the largest freedom in the general participation in the primaries consistent with the preservation of the party organization.

M. S. QUAY, J. F. HARTRANFT, THOMAS COCHRAN, HOWARD J. REEDER, C. L. MAGEE,

On the part of the Republican State Committee, appointed by Chairman Cooper.

CHARLES S. WOLFE, I. D. MCKEE, FRANCIS B. REEVES, WHARTON BARKER, J. W. LEE,

On the part of Senator Mitchell’s Independent Republican Committee.

The following resolution was adopted by the joint conference:

Resolved, That we disclaim any authority to speak or act for other persons than ourselves, and simply make these suggestions as in our opinion are essential to the promotion of harmony and unity.

In order, however, that there might be no laying down of arms on the part of the Independents, in the false belief that the peace propositions had ended the contest, without regard to whether they were accepted in good faith, and put in practice by the regular convention, the following call was issued by the Independent Executive Committee:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, CITIZENS’ REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, GIRARD HOUSE.

PHILADELPHIA, May 3d, 1882.

To the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania:

At a conference of Independent Republicans held in Philadelphia, on January 12th, 1882, the following resolution was adopted, to wit:

Resolved, That a convention be held on the 24th day of May, 1882, for the purpose of placing in nomination a full Independent Republican ticket for the offices to be filled at the general election next November.

In pursuance and by the authority of the above resolution the undersigned, the State Executive Committee appointed at the said conference, request the Independent Republicans of each county of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to send delegates to the Independent Convention of May 24th, the basis of representation to be the same as that fixed for Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania.

Should the convention of May 10th fail to nominate as its candidates men who in their character, antecedents and affiliations are embodiments of the principles of true Republicanism free from the iniquities of bossism, and of an honest administration of public affairs free from the evils of the spoils system, such nominations, or any such nomination, should be emphatically repudiated by the Independent Convention of May 24th, and by the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania in November next.

The simple adoption by the Harrisburg Convention of May 10th of resolutions of plausible platitudes, while confessing the existence of the evils which we have strenuously opposed, and admitting the justice of our position in opposing them, will not satisfy the Independent Republicans of this Commonwealth. We are not battling, for the construction of platforms, but for the overthrow of bossism, and the evils of the spoils system, which animated a despicable assassin to deprive our loved President Garfield of his life, and our country of its friend and peacemaker.

The nomination of slated candidates by machine methods, thereby tending to the perpetuation of boss dominion in our Commonwealth, should never be ratified by the Independent Republicans in convention assembled or at the polls. Upon this very vital point there should be no mistake in the mind of any citizen of this State. The path of duty in this emergency leads forward, and not backward, and forward we should go until bossism and machinism and stalwartism—aye, and Cameronism—are made to give way to pure Republicanism. The people will not submit to temporizing or compromising.

We appeal to the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania to take immediate steps toward perfecting their organization in each county, and completing the selection of delegates to the Independent State Convention. Use every exertion to secure the choice as delegates of representative, courageous men, who will not falter when the time arrives to act—who will not desert into the ranks of the enemy when the final time of testing comes. Especially see to it that there shall not be chosen as delegates any Pharisaical Independents, who preach reform, yet blindly follow boss leadership at the crack of the master’s whip. Act quickly and act discreetly.

A State Campaign Committee of fifty, comprising one member from each Senatorial district, has been formed, and any one desiring to co-operate with us in this movement against the enemies of the integrity of our State, who shall communicate with us, will be immediately referred to the committeeman representing the district in which he lives. We urgently invite a correspondence from the friends of political independence from all sections of the State.

Again we say to the Independent Republicans of Pennsylvania in the interest of justice and the Commonwealth’s honor, leave no stone unturned to vindicate the rights of the people.

I. D. MCKEE, Chairman. WHARTON BARKER. JOHN J. PINKERTON. GEO. E. MAPES. H. S. MCNAIR. CHARLES W. MILLER. FRANK WILLING LEACH, Secretary.

In pursuance of the above call, the Independent Convention met, May 24th, in Philadelphia, and deciding that the action of the regular Republican Convention, held at Harrisburg on May 10th, did not give the guarantee of reform demanded by the Independents, proceeded to nominate a ticket and adopt a platform setting forth their views.

Although the break between the two wings of the party was thus made final to all appearances, yet all efforts for a reconciliation were not entirely abandoned. Thos. M. Marshall having declined the nomination for Congressman at Large on the Republican ticket, the convention was reconvened June 21st, for the purpose of filling the vacancy, and while in session, instructed the State Central Committee to use all honorable means to secure harmony between the two sections of the party. Accordingly, the Republican State Committee was called to meet in Philadelphia, July, 13th. At this meeting the following propositions were submitted to the Independents:

Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Harrisburg Convention of June 21st, and authorizing the Republican State Committee to use all honorable means to promote harmony in the party, the said committee, acting in conjunction with the Republican candidates on the State ticket, respectfully submit to the State Committee and candidates of the Independents the following propositions:

First. The tickets headed by James A. Beaver and John Stewart, respectively, be submitted to a vote of the Republican electors of the State, at primaries, as hereinafter provided for.

Second. The selection of candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November to be submitted as aforesaid, every Republican elector, constitutionally and legally qualified, to be eligible to nomination.

Third. A State Convention to be held, to be constituted as recommended by the Continental Hotel Conference, whereof Wharton Barker was chairman and Francis B. Reeves secretary, to select candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November, its choice to be limited to the candidates now in nomination, or unlimited, as the Independent State Committee may prefer.

The primaries or convention referred to in the foregoing propositions to be held on or before the fourth Wednesday of August next, under regulations or apportionment to be made by Daniel Agnew, Hampton L. Carson, and Francis B. Reeves, not in conflict, however, with the acts of Assembly regulating primary elections, and the candidates receiving the highest popular vote, or the votes of a majority of the members of the convention, to receive the united support of the party.

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Republican State Committee the above propositions fully carry out, in letter and spirit, the resolution passed by the Harrisburg Convention, June 21st, and that we hereby pledge the State Committee to carry out in good faith any one of the foregoing propositions which may be accepted.

Resolved, That the chairman of the Republican State Committee be directed to forward an official copy of the proceedings of this meeting, together with the foregoing propositions, to the Independent State Committee and candidates.

Whereupon, General Reeder, of Northampton, moved to amend by adding a further proposition, as follows.

Fourth. A State Convention, to be constituted as provided for by the new rules adopted by the late Republican State Convention, to select candidates to be voted for by the Republican party in November, provided, if such convention be agreed to, said convention shall be held not later than the fourth Wednesday in August. Which amendment was agreed to, and the preamble and resolutions as amended were agreed to.

This communication was addressed to the chairman of the Independent State Committee, I. D. McKee, who called the Independent Committee to meet July 27th, to consider the propositions. In the meantime the Independent candidates held a conference on the night of July 13th, and four of them addressed the following propositions to the candidates of the Stalwart wing of the party:

PHILADELPHIA, July 13th, 1882.

To General James A. Beaver, Hon. William T. Davies, Hon. John M. Greer, William Henry Rawle, Esq., and Marriott Brosius, Esq.

Gentlemen: By a communication received from the Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, addressed to us as candidates of the Independent Republicans, we are advised of the proceedings of the State Committee, which assembled in this city yesterday.

Without awaiting the action of the Independent State Committee, to which we have referred the communication, and attempting no discussion of the existing differences, or the several methods proposed by which to secure party unity, we beg to say that we do not believe that any of the propositions, if accepted, would produce harmony in the party, but on the contrary, would lead to wider divisions. We therefore suggest that the desired result can be secured by the hearty co-operation of the respective candidates. We have no authority to speak for the great body of voters now giving their support to the Independent Republican ticket, nor can we include them by any action we may take. We are perfectly free, however, to act in our individual capacity, and desire to assure you that we are not only willing, but anxious to co-operate with you in the endeavor to restore peace and harmony to our party. That this can be accomplished beyond all doubt we feel entirely assured, if you, gentlemen, are prepared to yield, with us, all personal considerations, and agree to the following propositions:

First. The withdrawal of both tickets.

Second. The several candidates of these tickets to pledge themselves not to accept any subsequent nomination by the proposed convention.

Under these conditions we will unite with you in urging upon our respective constituencies the adoption of the third proposition submitted by your committee, and conclude the whole controversy by our final withdrawal as candidates. Such withdrawal of both tickets would remove from the canvass all personal as well as political antagonisms, and leave the party united and unembarrassed.

We trust, gentlemen, that your judgment will approve the method we have suggested, and that, appreciating the importance of concluding the matter with as little delay as possible, you will give us your reply within a week from this date.

Very respectfully, your obedient servants,

JOHN STEWART. LEVI BIRD DUFF. GEORGE W. MERRICK. GEORGE JUNKIN.

William McMichael, Independent candidate for Congressman at Large, dissented from the proposition of his colleagues, and addressed the following communication to Chairman Cooper:

PHILADELPHIA, July 13th, 1882.

Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, Chairman, etc.

Dear Sir: Your letter of July 12th is received, addressed to the chairman of the State Committee of the Independent Republicans and their candidates, containing certain propositions of your committee. I decline those propositions, because they involve an abandonment of the cause of the Independent Republicans.

If a new convention, representing all Republicans, had nominated an entirely new ticket, worthy of popular support, and not containing the name of any candidate on either of the present tickets, and sincerely supporting the principles of the Independent Republicans, the necessity for a separate Independent Republican movement would not exist. Your proposition, however, practically proposes to re-nominate General Beaver, and reaffirm the abuse which we oppose.

The convention of Independent Republicans which met in Philadelphia on May 24th, announced principles in which I believe. It nominated me for Congressman at Large, and I accepted that nomination. It declared boldly against bossism, the spoils system, and all the evils which impair Republican usefulness, and in favor of popular rule, equal rights of all, national unity, maintenance of public credit, protection to labor, and all the great principles of true Republicanism. No other ticket now in the field presents those issues. The people of Pennsylvania can say at the polls, in November, whether they approve of those principles, and will support the cause which represents them. I will not withdraw or retire unless events hereafter shall give assurance that necessary reform in the civil service shall be adopted; assessments made upon office-holders returned, and not hereafter exacted; boss, machine, and spoils methods forever abandoned; and all our public offices, from United States Senator to the most unimportant officials, shall be filled only by honest and capable men, who will represent the people, and not attempt to dictate to or control them.

I shall go on with the fight, asking the support of all my fellow-citizens who believe in the principles of the Independent Republican Convention of May 24th.

Yours truly, WILLIAM MCMICHAEL.

To these propositions General Beaver and his colleagues replied in the following communication:

PHILADELPHIA, July 15th, 1882.

Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, Chairman Republican State Committee, Philadelphia, Pa.

Sir: We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt through you of a communication addressed to us by the Hon. John Stewart, Colonel Levi Bird Duff, Major G. W. Merrick, and George Junkin, Esq.; in response to certain propositions submitted by the Republican State Committee, representing the Republican party of Pennsylvania, looking to an amicable and honorable adjustment of whatever differences there may be among the various elements of the party. Without accepting any of the propositions submitted by your committee, this communication asks us, as a condition precedent to any recommendation on the part of the writers thereof, to declare that in the event of the calling of a new convention, we will severally forbid the Republicans of Pennsylvania to call upon us for our services as candidates for the various positions to be filled by the people at the coming election. To say that in the effort to determine whether or not our nomination was the free and unbiased choice of the Republican party we must not be candidates, is simply to try the question at issue. We have no desire to discuss the question in any of its numerous bearings. We have placed ourselves unreservedly in the hands of the Republicans of Pennsylvania. We have pledged ourselves to act concurrently with your committee, and are bound by its action. We therefore respectfully suggest that we have no power or authority to act independently of the committee, or make any declaration at variance with the propositions submitted in accordance with its action. There ought to be and can be no such thing as personal antagonism in this contest. We socially and emphatically disclaim even the remotest approach to a feeling of this kind toward any person. We fraternize with and are ready to support any citizen who loves the cause of pure Republicanism, and with this declaration we submit the whole subject to your deliberate judgment and wise consideration.

JAMES A. BEAVER. WILLIAM HENRY RAWLE. MARRIOTT BROSIUS. W. T. DAVIES. JOHN M. GREER.

At the meeting of the Independent State Committee, July 27th, the propositions of the Regular Committee were unanimously rejected, and a committee appointed to draft a reply, which was done in the following terms:

Thomas V. Cooper, Esq., Chairman Republican State Committee.

Dear Sir: I am instructed to advise you that the Independent Republican State Committee have considered the four suggestions contained in the minutes of the proceedings of your committee, forwarded to me by you on the 12th instant.

I am directed to say that this committee find that none of the four are methods fitted to obtain a harmonious and honorable unity of the Republican voters of Pennsylvania. All of them are inadequate to that end, for the reason that they afford no guarantee that, being accepted, the principles upon which the Independent Republicans have taken their stand would be treated with respect or put into action. All of them contain the probability that an attempt to unite the Republicans of the State by their means would either result in reviving and strengthening the political dictatorship which we condemn or would permanently distract the Republican body, and insure the future and continued triumph of our common opponent, the Democratic party.

Of the four suggestions, the first, second and fourth are so inadequate as to need no separate discussion: the third, which alone may demand attention, has the fatal defect of not including the withdrawal of that “slated” ticket which was made up many months ago, and long in advance of the Harrisburg Convention, to represent and to maintain the very evils of control and abuses of method to which we stand opposed. This proposition, like the others, supposing it to have been sincerely put forward, clearly shows that you misconceive the cause of the Independent Republican movement, as well as its aims and purposes. You assume that we desire to measure the respective numbers of those who support the Harrisburg ticket and those who find their principles expressed by the Philadelphia Convention. This is a complete and fatal misapprehension. We are organized to promote certain reforms, and not to abandon them in pursuit of votes. Our object is the overthrow of the “boss system” and of the “spoils system.”

In behalf of this we are willing and anxious to join hands with you whenever it is assured that the union will be honestly and earnestly for that purpose. But we cannot make alliances or agree to compromises that in their face threaten the very object of the movement in which we have engaged. Whether your ticket has the support of many or few, of a majority or a minority of the Republican voters, does not affect in the smallest degree the duty of every citizen to record himself against the abuses which it represents. Had the gentlemen who compose it been willing to withdraw themselves from the field, as they were invited to join in doing, for the common good, by the Independent Republican candidates, this act would have encouraged the hope that a new convention, freely chosen by the people, and unembarrassed by claims of existing candidates, might have brought forth the needed guarantee of party emancipation and public reform.

This service, however, they have declined to render their party; they not only claim and receive your repeated assurances of support, but they permit themselves to be put forward to secure the use of the Independent Republican votes at the same time that they represent the “bossism,” the “spoils” methods, and the “machine” management which we are determined no longer to tolerate. The manner in which their candidacy was decreed, the means employed to give it convention formality, the obligations which they incur by it, the political methods with which it identifies them, and the political and personal plans for which their official influence would be required, all join to make it the most imperative public duty not to give them support at this election under any circumstances.

In closing this note, this committee must express its regret, that, having considered it desirable to make overtures to the Independent Republicans, you should have so far misapprehended the facts of the situation. It is our desire to unite the Republican party on the sure ground of principle, in the confidence that we are thus serving it with the highest fidelity, and preserving for the future service of the Commonwealth that vitality of Republicanism which has made the party useful in the past, and which alone confers upon it now the right of continued existence. The only method which promises this result in the approaching election is that proposed by the Independent Republican candidates in their letter of July 13th, 1882, which was positively rejected by your committee.

On behalf of the Independent Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania,

I. D. MCKEE, Chairman.

With this communication ended all efforts at conciliation.

* * * * *

The election followed, and the Democratic ticket, headed by Robert E. Pattison of Philadelphia, received an average plurality of 40,000, and the Independent Republican ticket received an average vote of about 43,000–showing that while Independence organized did not do as well in a gubernatorial as it had in a previous off-year, it yet had force enough to defeat the Republican State ticket headed by Gen. James A. Beaver. All of the three several State tickets were composed of able men, and the force of both of the Republican tickets on the hustings excited great interest and excitement; yet the Republican vote, owing to the division, was not out by nearly one hundred thousand, and fifty thousand more Republicans than Democrats remained at home, many of them purposely. In New York, where dissatisfaction had no rallying point, about two hundred thousand Republicans remained at home, some because of anger at the defeat of Gov. Cornell in the State nominating convention—some in protest against the National Administrations, which was accused of the desire for direct endorsement where it presented the name of Hon. Chas. J. Folger, its Secretary of the Treasury, as the home gubernatorial candidate,—others because of some of the many reasons set forth in the bill of complaints which enumerates the causes of the dissatisfaction within the party.

At this writing the work of Republican repair is going on. Both the Senate and House at Washington are giving active work to the passage of a tariff bill, the repeal of the revenue taxes, and the passage of a two-cent letter postage bill—measures anxiously hastened by the Republicans in order to anticipate friendly and defeat unfriendly attempts on the part of the Democratic House, which comes in with the first session of the 48th Congress.

In Pennsylvania, as we close this review of the struggle of 1882, the Regular and Independent Republican State Committees—at least the heads thereof—are devising a plan to jointly call a Republican State Convention to nominate the State ticket to be voted for in November, 1883. The groundswell was so great that it had no sooner passed, than Republicans of all shades of opinion, felt the need of harmonious action, and the leaders everywhere set themselves to the work of repair.

The Republicans in the South differed from those of the North in the fact that their complaints were all directed against a natural political enemy—the Bourbons—and wherever there was opportunity they favored and entered into movements with Independent and Readjuster Democrats, with the sole object of revolutionizing political affairs in the South. Their success in these combinations was only great in Virginia, but it proved to be promising in North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and may take more definite and general shape in the great campaign of 1884.

The Democratic party was evidently surprised at its great victory in 1882, and has not yet formally resolved what it will do with it. The Congress beginning with December, 1883, will doubtless give some indication of the drift of Democratic events.

The most notable law passed in the closing session of the 47th Congress, was the Civil Service Reform Bill, introduced by Senator Geo. H. Pendleton of Ohio, but prepared under the direction of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Republicans, feeling that there was some public demand for the passage of a measure of the kind, eagerly rushed to its support, at a time when it was apparent that the spoils of office might slip from their hands. From opposite motives the Democrats, who had previously encouraged, now ran away from it, but it passed both Houses with almost a solid Republican vote, a few Democrats in each House voting with them. President Arthur signed the bill, but at this writing the Commission which it creates has not been appointed, and of course none of the rules and constructions under the act have been formulated. Its basic principles are fixed tenure in minor places, competitive examinations, and non-partisan selections.

POLITICAL CHANGES—1883.

In the fall of 1883 nearly all of the States swept by the tidal wave of 1882 showed that it had either partially or completely receded, and for the first time since the close of the Hayes administration (always excepting the remarkable Garfield-Hancock campaign), the Republican party exhibited plain signs of returning unity and strength. Henry Ward Beecher has wittily said that “following the war the nation needed a poultice, and got it in the Hayes administration.” The poultice for a time only drew the sores into plainer view, and healing potions were required for the contests immediately following. The divisions of 1882 were as much the result of the non-action of the Hayes administration, as of the misunderstandings and feuds which later on found bitter manifestation between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds of New York.

The Independents took no organized form except in New York and Pennsylvania, and yet the underlying causes of division for the time swept from their Republican moorings not only the States named, but also Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, Colorado and California.

The year 1882 seemed the culmination of every form of Republican division, and then everything in the States named gave place to faction. Very wisely the Republican leaders determined to repair the mischief, as far as possible, in the otherwise uneventful year of 1883. Their efforts were in most instances successful, especially in Massachusetts where Robinson overthrew Gen. Butler’s State administration by 20,000 majority; in Pennsylvania, where the Republican State ticket received about 20,000 majority, after the reunion of the Regular and independent factions. In Pennsylvania the efforts at reconciliation made in the Continental Conference, and in subsequent conventions, gave fruit in 1883, and at this writing in July, 1884 there is no mark of division throughout the entire State, if we except such as must inevitably follow the plain acceptance of Free Trade and Protective issues. Very few of the Republicans of Pennsylvania favor Free Trade, and only in the ranks of this few could any division be traced after the close of the elections of 1883.

Ohio was an exception to the Republican work of reconciliation. Division still continued, and Judge Hoadly, a leading and very talented Democrat, was elected Governor by about 15,000 majority, after a contest which involved the expenditure of large sums of money. In the Convention which nominated Hoadly, Senator Pendleton was practically overthrown because of his attachment to the Civil Service law which takes his name, and later on he was defeated for U. S. Senator by Mr. Payne, the McLean and Bookwalter factions uniting for his overthrow, which was accomplished despite the efforts of Thurman, Ward and other leaders of the older elements of the party. Both the Hoadly and Payne battles were won under the banners of the “Young Democracy.”

Any compilation of the returns of 1883 must be measurably imperfect, for in only a few of the States were important and decisive battles waged. Such as they were, however, are given in the table on the next page:

State Elections of 1882 and 1883, compared with the Presidential Election of 1880. ┌───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────── │ STATES. │ 1880. ├───────────────┼───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬─────────── │ „ │ Garfield, │ Hancock, │ Weaver, │ Dow, │ │ Rep. │ Dem. │ Gbk. │ Pro. ├───────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────── │Alabama │ 56,221│ 91,185│ 4,642│ │Arkansas │ 42,436│ 60,775│ 4,079│ │California │ 80,348│ 80,426│ 3,392│ │Colorado │ 27,450│ 24,647│ 1,435│ │Connecticut│ 67,071│ 64,415│ 868│ 40 │Delaware │ 14,133│ 15,275│ 120│ │Florida │ 23,654│ 27,964│ │ │Georgia │ 54,086│ 102,470│ 969│ │Illinois │ 318,037│ 277,321│ 26,358│ 443 │Indiana │ 232,164│ 225,522│ 12,986│ │Iowa │ 183,927│ 105,845│ 32,701│ 592 │Kansas │ 121,549│ 59,801│ 19,851│ 25 │Kentucky │ 106,306│ 149,068│ 11,499│ 258 │Louisiana │ 38,637│ 65,067│ 439│ │Maine │ 74,039│ 65,171│ 4,408│ 93 │Maryland │ 78,515│ 93,706│ 818│ │Massachusetts │ 165,205│ 111,960│ 4,548│ 682 │Michigan │ 185,341│ 131,597│ 34,895│ 942 │Minnesota │ 93,903│ 53,315│ 3,267│ 286 │Mississippi │ 34,854│ 75,750│ 5,797│ │Missouri │ 153,567│ 200,699│ 35,135│ │Nebraska │ 54,979│ 28,523│ 3,950│ │Nevada │ 8,732│ 9,613│ │ │New Hampshire │ 44,852│ 40,794│ 528│ 180 │New Jersey │ 120,555│ 122,565│ 2,617│ 191 │New York │ 555,544│ 534,511│ 12,373│ 1,517 │North Carolina │ 115,874│ 124,208│ 1,126│ │Ohio │ 375,048│ 340,821│ 6,456│ 2,616 │Oregon │ 20,619│ 19,948│ 249│ │Pennsylvania │ 444,704│ 407,428│ 20,668│ 1,939 │Rhode Island │ 18,195│ 10,779│ 236│ 20 │South Carolina │ 58,071│ 112,312│ 556│ │Tennessee │ 107,677│ 128,191│ 5,917│ 43 │Texas │ 57,893│ 156,428│ 27,405│ │Vermont │ 45,567│ 18,316│ 1,215│ │Virginia │ 84,020│ 128,586│ │ │West Virginia │ 46,243│ 57,391│ 9,079│ │Wisconsin │ 144,400│ 114,649│ 7,986│ 69 ├───────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────── │ Total │ 4,454,416│ 4,444,952│ 308,578│ 10,305 │ │ │ │ │ │Plurality │ 9,464│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Total vote │ 9,219,947 │ ├───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────── │ STATES. │ 1882. ├───────────────┼───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬─────────── │ „ │ Rep. │ Dem. │ Gbk. │ Pro. ├───────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────── │Alabama │ 46,386│ 100,591│ │ │Arkansas │ 49,352│ 87,675│ 10,142│ │California │ 67,175│ 90,694│ 1,020│ 5,772 │Colorado │ 27,552│ 29,897│ │ │Connecticut│ 54,853│ 59,014│ 607│ 1,034 │Delaware │ 10,088│ 12,053│ │ │Florida │ 20,139│ 24,067│ 3,553│ │Georgia │ 24,930│ 81,443│ 68│ │Illinois │ 254,551│ 249,067│ 11,306│ 11,202 │Indiana │ 210,234│ 220,918│ 13,520│ │Iowa │ 149,051│ 112,180│ 30,817│ │Kansas │ 98,166│ 61,547│ 23,300│ │Kentucky │ 79,036│ 110,813│ 736│ │Louisiana │ 33,953│ 49,892│ │ │Maine │ 72,724│ 63,852│ 1,302│ 395 │Maryland │ 74,515│ 80,725│ 1,833│ │Massachusetts │134,358│116,678│ 4,033│ 2,141 │Michigan │157,925│149,443│ 1,572│ 4,440 │Minnesota │ 92,802│ 46,653│ 3,781│ 1,545 │Mississippi │ 30,282│ 48,159│ │ │Missouri │ 128,239│ 198,620│ 33,407│ │Nebraska │ 43,495│ 28,562│ 16,991│ │Nevada │ 7,362│ 6,906│ │ │New Hampshire │ 38,299│ 36,879│ 449│ 338 │New Jersey │ 97,860│ 99,962│ 6,063│ 2,004 │New York │409,422│482,822│ 10,527│ 16,234 │North Carolina │ 111,320│ 111,763│ │ │Ohio │ 297,759│ 316,874│ 5,345│ 12,202 │Oregon │ 21,481│ 20,069│ │ │Pennsylvania │359,232│355,791│ 23,996│ 5,196 │Rhode Island │ 10,056│ 5,311│ 120│ │South Carolina │ │ 67,458│ 17,719│ │Tennessee │ 91,693│123,929│ 9,538│ │Texas │ 41,761│ 142,087│ 41,825│ │Vermont │ 35,839│ 14,466│ 1,535│ │Virginia │ 100,690│ 94,184│ │ │West Virginia │ 43,440│ 46,661│ │ │Wisconsin │ 94,606│ 103,630│ 2,496│ 13,800 ├───────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────── │ Total │ 3,620,844│ 4,051,035│ 277,691│ 76,303 │ │ │ │ │ │Plurality │ │ 130,195│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Total vote │ 8,025,975 │ ├───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────── │ STATES. │ 1883. ├───────────────┼───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬─────────── │ „ │ Rep. │ Dem. │ Gbk. │ Pro. ├───────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────── │Alabama │ │ │ │ │Arkansas │ │ │ │ │California │ │ │ │ │Colorado │ │ │ │ │Connecticut │ 51,749│ 46,146│ │ │Delaware │ │ │ │ │Florida │ │ │ │ │Georgia │ │ 23,680│ │ │Illinois │ │ │ │ │Indiana │ │ │ │ │Iowa │ 164,182│ 139,093│ 23,089│ │Kansas │ │ │ │ │Kentucky │ 89,181│ 133,615│ │ │Louisiana │ │ │ │ │Maine │ │ │ │ │Maryland │ 80,707│ 92,694│ │ 1,881 │Massachusetts │ 160,092│ 150,228│ │ 13,950 │Michigan │ 122,330│ 127,376│ │ │Minnesota │ 72,404│ 57,859│ │ │Mississippi │ │ │ │ │Missouri │ │ │ │ │Nebraska │ 52,305│ 47,795│ │ │Nevada │ │ │ │ │New Hampshire │ │ │ │ │New Jersey │ 97,047│ 103,856│ 2,960│ 4,153 │New York │ 429,252│ 445,817│ 7,187│ 19,368 │North Carolina │ │ │ │ │Ohio │ 347,164│ 359,793│ 2,937│ 8,362 │Oregon │ │ │ │ │Pennsylvania │ 319,106│ 302,031│ 4,452│ 6,602 │Rhode Island │ 13,068│ 10,907│ │ │South Carolina │ │ │ │ │Tennessee │ │ │ │ │Texas │ │ │ │ │Vermont │ │ │ │ │Virginia │ │ │ │ │West Virginia │ │ │ │ │Wisconsin │ │ │ │ ├───────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┼─────────── │ Total │ 1,998,587│ 2,040,890│ 40,629│ 54,316 │ │ │ │ │ │Plurality │ │ 42,303│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Total vote │ 4,134,458

POLITICAL CHANGES—1884.

The Republican National Convention met at Chicago, in the Exposition Building, on Tuesday, June 3d, 1884. It was called to order by Senator Sabin, the Chairman of the National Committee, who at the conclusion of his address, at the request of his Committee, presented the name of Hon. Powell Clayton, of Arkansas, for temporary President. Gen. Clayton, as a friend of Blaine, was antagonized by the field, which named Hon. John R. Lynch for the place. An exciting debate followed, at the close of which Mr. Lynch received 431 votes to 387 for Clayton. Ex-Senator Henderson of Missouri was made permanent President without a contest. The contested seats were amicably settled, the most notable being that of the straight-out Republicans of Virginia against Gen. Mahone’s delegation. The latter was admitted, the only contest being in the Committee. The Blaine leaders did not antagonize, but rather favored Mahone’s admission, as did the field generally, for the State Convention which elected this delegation had openly abandoned the name of the Readjuster Party and taken that of the Republican. None of the Straightouts expressed dissatisfaction at what appeared to be the almost universal sentiment.

Candidates for the Nomination.

On the third day the following candidates were formally placed in nomination, after eloquent eulogies, the most notable being those of Judge West of Ohio, in behalf of Blaine; Gen. H. H. Bingham, of Penna., for President Arthur; and Geo. W. Curtis for Senator Edmunds:

JAMES G. BLAINE, of Maine. CHESTER A. ARTHUR, of New York. JOHN SHERMAN, of Ohio. GEORGE F. EDMUNDS, of Vermont. JOHN A. LOGAN, of Illinois. JOSEPH R. HAWLEY, of Connecticut.

On the adjoining page is given the result of the ballots.

The convention sat four days, completed its work harmoniously, and adopted a platform without a negative vote. [We give it in full in our Book of Platforms, and compare its vital issues with that of the Democratic in our comparison of Platform Planks.]

The Democratic National Convention.

This body assembled at Chicago, in the Exposition Building, on Tuesday, July 8th, 1884, and was called to order by Ex-Senator Barnum, the Chairman of the National Committee. The Committee presented Governor Richard B. Hubbard, of Texas, for temporary chairman. After his address a notable contest followed on the adoption of the unit rule, the debate being participated in by many delegates. Mr. Fellows, of New York, favored the rule, as did all of the advocates of Governor Cleveland’s nomination for President, while John Kelly opposed it with a view to give freedom of choice to the twenty-five delegates from New York who were acting with him. The contest was inaugurated by Mr. Smalley, of Vermont, who was instructed by the National Committee to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, that the rules of the last Democratic Convention govern this body until otherwise ordered, subject to the following modification: That in voting for candidates for President and Vice-President no State shall be allowed to change its vote until the roll of the States has been called, and every State has cast its vote.

Mr. Grady, of New York, offered the following amendment to the resolution:

When the vote of a State, as announced by the chairman of the delegation from such State is challenged by any member of the delegation, then the Secretary shall call the names of the individual delegates from the State, and their individual preferences as expressed shall be recorded as the vote of such State.

After discussion the question was then put, the chairman of each State delegation announcing its vote as follows:

THE VOTE IN DETAIL. ──────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── States. │ First Ballot. ──────────────┼──────┬───────┬───────┬──────┬──────┬─────┬───────┬─────┬───── │ No. │ │ │ │ │Sher-│ │ │Sher- „ │Dele- │ │ │ Ed- │ │man, │ │Lin- │man, │gates.│Blaine.│Arthur.│munds.│Logan.│John.│Hawley.│coln.│W. T. ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼───── Alabama │ 20│ 1│ 17│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Arkansas │ 14│ 8│ 4│ 2│ │ │ │ │ California │ 16│ 16│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Colorado │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Connecticut │ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ 12│ │ Delaware │ 6│ 5│ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ Florida │ 8│ 1│ 7│ │ │ │ │ │ Georgia │ 24│ │ 24│ │ │ │ │ │ Illinois │ 44│ 3│ 1│ │ 40│ │ │ │ Indiana │ 30│ 18│ 9│ 1│ │ 2│ │ │ Iowa │ 26│ 26│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Kansas │ 18│ 12│ 4│ │ 1│ │ 1│ │ Kentucky │ 26│ 5½│ 16│ │ 2½│ 1│ │ 1│ Louisiana │ 16│ 2│ 10│ │ 3│ │ │ │ Maine │ 12│ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Maryland │ 16│ 10│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ Massachusetts │ 28│ 1│ 2│ 25│ │ │ │ │ Michigan │ 26│ 15│ 2│ 7│ │ │ │ │ 2 Minnesota │ 14│ 7│ 1│ 6│ │ │ │ │ Mississippi │ 18│ 1│ 17│ │ │ │ │ │ Missouri │ 32│ 5│ 10│ 6│ 10│ 1│ │ │ Nebraska │ 10│ 8│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Nevada │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ New Hampshire │ 8│ │ 4│ 4│ │ │ │ │ New Jersey │ 18│ 9│ │ 6│ │ 1│ │ 2│ New York │ 72│ 28│ 31│ 12│ │ │ │ 1│ North Carolina│ 22│ 2│ 19│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Ohio │ 46│ 21│ │ │ │ 25│ │ │ Oregon │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Pennsylvania │ 60│ 47│ 11│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ Rhode Island │ 8│ │ │ 8│ │ │ │ │ South Carolina│ 18│ 1│ 17│ │ │ │ │ │ Tennessee │ 24│ 7│ 16│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Texas │ 26│ 13│ 11│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Vermont │ 8│ │ │ 8│ │ │ │ │ Virginia │ 24│ 2│ 21│ │ 1│ │ │ │ West Virginia │ 12│ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wisconsin │ 22│ 10│ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ Territories.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Arizona │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Dakota │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Idaho │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Montana │ 2│ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ New Mexico │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Utah │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Washington │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wyoming │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Dist. of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Columbia │ 2│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼───── Total │ 820│ 334½│ 278│ 93│ 63½│ 30│ 13│ 4│ 2 ──────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴───────┴─────┴─────

──────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── States. │ Second Ballot. ──────────────┼──────┬───────┬───────┬──────┬──────┬─────┬───────┬─────┬───── │ No. │ │ │ │ │ J. │ │ │ G. „ │Dele- │ │ │ Ed- │ │Sher-│ │Lin- │Sher- │gates.│Blaine.│Arthur.│munds.│Logan.│ man │Hawley.│coln.│ man ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼───── Alabama │ 20│ 2│ 17│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Arkansas │ 14│ 11│ 3│ │ │ │ │ │ California │ 16│ 16│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Colorado │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Connecticut │ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ 12│ │ Delaware │ 6│ 5│ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ Florida │ 8│ 1│ 7│ │ │ │ │ │ Georgia │ 24│ │ 24│ │ │ │ │ │ Illinois │ 44│ 3│ 1│ │ 40│ │ │ │ Indiana │ 30│ 18│ 9│ 1│ │ 2│ │ │ Iowa │ 26│ 26│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Kansas │ 18│ 13│ 2│ │ 2│ │ 1│ │ Kentucky │ 26│ 5│ 17│ │ 2│ 1│ │ 1│ Louisiana │ 16│ 4│ 9│ │ 2│ │ │ │ Maine │ 12│ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Maryland │ 16│ 12│ 4│ │ │ │ │ │ Massachusetts │ 28│ 1│ 3│ 24│ │ │ │ │ Michigan │ 26│ 15│ 4│ 5│ │ │ │ │ 2 Minnesota │ 14│ 7│ 1│ 6│ │ │ │ │ Mississippi │ 18│ 1│ 17│ │ │ │ │ │ Missouri │ 32│ 7│ 10│ 5│ 8│ 1│ │ │ Nebraska │ 10│ 8│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Nevada │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ New Hampshire │ 8│ │ 5│ 3│ │ │ │ │ New Jersey │ 18│ 9│ │ 6│ │ 1│ │ 2│ New York │ 72│ 28│ 31│ 12│ │ │ │ 1│ North Carolina│ 22│ 3│ 18│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Ohio │ 46│ 23│ │ │ │ 23│ │ │ Oregon │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Pennsylvania │ 60│ 47│ 11│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ Rhode Island │ 8│ │ │ 8│ │ │ │ │ South Carolina│ 18│ 1│ 17│ │ │ │ │ │ Tennessee │ 24│ 7│ 16│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Texas │ 26│ 13│ 11│ │ 2│ │ │ │ Vermont │ 8│ │ │ 8│ │ │ │ │ Virginia │ 24│ 2│ 21│ │ 1│ │ │ │ West Virginia │ 12│ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wisconsin │ 22│ 11│ 6│ 5│ │ │ │ │ Territories.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Arizona │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Dakota │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Idaho │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Montana │ 2│ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ New Mexico │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Utah │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Washington │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wyoming │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Dist. of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Columbia │ 2│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼───── Total │ 820│ 349│ 275│ 85│ 61│ 28│ 13│ 4│ 2 ──────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴───────┴─────┴─────

──────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── States. │ Third Ballot. ──────────────┼──────┬───────┬───────┬──────┬──────┬─────┬───────┬─────┬───── │ No. │ │ │ │ │ J. │ │ │ G. „ │Dele- │ │ │ Ed- │ │Sher-│ │Lin- │Sher- │gates.│Blaine.│Arthur.│munds.│Logan.│ man │Hawley.│coln.│ man ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼───── Alabama │ 20│ 2│ 17│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Arkansas │ 14│ 11│ 3│ │ │ │ │ │ California │ 16│ 16│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Colorado │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Connecticut │ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ 12│ │ Delaware │ 6│ 5│ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ Florida │ 8│ 1│ 7│ │ │ │ │ │ Georgia │ 24│ │ 24│ │ │ │ │ │ Illinois │ 44│ 3│ 1│ │ 40│ │ │ │ Indiana │ 30│ 18│ 10│ │ │ 2│ │ │ Iowa │ 26│ 26│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Kansas │ 18│ 15│ │ │ 2│ │ 1│ │ Kentucky │ 26│ 6│ 16│ │ 2│ 1│ │ 1│ Louisiana │ 16│ 4│ 9│ │ 2│ │ │ │ Maine │ 12│ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Maryland │ 16│ 12│ 4│ │ │ │ │ │ Massachusetts │ 28│ 1│ 3│ 24│ │ │ │ │ Michigan │ 26│ 18│ 3│ 3│ │ 1│ │ │ Minnesota │ 14│ 7│ 2│ 5│ │ │ │ │ Mississippi │ 18│ 1│ 16│ │ │ │ │ 1│ Missouri │ 32│ 12│ 11│ 4│ 4│ 1│ │ │ Nebraska │ 10│ 10│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Nevada │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ New Hampshire │ 8│ │ 5│ 3│ │ │ │ │ New Jersey │ 18│ 11│ 1│ │ │ │ 6│ │ New York │ 72│ 28│ 32│ 12│ │ │ │ │ North Carolina│ 22│ 4│ 18│ │ │ │ │ │ Ohio │ 46│ 25│ │ │ │ 21│ │ │ Oregon │ 6│ 6│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Pennsylvania │ 60│ 50│ 8│ 1│ 1│ │ │ 1│ Rhode Island │ 8│ │ │ 8│ │ │ │ │ South Carolina│ 18│ 2│ 16│ │ │ │ │ │ Tennessee │ 24│ 7│ 17│ │ │ │ │ │ Texas │ 26│ 14│ 11│ │ 1│ │ │ │ Vermont │ 8│ │ │ 8│ │ │ │ │ Virginia │ 24│ 4│ 20│ │ │ │ │ │ West Virginia │ 12│ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wisconsin │ 22│ 11│ 10│ │ │ │ │ │ Territories.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Arizona │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Dakota │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Idaho │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Montana │ 2│ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ New Mexico │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Utah │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Washington │ 2│ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wyoming │ 2│ │ 2│ │ │ │ │ │ Dist. of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Columbia │ 2│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ │ │ ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼───── Total │ 820│ 375│ 274│ 69│ 53│ 25│ 13│ 8│ 2 ──────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴───────┴─────┴─────

──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────── States. │ Fourth Ballot. ──────────────┼──────┬───────┬───────┬──────┬──────┬─────┬───────┬───── │ No. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ „ │Dele- │ │ │ Ed- │ │Sher-│ │Lin- │gates.│Arthur.│Blaine.│munds.│Logan.│man. │Hawley.│coln. ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼───── Alabama │ 20│ 12│ 8│ │ │ │ │ Arkansas │ 14│ 3│ 11│ │ │ │ │ California │ 16│ │ 16│ │ │ │ │ Colorado │ 6│ │ 6│ │ │ │ │ Connecticut │ 12│ │ │ │ │ │ 12│ Delaware │ 6│ 1│ 5│ │ │ │ │ Florida │ 8│ 5│ 3│ │ │ │ │ Georgia │ 24│ 24│ │ │ │ │ │ Illinois │ 44│ 3│ 34│ │ 6│ │ │ Indiana │ 30│ │ 30│ │ │ │ │ Iowa │ 26│ 2│ 24│ │ │ │ │ Kansas │ 18│ │ 18│ │ │ │ │ Kentucky │ 26│ 15│ 9│ │ 1│ │ │1 Louisiana │ 16│ 7│ 9│ │ │ │ │ Maine │ 12│ │ 12│ │ │ │ │ Maryland │ 16│ 1│ 15│ │ │ │ │ Massachusetts │ 28│ 7│ 3│ 18│ │ │ │ Michigan │ 26│ │ 26│ │ │ │ │ Minnesota │ 14│ │ 14│ │ │ │ │ Mississippi │ 18│ 16│ 2│ │ │ │ │ Missouri │ 32│ │ 32│ │ │ │ │ Nebraska │ 10│ │ 10│ │ │ │ │ Nevada │ 6│ │ 6│ │ │ │ │ New Hampshire │ 8│ 2│ 5│ 3│ │ │ │ New Jersey │ 18│ 0│ 17│ 1│ │ │ │ New York │ 72│ 30│ 26│ 9│ │ │ 2│ 1 North Carolina│ 22│ 12│ 8│ │ │ │ 1│ Ohio │ 46│ 0│ 46│ │ │ │ │ Oregon │ 6│ 0│ 6│ │ │ │ │ Pennsylvania │ 60│ 8│ 51│ 1│ │ │ │ Rhode Island │ 8│ 1│ 7│ │ │ │ │ South Carolina│ 18│ 15│ 2│ 1│ │ │ │ Tennessee │ 24│ 12│ 11│ │ │ │ │ Texas │ 26│ 8│ 15│ │ │ │ │ Vermont │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 8│ │ │ │ Virginia │ 24│ 20│ 4│ │ │ │ │ West Virginia │ 12│ 0│ 12│ │ │ │ │ Wisconsin │ 22│ 0│ 22│ │ │ │ │ Territories.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Arizona │ 2│ 0│ 2│ │ │ │ │ Dakota │ 2│ 0│ 2│ │ │ │ │ Idaho │ 2│ 0│ 2│ │ │ │ │ Montana │ 2│ 0│ 2│ │ │ │ │ New Mexico │ 2│ 2│ 0│ │ │ │ │ Utah │ 2│ 0│ 2│ │ │ │ │ Washington │ 2│ 0│ 2│ │ │ │ │ Wyoming │ 2│ 2│ 0│ │ │ │ │ Dist. of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Columbia │ 2│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ │ ──────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼───── Total │ 820│ 207│ 541│ 41│ 7│ │ 15│ 2 ──────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴───────┴─────

States. Yeas Nays Alabama 15 5 Arkansas 14 California 16 Colorado 4 2 Connecticut 2 10 Delaware 6 Florida 2 6 Georgia 12 12 Illinois 22 22 Indiana 30 Iowa 6 20 Kansas 3 15 Kentucky 20 6 Louisiana 16 Maine 2 10 Maryland 16 Massachusetts 21 7 Michigan 12 12 Minnesota 14 Mississippi 18 Missouri 18 24 Nebraska 5 5 Nevada 6 New Hampshire 8 New Jersey 14 4 New York 72 North Carolina 10 12 Ohio 25 21 Oregon 6 Pennsylvania 21 39 Rhode Island 8 South Carolina 3 14 Tennessee 17 7 Texas 12 10 Vermont 8 Virginia 6 18 West Virginia 9 3 Wisconsin 5 17

The Secretary announced the result of the vote as follows: Total number of votes cast, 795; yeas, 332; nays, 463.

The report of the Committee on Permanent Organization was then made; the name of W. H. Vilas, of Wisconsin, being presented as President, with a list of vice-presidents (one from each state) and several secretaries and assistants, and that the secretaries and clerks of the temporary organization be continued under the permanent organization.

The Contest over the Platform.

There was a two-days contest in the Committee on Resolutions over the adoption of the revenue features of the Platform. It advocated the collection of revenue for public uses exclusively, the italicized word being the subject of the controversy. It was retained by a vote of 20 to 18. To avoid extended debate in the Convention an agreement was made that Gen. Butler should make a minority report, and that three speeches should be made, these by Butler, Converse and Watterson. Col. Morrison, of Illinois, made the majority report, which was adopted with but 97½ negative votes out of a total of 820.

The Ballots.

Before balloting an effort was made to abolish the two-third rule, but this met with such decided disfavor that it was withdrawn before the roll of States was completed.

There were two ballots taken on the Presidential candidates, and they were as follows:

First. Second. Total number of votes 820 820 Necessary to a choice 547 547 Grover Cleveland, of New York 392 684 Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware 168 81½ Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio 88 4 Samuel J. Randall, of Penn 78 4 Joseph E. McDonald of Indiana 56 1 John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky 27 Roswell P. Flower, of New York 4 George Hoadly, of Ohio 3 Samuel J. Tilden, of New York 1 Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana 1 45½

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, who was defeated eight years ago on the Tilden ticket, was nominated for Vice-President by acclamation.

The Kelly and Butler elements of the Convention, at all of the important stages, manifested their hostility to Cleveland, but there was no open bolt, and the Convention completed its work after sitting four days.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884.

In what were regarded as the pivotal States the campaign of 1884, was attended with the utmost interest and excitement. Blaine, the most brilliant political leader of modern times, was acceptable to all of the more active and earnest elements of the Republican party, and the ability with which he had championed the protective system and a more aggressive foreign policy, attracted very many Irishmen who had formerly been Democrats. The young and more intelligent leaders of this element promptly espoused the cause of the Republicans, and their action caused a serious division in the Democratic ranks. Wherever Irish-Americans were sufficiently numerous to form societies of their own, such as the “Irish-American League,” the “Land League,” the “Clan na Gael,” etc., there supporters of Blaine were found, and these were by a singular coincidence most numerous in the doubtful States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio and Indiana. Cleveland’s nomination by the Democrats had angered the Tammany wing of the party in New York, and not until very close to the election was a reconciliation effected. Tilden had from the first favored Cleveland, and with Daniel Manning as his manager in New York, no effort was spared to heal Democratic divisions and to promote them in the Republican ranks. Thus the Independent or Civil Service wing of the Republican party, which in Boston and New York cities, and in the cities of Connecticut, confessed attachment to free trade, was easily rallied under the Democratic banner. In convention in New York city this element denounced Blaine on what it pronounced a paramount moral issue, and for a time such brilliant orators as Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, George W. Curtis and Carl Schurz, “rang the changes” upon the moral questions presented by the canvass. They were halted by scandals about Cleveland, and the Maria Halpin story, almost too indecent for historical reference, became a prominent feature of the campaign with the acquiescence, if not under the direction of the Republican managers. Many of our best thinkers deplored the shape thus given to the canvass, but the responsibility for it is clearly traceable to the plan of campaign instituted by the Independents, or “Mugwumps,” as they were called—“Mugwump” implying a small leader.

Only Ohio, West Virginia and Iowa remained as October States, and in the height of the canvass all eyes were turned upon Ohio. In all of the Western States both of the great parties had been distracted by prohibitory and high license issues, and Ohio,—because of temperance agitations, which still remained as disturbing elements—had drifted into the Democratic column. If it were again lost to the Republicans, their national campaign would practically have ended then and there, so far as reasonable hopes could be entertained for the election of Blaine. This fact led to an extraordinary effort to influence favorable action there, and both Blaine and Logan made tours of the State, and speeches at the more important points. Mr. Blaine first went to New York city, thence through New Jersey, speaking at night at all important points on the Pennsylvania Railroad, and was the following day received by the Union League of Philadelphia. In the evening he reviewed a procession of 20,000 uniformed men. He then returned to New York, not yet having uttered a partisan sentence, but in passing westward through its towns, he occasionally referred to their progress under the system of protection. Reaching Ohio, he spoke more and more plainly of the issues of the canvass as his journey proceeded, and wherever he went his speeches commanded national comment and attention. His plain object was, for the time at least, to smother local issues by the graver national ones, and he did this with an ability which has never been matched in the history of American oratory. The result was a victory for the Republicans in October; they carried Ohio by about 15,000, and greatly reduced the Democratic majority in West Virginia.

From this time forward the battle on the part of the Republicans was hopeful; on the part of the Democrats desperate but not despairing. Senator Barnum, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was a skilled and trained politician, and he sedulously cultivated Independent and Prohibition defection in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Indiana. Whether the scandals growing out of the result be true or false, every political observer could see that the elements named were under at least the partial direction of the Democratic National Committee, for their support was inconsiderable in States where they were not needed in crippling the chances of the Republicans. The Republican National Committee, headed by Mr. B. F. Jones, of Pennsylvania, an earnest and able, but an untrained leader, did not seek to check these plain efforts at defection. This Committee thought, and at the time seemed to be justified in the belief that the defection of Irish-Americans in the same States would more than counterbalance all of the Independent and Prohibitory defection. The Republicans were likewise aided by General Butler, who ran as the Greenback or “People’s” candidate, as he called himself. It would have done it easily, but for an accident, possibly a trick, on the Thursday preceding the November election. Mr. Blaine was at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York, and among the many delegations which visited him was one of three hundred ministers who wished to show their confidence in his moral and intellectual fitness for the Chief Magistracy. The oldest of the ministers present was Mr. Burchard, and he was assigned to deliver the address. In closing it he referred to what he thought ought to be a common opposition to “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion,”—an alliteration which not only awakened the wrath of the Democracy, but which quickly estranged many of the Irish-American supporters of Blaine and Logan. Mr. Blaine on the two following days tried to counteract the effects of an imprudence for which he was in no way responsible, but the alliteration was instantly and everywhere employed to revive religious issues and hatreds, and to such an extent that circulars were distributed at the doors of Catholic churches, implying that Blaine himself had used the offensive words. A more unexpected blow was never known in our political history; it was quite as sudden and more damaging than the Morey forgery at the close of the Garfield campaign. It determined the result, and was the most prominent of half a dozen mishaps, which if they had not happened, must have inevitably led to the election of Blaine.

As it was, the result was so close in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Indiana and West Virginia, that it required several days to determine it, and it was not known as to New York until the 19th of November.

The popular vote for Presidential electors was cast on the 4th of November last, and the results are tabulated below. Where differences were found to exist in the vote for Electors in any State the vote for the highest on each ticket is given in all cases where the complete statement of the vote of the State has been received. The results show a total vote of 10,046,073, of which the Cleveland ticket received 4,913,901, the Blaine ticket 4,847,659, the Butler ticket 133,880, and the St. John ticket 150,633, showing a plurality of 66,242 for Cleveland. The total vote in 1880 was 9,218,251, and Garfield’s plurality 9464. It should be noted, in considering the tabulated statement of this year’s vote, that the Blaine Electoral tickets were supported by the Republicans and the People’s Party in Missouri and West Virginia, and that Cleveland Electoral tickets were supported by the Democrats and the People’s Party in Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska. The People’s Party claims to have cast about 41,300 votes for the fusion ticket in Michigan and about 33,000 votes in Iowa. The vote of California is official from all but two counties; the unofficial reports from these are included in the totals given in the table. South Carolina returns 1237 “scattering” votes.

─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── STATES. │ 1884. ─────────────┼─────────┬───────────┬─────────┬───────┬────────────────────── │ │ │ │ St. │ „ │Blaine, │Cleveland,│Butler, │ John, │ │ Rep. │ Dem. │People’s│ Pro. │ ELECTORAL VOTE. ─────────────┼─────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────┬──────────── „ │ „ │ „ │ „ │ „ │Blaine.│Cleveland. ─────────────┼─────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────── Alabama │ 59,444│ 92,973│ 762│ 610│ │ 10 Arkansas │ 50,895│ 72,927│ 1,847│ │ │ 7 California │ 102,397│ 89,264│ 2,017│ 2,920│ 8│ Colorado │ 36,277│ 27,627│ 1,957│ 759│ 3│ Connecticut │ 65,898│ 67,182│ 1,685│ 2,494│ │ 6 Delaware │ 12,778│ 17,054│ 6│ 55│ │ 3 Florida │ 28,031│ 31,769│ │ 74│ │ 4 Georgia │ 47,603│ 94,567│ 125│ 184│ │ 12 Illinois │ 340,497│ 312,314│ 10,910│ 12,074│ 22│ Indiana │ 238,480│ 244,992│ 8,293│ 3,013│ │ 15 Iowa │ 197,082│ 177,286│ │ 1,472│ 13│ Kansas │ 154,406│ 90,132│ 16,346│ 4,495│ 9│ Kentucky │ 118,674│ 152,757│ 1,655│ 3,106│ │ 13 Louisiana │ 46,347│ 62,546│ 120│ 338│ │ 8 Maine │ 72,209│ 52,140│ 3,953│ 2,160│ 6│ Maryland │ 85,699│ 96,932│ 531│ 2,794│ │ 8 Massachusetts│ 146,724│ 122,481│ 24,433│ 10,026│ 14│ Michigan │ 192,669│ 189,361│ 763│ 18,403│ 13│ Minnesota │ 111,685│ 70,065│ 3,583│ 4,684│ 7│ Mississippi │ 42,774│ 78,547│ │ │ │ 9 Missouri │ 202,029│ 235,988│ │ 2,153│ │ 16 Nebraska │ 76,877│ 54,354│ │ 2,858│ 5│ Nevada │ 7,193│ 5,577│ │ │ 3│ New Hampshire│ 43,249│ 39,192│ 552│ 1,575│ 4│ New Jersey │ 123,436│ 127,798│ 3,496│ 6,159│ │ 9 New York │ 562,005│ 563,154│ 17,064│ 25,003│ │ 36 North │ │ │ │ │ │ Carolina │ 125,068│ 142,905│ │ 448│ │ 11 Ohio │ 400,082│ 368,280│ 5,179│ 11,069│ 23│ Oregon │ 26,852│ 24,593│ 723│ 488│ 3│ Pennsylvania │ 474,268│ 393,747│ 16,992│ 15,306│ 30│ Rhode Island │ 19,030│ 12,394│ 422│ 928│ 4│ South │ │ │ │ │ │ Carolina │ 21,733│ 69,890│ │ │ │ 9 Tennessee │ 124,078│ 133,258│ 957│ 1,131│ │ 12 Texas │ 88,353│ 223,208│ 3,321│ 3,511│ │ 13 Vermont │ 38,411│ 17,342│ 785│ 1,612│ 4│ Virginia │ 139,356│ 145,497│ │ 143│ │ 12 West Virginia│ 63,913│ 67,331│ 805│ 927│ │ 6 Wisconsin │ 161,157│ 146,477│ 4,598│ 7,656│ 11│ ─────────────┼─────────┼───────────┼─────────┼───────┼─────────┼──────────── Total │4,847,659│ 4,913,901│ 133,880│150,663│ 182│ 219 Plurality │ │ 66,242│ │ │ │ ─────────────┴─────────┴───────────┴─────────┴───────┴─────────┴────────────

There was no hitch in the count of the vote in any of the Electoral Colleges, held at the capitols of the various States. On the 9th of February, 1885, the two Houses of Congress assembled to witness the counting of the vote. Mr. Edmunds, President of the Senate, upon its completion, announced that “it appears” from the count that Mr. Cleveland has been elected President, etc. This form was used upon his judgment as the only one which he could lawfully use, the Electoral law not having as yet determined the power or prescribed the form for declaring the result of Presidential elections.

Cleveland’s Administration.

President Cleveland was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1885, amid much military and civic pomp and ceremony. Jubilant Democrats from all parts of the country visited the National Capital to celebrate their return to National power after a series of Republican successes extending through twenty-four years. The inaugural address was chiefly noted for its promises in behalf of civil service reform. It showed a determination on the part of the President to adhere to the pledges given to what are still termed the “Mugwumps” prior to the election. The sentiments expressed secured the warm approval of Geo. W. Curtis, Carl Schurz, Henry Ward Beecher and other civil service reformers, but were disappointing to the straight Democrats, who naturally wished to enjoy all of the fruits of the power won after so great a struggle. Vice-President Hendricks voiced this radical Democratic sentiment, and was rapidly creating a schism in the ranks of the party, but his sudden death checked the movement and deprived it of organization, though there still remains the seed of dissatisfaction, much of which displayed itself in the contests of 1885.

President Cleveland appointed the following Cabinet:

Secretary of State: Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware.

Secretary of the Treasury: Daniel Manning of New York.

Secretary of War: W. C. Endicott of Massachusetts.

Postmaster-General: Wm. F. Vilas of Wisconsin.

Secretary of the Interior: L. Q. C. Lamar of Mississippi.

Attorney-General: Augustus H. Garland of Arkansas.

Up to this writing, May, 1886, the Administration of President Cleveland has not been marked by any great event or crisis—its greatest political efforts being directed toward appeasing the civil and holding in close political alliance with the civil service reformers, without disrupting the Democratic party by totally refusing to distribute the spoils of office. It had long been predicted by practical politicians that a serious attempt to defeat the doctrine “to the victor belongs the spoils,” would destroy the administration attempting it. The elections of 1885 point to a realization of this prophecy, though it is yet too soon to accurately judge the result with nearly three years of administration yet to be devoted to its pursuit.

Ohio witnessed in her last October election the first great struggle under the Democratic State and National Administrations. Gov. Hoadley was renominated by the Democrats, and Judge Foraker was renominated by the Republicans. The latter were aided by the strong canvass of John Sherman for his return to the U. S. Senate. The contest was throughout exciting, some of the best speakers of the country taking the stump. The result was as follows:

Foraker, R. 359,538 Hoadley, D. 341,380 Leonard, Pro. 28,054 Northrop, G. 2,760

The Irish-Americans who had left the Democratic party to vote for Blaine, adhered to the Republican standard, and really increased their numbers—more than a third more voting for Foraker than for Blaine, while the Mugwump element practically disappeared. The Prohibition vote had almost doubled, but as all third or fourth parties as a rule attract their vote from the parties in which the most discontent prevails, the excess came not from the Republican but the Democratic ranks.

Pennsylvania’s result, following in November, was similar in all material points to that of Ohio. Col. M. S. Quay, an acknowledged political leader and a man of national reputation, thought it wise that his party should oppose in the most radical and direct way, the Democratic State and National Administration, and with this purpose became a candidate for State Treasurer. The Democrats nominated Conrad B. Day of Philadelphia. The result was as follows:

Quay, R. 324,694 Day, D. 281,178 Spangler, Pro. 15,047 Whitney, G. 2,783

Col. Quay’s majority greatly exceeded all expectation, and was universally accepted as a condemnation of the two Democratic administrations.

New York, of all the November States, very properly excited the most attention. The Democrats renominated Gov. Hill upon a platform tantamount to a condemnation of civil service reform—a platform dictated by Tammany Hall, which was already quarrelling with the National administration. The Mugwump leaders and journals immediately condemned both the Democratic ticket and platform, and joined with the Republicans in support of Davenport. The result was:

GOVERNOR. Hill, D. 501,418 Davenport, R. 489,727 Bascom, Pro 30,866 Jones, G. 2,127

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR. Jones, D. 495,450 Carr, R. 492,288 Demorest, Pro. 31,298 Gage, G. 2,087

In New York the Irish-Americans, angered by the return of the Mugwumps, whose aristocratic and free trade tendencies they were especially hostile to, under the lead of the Irish World left the Republicans and returned to the support of the Democracy. They decided the contest and their attitude in the future will be of immediate concern in all political calculations. The net results in three great States gave satisfaction to both parties—probably the most to the Republicans, but it is certain that they left politics in a very interesting and very uncertain shape.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1886.

The campaign of 1886 showed that the Republican party was capable of making gains in the South, especially in Congressional districts and upon protective and educational issues. Indeed, so plain was this in the State of Virginia that Randolph Tucker, for whom the Legislature had apportioned a district composed of eleven white counties, refused to run again, and Mr. Yost, editor of the Staunton Virginian, who had canvassed the entire district on tariff issues and in favor of the Blair educational bill, was returned over a popular Democrat, by 1900 majority. Of the ten Congressmen from Virginia the Republicans elected six. Morrison, the tariff reform leader of Illinois, was defeated, as was Burd of Ohio, while Speaker Carlisle’s seat was contested by Mr. Thoche, a protectionist candidate of the Knights of Labor. These and other gains reduced the Democratic majority in the House to about fifteen, and this could not be counted upon for any tariff reduction or financial measures. The Republicans lost one in the U. S. Senate.

Local divisions in the Republican ranks were seriously manifested in but one State, that of California, which chose a Democratic Governor and a Republican Lieutenant-Governor, so close was the contest. The Governor has since died, the Lieutenant-Governor has taken his place, but the Legislature re-elected Senator Hearst, Democrat, who had previously been appointed before the retirement of Governor Stoneman.

New York city witnessed, not a revolution, but such a marked change in politics that it excited comment throughout the entire country. The Labor party ran Henry George, the author of Progress and Poverty, and other works somewhat socialistic and certainly agrarian in their tendencies, for Mayor of the city. Hewitt, the well-known Congressman, was the candidate of the Democracy, while the Republicans presented Roosevelt, known chiefly for his municipal-reform tendencies. Hewitt was elected, but George received over 60,000 votes, and this unlooked-for poll changed the direction of political calculations for a year. George was aided by nearly all the Labor organizations, and he drew from the Democrats about two to the one drawn from the Republicans—a fact which greatly raised the hopes of the latter and at the same time made the Democrats more cautious.

In 1886 the Republicans and Democrats, with the qualifications noted above, held their party strength, with the future prospects so promising to both that at this early date preparations began for the Presidential campaign, General Beaver, defeated for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1882 by a plurality of 40,000, was now elected by a plurality of 43,000, though the Prohibitionists polled 32,000 votes, two-thirds of which came from the Republican party. The general result of the campaign indicated that the Republicans were gaining in unity and numbers.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1887.

Interest in the forthcoming Presidential campaign was everywhere manifested in the struggles of 1887. The first skirmish was lost by the Republicans, and while it encouraged Mr. Cleveland’s administration, it gave warning to the Republicans throughout the country that they must heal all differences and do better work. So quickly was this determination reached that Rhode Island came back to the Republican column in November, by the election of a Congressman.

The elections of the year, as a whole, were largely in favor of the Republicans, and three pivotal States were captured—Connecticut, New Jersey, and Indiana, with Virginia claimed by both parties. True the issues and candidates in Indiana and Connecticut were purely local, a fact which contributed largely to the continued hopefulness of the Democracy, who had again carried New York by an average majority of 14,000, notwithstanding Henry George now ran for Secretary of State in the hope of more greatly dividing the Democratic than the Republican vote. He did this, in somewhat less proportion than when he ran for Mayor of the city, but the agitation of High License for the cities alone, and the Prohibitory agitation led to the union of all the saloon interests with the Democracy. These interests, headed by the organization of brewers, established Personal Liberty Leagues in all of the larger cities, which Leagues held a State Convention at Albany said to represent 75,000 voters, or 500 to each delegate. The figures were grossly exaggerated, but nevertheless an alliance was formed with the Democratic party in the State by the substantial adoption of the anti-sumptuary plank in its platform. Sufficient Republicans were in this way won to balance the Henry George defections from the Democracy, and the result was practically the same as in 1886. The Mugwumps supported the Republicans in 1886, but they cut little if any figure in 1887. It was very plain to the hind-sight of the Republican leaders of New York, that if they had resisted and resented the formation of the Personal Liberty Leagues, and made a direct and open issue against the control of the saloon in politics, they would have easily won a victory like that achieved in Pennsylvania. Two acts contributed to the swelling of the Prohibitory vote, which in 1887 came more equally from both parties. Governor Hill had vetoed the High License act, and thus angered the Temperance Democrats, while the Republicans had failed to submit to a vote of the people the prohibitory amendment, thus angering an additional number of Republicans, so that the Prohibitory vote was swelled to 42,000.

New York’s complete vote for Secretary of State was:

Grant, Republican 452,822 Cook, Democrat 469,802 Huntington, Prohibitionist 41,850 George, United Labor 69,836 Beecher, Greenback 988 Preston, Union Labor 988 Hall, Progressive Labor 7,768 Scattering 1,351 ————————— Total vote 1,045,405

The Republicans of Pennsylvania met the growing temperance agitation in such a way as to keep within and recall to its lines nearly all who naturally affiliated with that party. The State Convention of 1886 promised to submit the prohibitory amendment to a vote of the people, and the Republican Legislature of 1887 passed the amendment for a first time, and also passed a High License law, which placed the heaviest licenses upon the cities, but increased all, and gave four-fifths and three-fifths of the amount to the city and country treasuries.

During the closing week of the campaign of 1885 in Pennsylvania, a combination was made by the brewers of Allegheny County with the Democracy for a combined raid against the Republican State ticket headed by General Beaver. A large sum of money was raised, and the sinking societies, or such of them as could be induced to enter the movement, were marshalled as a new and potent element. The result was a surprise to the Republicans and a reduction of about 4,000 in their majority. Thus began the movement which this year culminated in the organization of Personal Liberty Leagues throughout the cities of New York and Pennsylvania. Encouraged by this local success in Pennsylvania and angered by the passage of a High License law, an immense fund was raised in Philadelphia and Pittsburg, and the Democratic workers in all singing and social clubs and societies were employed to create from these, as their nucleus, the Personal Liberty Leagues. In Philadelphia alone the Central Convention represented over 300 societies, and this fact led to extravagant claims as to the number of voters whose views were thus reflected. The organization was secret, but the brewers, maltsters, and wholesale dealers who created it, opened State headquarters and likewise established a State headquarters for the Leagues. Much the same plan was adopted in Pittsburg and great boasts were made that it would be extended to all the towns and cities of the State. From the first combinations were made by the Democratic city committees, the State Committee giving them a friendly wink.

This work was allowed to go on for a full month, the Republican State Committee, and the Republican city committees as well, giving such careful investigation to the facts that every charge could be proven. Then it was that the State Address was issued, wherein all the leading facts were given and each and every challenge accepted. The Republican party thus publicly renewed its pledge to cast the second and final legislative vote for submission to the people the prohibitory amendment for the maintenance of high license, and just as unequivocally pledged the maintenance of the Sunday laws assailed by the Personal Liberty Leagues.

The effect was to group in a solid and an aggressive mass of good citizens all who believed that the people should not be denied the right to make their own laws upon liquor as upon other questions; all who valued a high license which, while general, placed the higher charges upon the cities, and which gave three and four-fifths of all the revenues to the city and county treasuries, and as well all who believed in maintaining an American Sabbath.

The grouping of these three positions proved more powerful than the quarter of a million dollars supplied the combination by the brewing and wholesale liquor interests; more powerful than the hundreds of social and singing societies supposed to be grouped with the Democratic liquor combination; more powerful than all of the combined elements of disorder planted by the side of the Democracy.

It was a royal battle, fought out in the open day! Indeed, the Republican address compelled publicity and made a secret battle thereafter impossible. Every effort at continued secrecy was immediately exposed by the Republican State Committee and the leading daily Republican journals, and every country paper bristled with these exposures. In very desperation the combination became more and more public as the canvass advanced. It was shown that the Personal Liberty Leagues were under the direction of the Socialists, and this arrayed against them all of the Israelites in the State besides thousands of other law-abiding citizens; the demand for the repeal of the Sunday laws compelled the opposition of all branches of religious Germans—Catholics, Lutherans, Mennonites, Dunkards, etc.—and called forth the protests of nearly all of the pulpits. The fact that in Philadelphia and Allegheny the brewers and wholesale dealers, just as they do in the great cities of New York, own nearly all of the saloons—drinking places without accommodations for strangers and travellers—and that their battle was for the saloon in competition with the hotel, inn or tavern, divided the liquor interests and induced all who favored the High License bill, partially framed to protect this class, to support the Republican party. So true was this that a resolution before the Convention of the State Liquor League indorsing high license save a few vexatious features, came so near passing that the saloon keepers subsequently established a separate organization.

The battle at no time and in no place took shape for prohibition beyond that sense of fair play which suggests submission to a vote of the people any question which a law-abiding and respectable number desire to vote upon. The battle was almost distinctly for and against the Sunday laws and for and against high license, and the Republicans everywhere gave unequivocal support to these measures. In Allegheny, shocked the year before by the sudden raid of the brewers, some of the leading politicians for a time feared to face the issues as presented by the Republican State Committee, and really forced upon them by the Democratic liquor combination, but an eloquent Presbyterian divine sounded from his pulpit the slogan, a great Catholic priest followed, the Catholic Temperance Union and the T. A. B.’s, not committed to prohibition, but publicly committed to high license, passed resolutions denouncing the combination. Some of the assemblies of the Knights of Labor followed, and in open battle the Republicans of Allegheny accepted the issue and the challenge and were rewarded for their courage by a gain of 1,200 just where brewing and distillery interests are strongest. The Democratic liquor combination did not show a gain over their Gubernatorial majorities in a single German county except Northampton, where a citizens’ local movement by its sharp antagonism drew out the full Democratic vote for their State ticket. The combination, with all of the power of money, with the entire saloon interests, with the Personal Liberty Leagues, called from the Republican ranks in the entire State not over 12,000 votes, of which 6,000 were in Philadelphia and 4,000 in Allegheny. These were more than made up by 15,000 out of 32,000 Prohibitionists who returned to the Republican party, and by 5,000 Democrats who joined the Republican column. Given more time, and with the issues as universally acknowledged by all parties as they have been since the election, far more Prohibitionists would have returned and more Democrats would have voted the Republican ticket. As it was, the Prohibition vote cast was about equally divided between the Democrats and Republicans; there was probably more Democrats than Republicans. In 1886 the 32,000 Prohibitionists comprised 24,000 Republicans and 8000 Democrats. All of the latter remained and were reinforced in nearly every quarter. There had always been from 5,000 to 6,000 third party Prohibitionists.

If the Republicans had not bravely faced the issues thus forced upon them they would have lost the State, for the Democratic liquor combination polled 15,000 votes more than the Republican candidate—Colonel Quay, an exceptionally strong man—had received in 1885; but the bravery of the Republicans and the fact that their attitude was right called out 60,000 more votes than the party cast in ’85, and in this way increased its majority despite all combinations.

These are the leading facts in the most novel of all the campaigns known to Pennsylvania’s history. The situation was much the same in New York.

The total vote for State Treasurer was:

Hart, Republican 385,514 McGrann, Democrat 340,269 Irish, Prohibitionist 18,471 Kennedy, Greenback 8,900 ——————— Total 753,154

An important feature of the year was the interest shown in the question of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Four States have voted on this issue, Michigan leading off in April, Texas voting in August, Tennessee in September, and Oregon in November. Prohibition was defeated in each instance, but its advocates succeeded in polling a surprisingly large vote. The poll in these States was as follows:

For Pro. Against Pro. Michigan 178,488 184,429 Texas 129,273 221,627 Tennessee 117,504 145,197 Oregon 19,973 27,958 ——————— ——————— Totals 445,238 579,211 Majority against prohibition 133,973

To this should be added the defeat of prohibition in Atlanta and Fulton counties, Ga., by 1122 majority, where it had won two years before by 228 majority. The interest shown in local option and high license as a solution of the temperance question, and its popularity wherever adopted, is also a marked feature of the year’s politics. In Michigan local option succeeded the failure of prohibition, while in Pennsylvania the people are promised a choice between high license and prohibition.

The elections of 1887 as a whole, without removing doubts as to the future, were generally accepted as favorable to the Republicans. The following is a fair comparison with Rhode Island omitted, for the plain reason that her spring result was reversed in the fall:

1883. 1887. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Mass 160,092 150,228 136,000 118,394 New York 429,757 445,976 452,435 469,886 New Jersey 97,047 103,856 107,026 104,407 Penna 319,106 302,031 385,514 340,269 Maryland 80,707 92,694 86,644 98,936 Ohio 347,164 359,793 356,937 333,205 Kentucky 89,181 133,615 126,476 143,270 Iowa 164,182 139,093 168,696 152,886 Nebraska 56,381 41,998 86,725 56,548 Virginia 144,419 124,080 119,380 119,806 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Totals 1,888,036 1,893,364 2,025,833 1,937,607

Democratic majority in 1883 5,328 Republican majority in 1887 88,226 Gain in the Dem. vote in four years 44,243 Gain in the Rep. vote in four years 137,797

The vote in Rhode Island would probably reduce the Republican gain of the year about 5000. But as the figures for Virginia are disputed and not the official vote, which it is known would add several thousand to the Republican total, the above result can be taken as a just estimate of the gain made by the Republicans in these eleven states, where general elections were held. It would be at least 25,000 larger if the vote of the highest candidate, instead of the head of the ticket, were taken.

OPENING OF THE CAMPAIGN OF 1888.

The fiftieth Congress convened in December, 1887, the Senate consisting of 38 Republicans, 37 Democrats, and 1 Readjuster, Mr. Riddleberger, of Virginia. In the House there were 168 Democrats, 153 Republicans, and 4 Independents—Anderson, of Iowa and Hopkins, of Virginia, classed with the Democrats, and Smith of Wisconsin and Nichols of North Carolina, classed with the Republicans upon tariff and educational subjects—two questions which in the form of Revenue measures and of the Blair educational bill, gave early promise of becoming the issues for the campaign of 1888.

Upon the assembling of the fiftieth Congress President Cleveland, instead of sending the usual message describing the condition of the Nation and its relations with foreign nations, together with such recommendations as he desired to make, sent simply a message upon questions of revenue, and in this way gave the subject such emphasis as to make his views the issue in the campaign to follow. The message excited wide and varied political comment, and when Mr. Blaine, who at the time was in Paris, permitted an answer to be wired to the New York Tribune, the two opposing views seemed to meet the wishes of the two great opposing parties, and they were at once accepted as defining the tendencies of each party, at least, upon tariff and revenue subjects.

As these two papers will prove the text for much of the discussion incident to the campaign of 1888, we give below their text:

President Cleveland’s Message.

To the Congress of the United States:

You are confronted at the threshold of your legislative duties with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands immediate and careful consideration.

The amount of money annually exacted, through the operation of the present laws, from the industries and necessities of the people, largely exceeds the sum necessary to meet the expenses of the government.

When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share towards the careful and economical maintenance of the government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion, and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice. This wrong inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation, like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences. The public treasury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people’s tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding-place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people’s use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country’s development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder.

This condition of our treasury is not altogether new; and it has more than once of late been submitted to the people’s representatives in the Congress, who alone can apply a remedy. And yet the situation still continues, with aggravated incidents, more than ever presaging financial convulsion and widespread disaster.

It will not do to neglect this situation because its dangers are not now palpably imminent and apparent. They exist none the less certainly, and await the unforeseen and unexpected occasion when suddenly they will be precipitated upon us.

On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public expenditures after complying with the annual requirement of the sinking fund act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54.

The annual contributions to the sinking fund during the three years above specified, amounting in the aggregate to $138,058,320.94, and deducted from the surplus as stated, were made by calling in for that purpose outstanding three per cent. bonds of the government. During the six months prior to June 30, 1887, the surplus revenue had grown so large by repeated accumulations, and it was feared the withdrawal of this great sum of money needed by the people would so affect the business of the country that the sum of $79,864,100 of such surplus was applied to the payment of the principal and interest of the three per cent. bonds still outstanding, and which were then payable at the option of the government. The precarious condition of financial affairs among the people still needing relief, immediately after the 30th day of June, 1887, the remainder of the three per cent. bonds then outstanding, amounting with principal and interest to the sum of $18,877,500, were called in and applied to the sinking fund contribution for the current fiscal year. Notwithstanding these operations of the Treasury Department, representations of distress in business circles not only continued but increased, and absolute peril seemed at hand. In these circumstances the contribution to the sinking fund for the current fiscal year was at once completed by the expenditure of $27,684,283.55 in the purchase of government bonds not yet due bearing four and four and a half per cent. interest, the premium paid thereon averaging about twenty-four per cent. for the former and eight per cent. for the latter. In addition to this, the interest accruing during the current year upon the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the government was to some extent anticipated, and banks selected as depositories of public money were permitted to somewhat increase their deposits.

While the expedients thus employed, to release to the people the money lying idle in the Treasury, served to avert immediate danger, our surplus revenues have continued to accumulate, the excess for the present year amounting on the 1st day of December to $55,258,701.19, and estimated to reach the sum of $113,000,000 on the 30th of June next, at which date it is expected that this sum, added to prior accumulations, will swell the surplus in the Treasury to $140,000,000.

There seems to be no assurance that, with such a withdrawal from use of the people’s circulating medium, our business community may not in the near future be subjected to the same distress which was quite lately produced from the same cause. And while the functions of our National Treasury should be few and simple, and while its best condition would be reached, I believe, by its entire disconnection with private business interests, yet when, by a perversion of its purposes, it idly holds money uselessly subtracted from the channels of trade, there seems to be reason for the claim that some legitimate means should be devised by the government to restore in an emergency, without waste or extravagance, such money to its place among the people.

If such an emergency arises there now exists no clear and undoubted executive power of relief. Heretofore the redemption of three per cent. bonds, which were payable at the option of the government, has afforded a means for the disbursement of the excess of our revenues; but these bonds have been all retired, and there are no bonds outstanding the payment of which we have the right to insist upon. The contribution to the sinking fund which furnishes the occasion for expenditure in the purchase of bonds has been already made for the current year, so that there is no outlet in that direction.

In the present state of legislation the only pretence of any existing executive power to restore, at this time, any part of our surplus revenues to the people by its expenditure, consists in the supposition that the Secretary of the Treasury may enter the market and purchase the bonds of the government not yet due, at a rate of premium to be agreed upon. The only provision of law from which such a power could be derived is found in an appropriation bill passed a number of years ago; and it is subject to the suspicion that it was intended as temporary and limited in its application, instead of conferring a continuing discretion and authority. No condition ought to exist which would justify the grant of power to a single official, upon his judgment of its necessity, to withhold from or release to the business of the people, in an unusual manner, money held in the Treasury, and thus affect, at his will, the financial situation of the country; and if it is deemed wise to lodge in the Secretary of the Treasury the authority in the present juncture to purchase bonds, it should be plainly vested, and provided, as far as possible, with such checks and limitations as will define this official’s right and discretion, and at the same time relieve him from undue responsibility.

In considering the question of purchasing bonds as a means of restoring to circulation the surplus money accumulating in the Treasury, it should be borne in mind that premiums must of course be paid upon such purchase, that there may be a large part of these bonds held as investments which cannot be purchased at any price, and that combinations among holders who are willing to sell may unreasonably enhance the cost of such bonds to the government.

It has been suggested that the present bonded debt might be refunded at a less rate of interest, and the difference between the old and new security paid in cash, thus finding use for the surplus in the Treasury. The success of this plan, it is apparent, must depend upon the volition of the holders of the present bonds; and it is not entirely certain that the inducement which must be offered them would result in more financial benefit to the Government than the purchase of bonds, while the latter proposition would reduce the principal of the debt by actual payment, instead of extending it.

The proposition to deposit the money held by the Government in banks throughout the country, for use by the people, is, it seems to me, exceedingly objectionable in principle, as establishing too close a relationship between the operations of the Government Treasury and the business of the country, and too extensive a commingling of their money, thus fostering an unnatural reliance in private business upon public funds. If this scheme should be adopted it should only be done as a temporary expedient to meet an urgent necessity. Legislative and executive effort should generally be in the opposite direction and should have a tendency to divorce, as much and as fast as can safely be done, the Treasury Department from private enterprise.

Of course it is not expected that unnecessary and extravagant appropriations will be made for the purpose of avoiding the accumulation of an excess of revenue. Such expenditure, beside the demoralization of all just conceptions of public duty which it entails, stimulates a habit of reckless improvidence not in the least consistent with the mission of our people or the high and beneficent purposes of our government.

I have deemed it my duty to thus bring to the knowledge of my countrymen, as well as to the attention of their representatives charged with the responsibility of legislative relief, the gravity of our financial situation. The failure of the Congress heretofore to provide against the dangers which it was quite evident the very nature of the difficulty must necessarily produce, caused a condition of financial distress and apprehension since your last adjournment, which taxed to the utmost all the authority and expedients within executive control; and these appear now to be exhausted. If disaster results from the continued inaction of Congress, the responsibility must rest where it belongs.

Though the situation thus far considered is fraught with danger which should be fully realized, and though it presents features of wrong to the people as well as peril to the country, it is but a result growing out of a perfectly palpable and apparent cause, constantly reproducing the same alarming circumstances—a congested national treasury and a depleted monetary condition in the business of the country. It need hardly be stated that while the present situation demands a remedy, we can only be saved from a like predicament in the future by the removal of its cause.

Our scheme of taxation, by means of which this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon importations from abroad, and internal revenue taxes levied upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected to internal revenue taxation are, strictly speaking, necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people.

But our present tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable and illogical source of unnecessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures, because they render it possible for those of our people who are manufacturers, to make these taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon into the public treasury, but the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacturer. This reference to the operation of our tariff laws is not made by way of instruction, but in order that we may be constantly reminded of the manner in which they impose a burden upon those who consume domestic products as well as those who consume imported articles, and thus create a tax upon all our people.

It is not proposed to entirely relieve the country of this taxation. It must be extensively continued as the source of the government’s income; and in a readjustment of our tariff the interests of American labor engaged in manufacture should be carefully considered, as well as the preservation of our manufacturers. It may be called protection, or by any other name, but relief from the hardships and dangers of our present tariff laws should be devised with especial precaution against imperilling the existence of our manufacturing interests. But this existence should not mean a condition which, without regard to the public welfare or a national exigency, must always insure the realization of immense profits instead of moderately profitable returns. As the volume and diversity of our national activities increase, new recruits are added to those who desire a continuation of the advantages which they conceive the present system of tariff taxation directly affords them. So stubbornly have all efforts to reform the present condition been resisted by those of our fellow-citizens thus engaged, that they can hardly complain of the suspicion, entertained to a certain extent, that there exists an organized combination all along the line to maintain their advantage.

We are in the midst of centennial celebrations, and with becoming pride we rejoice in American skill and ingenuity, in American energy and enterprise, and in the wonderful natural advantages and resources developed by a century’s national growth. Yet when an attempt is made to justify a scheme which permits a tax to be laid upon every consumer in the land for the benefit of our manufacturers, quite beyond a reasonable demand for governmental regard, it suits the purposes of advocacy to call our manufactures infant industries, still needing the highest and greatest degree of favor and fostering care that can be wrung from Federal legislation.

It is also said that the increase in the price of domestic manufactures resulting from the present tariff is necessary in order that higher wages may be paid to our workingmen employed in manufactures, than are paid for what is called the pauper labor of Europe. All will acknowledge the force of an argument which involves the welfare and liberal compensation of our laboring people. Our labor is honorable in the eyes of every American citizen: and as it lies at the foundation of our development and progress, it is entitled, without affectation or hypocrisy, to the utmost regard. The standard of our laborers’ life should not be measured by that of any other country less favored, and they are entitled to the full share of all our advantages.

By the last census it is made to appear that of the 17,392,099 of our population engaged in all kinds of industries 7,670,493 are employed in agriculture, 4,074,238 in professional and personal service, (2,934,876 of whom are domestic servants and laborers,) while 1,810,256 are employed in trade and transportation, and 3,837,112 are classed as employed in manufacturing and mining.

For present purposes, however, the last number given should be considerably reduced. Without attempting to enumerate all, it will be conceded that there should be deducted from those which it includes 375,143 carpenters and joiners, 285,401 milliners, dressmakers, and seamstresses, 172,726 blacksmiths, 133,756 tailors and tailoresses, 102,473 masons, 76,241 butchers, 41,309 bakers, 22,083 plasterers and 4,891 engaged in manufacturing agricultural implements, amounting in the aggregate to 1,214,023, leaving 2,623,089 persons employed in such manufacturing industries as are claimed to be benefited by a high tariff.

To these the appeal is made to save their employment and maintain their wages by resisting a change. There should be no disposition to answer such suggestions by the allegation that they are in a minority among those who labor, and therefore should forego an advantage, in the interest of low prices for the majority; their compensation, as it may be affected by the operation of the tariff laws, should at all times be scrupulously kept in view; and yet with slight reflection they will not overlook the fact that they are consumers with the rest; that they, too, have their own wants and those of their families to supply from their earnings, and that the price of the necessaries of life, as well as the amount of their wages, will regulate the measure of their welfare and comfort.

But the reduction of taxation demanded should be so measured as not to necessitate or justify either the loss of employment by the working man nor the lessening of his wages; and the profits still remaining to the manufacturer, after a necessary readjustment, should furnish no excuse for the sacrifice of the interests of his employés either in their opportunity to work or in the diminution of their compensation. Nor can the worker in manufactures fail to understand that while a high tariff is claimed to be necessary to allow the payment of remunerative wages, it certainly results in a very large increase in the price of nearly all sorts of manufactures, which, in almost countless forms, he needs for the use of himself and his family. He receives at the desk of his employer his wages, and perhaps before he reaches his home is obliged, in a purchase for family use of an article which embraces his own labor, to return in the payment of the increase in price which the tariff permits, the hard-earned compensation of many days of toil.

The farmer and the agriculturist who manufacture nothing, but who pay the increased price which the tariff imposes, upon every agricultural implement, upon all he wears and upon all he uses and owns, except the increase of his flocks and herds and such things as his husbandry produces from the soil, is invited to aid in maintaining the present situation; and he is told that a high duty on imported wool is necessary for the benefit of those who have sheep to shear, in order that the price of their wool may be increased. They of course are not reminded that the farmer who has no sheep is by this scheme obliged, in his purchase of clothing and woolen goods, to pay a tribute to his fellow farmer as well as to the manufacturer and merchant; nor is any mention made of the fact that the sheep-owners themselves and their households, must wear clothing and use other articles manufactured from the wool they sell at tariff prices, and thus as consumers must return their share of this increased price to the tradesman.

I think it may be fairly assumed that a large proportion of the sheep owned by the farmers throughout the country are found in small flocks numbering from twenty-five to fifty. The duty on the grade of imported wool which these sheep yield, is ten cents each pound if of the value of thirty cents or less, and twelve cents if of the value of more than thirty cents. If the liberal estimate of six pounds be allowed for each fleece, the duty thereon would be sixty or seventy-two cents, and this may be taken as the utmost enhancement of its price to the farmer by reason of this duty. Eighteen dollars would thus represent the increased price of the wool from twenty-five sheep and thirty-six dollars that from the wool of fifty sheep; and at present values this addition would amount to about one-third of its price. If upon its sale the farmer receives this or a less tariff profit, the wool leaves his hands charged with precisely that sum, which in all its changes will adhere to it, until it reaches the consumer. When manufactured into cloth and other goods and material for use, its cost is not only increased to the extent of the farmer’s tariff profit, but a further sum has been added for the benefit of the manufacturer under the operation of other tariff laws. In the meantime the day arrives when the farmer finds it necessary to purchase woolen goods and material to clothe himself and family for the winter. When he faces the tradesman for that purpose he discovers that he is obliged not only to return in the way of increased prices, his tariff profit on the wool he sold, and which then perhaps lies before him in manufactured form, but that he must add a considerable sum thereto to meet a further increase in cost caused by a tariff duty on the manufacture. Thus in the end he is aroused to the fact that he has paid upon a moderate purchase, as the result of the tariff scheme, which, when he sold his wool seemed so profitable, an increase in price more than sufficient to sweep away all the tariff profit he received upon the wool he produced and sold.

When the number of farmers engaged in wool-raising is compared with all the farmers in the country, and the small proportion they bear to our population is considered; when it is made apparent that, in the case of a large part of those who own sheep, the benefit of the present tariff wool is illusory; and, above all, when it must be conceded that the increase of the cost of living caused by such a tariff, becomes a burden upon those with moderate means and the poor, the employed and the unemployed, the sick and well, and the young and old, and that it constitutes a tax which, with relentless grasp, is fastened upon the clothing of every man, woman, and child in the land, reasons are suggested why the removal or reduction or this duty should be included in a revision of our tariff laws.

In speaking of the increased cost to the consumer of our home manufactures, resulting from a duty laid upon imported articles of the same description, the fact is not overlooked that competition among our domestic producers sometimes has the effect of keeping the price of their products below the highest limit allowed by such duty. But it is notorious that this competition is too often strangled by combinations quite prevalent at this time, and frequently called trusts, which have for their object the regulation of the supply and price of commodities made and sold by members of the combination. The people can hardly hope for any consideration in the operation of these selfish schemes.

If, however, in the absence of such combination, a healthy and free competition reduces the price of any particular dutiable article of home production, below the limit which it might otherwise reach under our tariff laws, and if, with such reduced price, its manufacture continues to thrive, it is entirely evident that one thing has been discovered which should be carefully scrutinized in an effort to reduce taxation.

The necessity of combination to maintain the price of any commodity to the tariff point, furnishes proof that some one is willing to accept lower prices for such commodity, and that such prices are remunerative; and lower prices produced by competition prove the same thing. Thus where either of these conditions exists, a case would seem to be presented for an easy reduction of taxation.

The considerations which have been presented touching our tariff laws are intended only to enforce an earnest recommendation that the surplus revenues of the government be prevented by the reduction of our customs duties, and, at the same time, to emphasize a suggestion that in accomplishing this purpose, we may discharge a double duty to our people by granting to them a measure of relief from tariff taxation in quarters where it is most needed and from sources where it can be most fairly and justly accorded.

Nor can the presentation made of such considerations be, with any degree of fairness, regarded as evidence of unfriendliness toward our manufacturing interests, or of any lack of appreciation of their value and importance.

These interests constitute a leading and most substantial element of our national greatness and furnish the proud proof of our country’s progress. But if in the emergency that presses upon us our manufacturers are asked to surrender something for the public good and to avert disaster, their patriotism, as well as a grateful recognition of advantages already afforded, should lead them to willing coöperation. No demand is made that they shall forego all the benefits of governmental regard; but they cannot fail to be admonished of their duty, as well as their enlightened self-interest and safety, when they are reminded of the fact that financial panic and collapse, to which the present condition tends, afford no greater shelter or protection to our manufactures than to our other important enterprises. Opportunity for safe, careful, and deliberate reform is now afforded; and none of us should be unmindful of a time when an abused and irritated people, heedless of those who have resisted timely and reasonable relief, may insist upon a radical and sweeping rectification of their wrongs.

The difficulty attending a wise and fair revision of our tariff laws is not underestimated. It will require on the part of the Congress great labor and care, and especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject, and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire country.

Under our present laws more than four thousand articles are subject to duty. Many of these do not in any way compete with our own manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the aggregate, by adding them to the free list. The taxation of luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be greatly cheapened.

The radical reduction of the duties imposed upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to reduce the price of these necessaries; it would not only relieve them from the increased cost caused by the tariff on such material, but the manufactured product being thus cheapened, that part of the tariff now laid upon such product, as a compensation to our manufacturers for the present price of raw material, could be accordingly modified. Such reduction, or free importation, would serve beside to largely reduce the revenue. It is not apparent how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material. Thus our people might have the opportunity of extending their sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a glutted domestic market, and affording their employés more certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and contentment.

The question thus imperatively presented for solution should be approached in a spirit higher than partisanship and considered in the light of that regard for patriotic duty which should characterize the action of those intrusted with the weal of a confiding people. But the obligation to declared party policy and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective action. Both of the great political parties now represented in the Government have, by repeated and authoritative declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue, and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction; and neither as citizens or partisans are our countrymen in a mood to condone the deliberate violation of these pledges.

Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade. This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free trade is absolutely irrelevant; and the persistent claim made in certain quarters, that all efforts to relieve the people from unjust and unnecessary taxation are schemes of so-called free-traders, is mischievous and far removed from any consideration for the public good.

The simple and plain duty which we owe the people is to reduce taxation to the necessary expenses of an economical operation of the government, and to restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the treasury through the perversion of governmental powers. These things can and should be done with safety to all our industries, without danger to the opportunity for remunerative labor which our workingmen need, and with benefit to them and all our people, by cheapening their means of subsistence and increasing the measure of their comforts.

The Constitution provides that the President “shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Union.” It has been the custom of the Executive, in compliance with this provision, to annually exhibit to the Congress, at the opening of its session, the general condition of the country, and to detail, with some particularity, the operations of the different Executive Departments. It would be especially agreeable to follow this course at the present time, and to call attention to the valuable accomplishments of these departments during the last fiscal year. But I am much impressed with the paramount importance of the subject to which this communication has thus far been devoted, that I shall forego the addition of any other topic, and only urge upon your immediate consideration the “state of the Union” as shown in the present condition of our treasury and our general fiscal situation, upon which every element of our safety and prosperity depends.

The reports of the heads of departments, which will be submitted, contain full and explicit information touching the transaction of the business intrusted to them, and such recommendations relating to legislation in the public interest as they deem advisable. I ask for these reports and recommendations the deliberate examination and action of the Legislative branch of the government.

There are other subjects not embraced in the departmental reports demanding legislative consideration and which I should be glad to submit. Some of them, however, have been earnestly presented in previous messages, and as to them, I beg leave to repeat prior recommendations.

As the law makes no provision for any report from the department of State, a brief history of the transactions of that important Department, together with other matters which it may hereafter be deemed essential to commend to the attention of the Congress, may furnish the occasion for a future communication.

GROVER CLEVELAND.

WASHINGTON, December 6, 1887.

Mr. Blaine’s Answer to Cleveland.

By Cable to the N. Y. Tribune.

PARIS, Dec. 7, 1887.—After reading an abstract of the President’s message, laid before all Europe this morning, I saw Mr. Blaine and asked him if he would be willing to give his views upon the recommendation of the President in the form of a letter or interview. He preferred an interview, if I would agree to send him an intelligent shorthand reporter, with such questions as should give free scope for an expression of his views. The following lucid and powerful statement is the result. Mr. Blaine began by saying to the reporter:

“I have been reading an abstract of the President’s message and have been especially interested in the comments of the London papers. Those papers all assume to declare that the message is a free trade manifesto and evidently are anticipating an enlarged market for English fabrics in the United States as a consequence of the President’s recommendations. Perhaps that fact stamped the character of the message more clearly than any words of mine can.”

“You don’t mean actual free trade without duty?” queried the reporter.

“No,” replied Mr. Blaine. “Nor do the London papers mean that. They simply mean that the President has recommended what in the United States is known as a revenue tariff, rejecting the protective feature as an object and not even permitting protection to result freely as an incident to revenue duties.”

“I don’t know that I quite comprehend that last point,” said the reporter.

“I mean,” said Mr. Blaine, “that for the first time in the history of the United States the President recommends retaining the internal tax in order that the tariff may be forced down even below the fair revenue standard. He recommends that the tax on tobacco be retained, and thus that many millions annually shall be levied on a domestic product which would far better come from a tariff on foreign fabrics.”

“Then do you mean to imply that you would favor the repeal of the tobacco tax?”

“Certainly; I mean just that,” said Mr. Blaine. “I should urge that it be done at once, even before the Christmas holidays. It would in the first place bring great relief to growers of tobacco all over the country, and would, moreover, materially lessen the price of the article to consumers. Tobacco to millions of men is a necessity. The President calls it a luxury, but it is a luxury in no other sense than tea and coffee are luxuries. It is well to remember that the luxury of yesterday becomes a necessity of to-day. Watch, if you please, the number of men at work on the farm, in the coal mine, along the railroad, in the iron foundry, or in any calling, and you will find 95 in 100 chewing while they work. After each meal the same proportion seek the solace of a pipe or a cigar. These men not only pay the millions of the tobacco tax, but pay on every plug and every cigar an enhanced price which the tax enables the manufacturer and retailer to impose. The only excuse for such a tax is the actual necessity under which the government found itself during the war, and the years immediately following. To retain the tax now in order to destroy the protection which would incidentally flow from raising the same amount of money on foreign imports, is certainly a most extraordinary policy for our government.”

“Well, then, Mr. Blaine, would you advise the repeal of the whiskey tax also?”

“No, I would not. Other considerations than those of financial administration are to be taken into account with regard to whiskey. There is a moral side to it. To cheapen the price of whiskey is to increase its consumption enormously. There would be no sense in urging the reform wrought by high license in many States if the National Government neutralizes the good effect by making whiskey within reach of every one at twenty cents a gallon. Whiskey would be everywhere distilled if the surveillance of the government were withdrawn by the remission of the tax, and illicit sales could not then be prevented even by a policy as rigorous and searching as that with which Russia pursues the Nihilists. It would destroy high license at once in all the States.

“Whiskey has done a vast deal of harm in the United States. I would try to make it do some good. I would use the tax to fortify our cities on the seaboard. In view of the powerful letter addressed to the democratic party on the subject of fortifications by the late Samuel J. Tilden, in 1885, I am amazed that no attention has been paid to the subject by the democratic administration. Never before in the history of the world has any government allowed great cities on the seaboard, like Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, and San Francisco, to remain defenceless.”

“But,” said the reporter, “you don’t think we are to have a war in any direction?”

“Certainly not,” said Mr. Blaine, “Neither, I presume, did Mr. Tilden when he wrote his remarkable letter. But we should change a remote chance into an absolute impossibility. If our weak and exposed points were strongly fortified; if to-day we had by any chance even such a war as we had with Mexico our enemy could procure ironclads in Europe that would menace our great cities with destruction or lay them under contribution.”

“But would not our fortifying now possibly look as if we expected war?”

“Why should it any more than fortifications made seventy or eighty years ago by our grandfathers when they guarded themselves against successful attack from the armaments of that day. We don’t necessarily expect a burglar because we lock our doors at night, but if by any possibility a burglar comes it contributes vastly to our peace of mind and our sound sleep to feel that he can’t get in.”

“But after the fortifications should be constructed would you still maintain the tax on whiskey?”

“Yes,” said Mr. Blaine, “So long as there is whiskey to tax I would tax it, and when the National Government should have no use for the money I would divide the tax among the Federal Union with specific object of lightening the tax on real estate. The houses and farms of the whole country pay too large a proportion of the total taxes. If ultimately relief could be given in that direction it would, in my judgment, be a wise and beneficent policy. Some honest but misguided friends of temperance have urged that the government should not use the money derived from the tax on whiskey. My reply that the tax on whiskey by the Federal Government, with its suppression of all illicit distillation and consequent enhancement of price, has been a powerful agent in the temperance reform by putting it beyond the reach of so many. The amount of whiskey consumed in the United States per capita to-day is not more than 40 per cent. of that consumed thirty years ago.”

After a few moments’ silence Mr. Blaine added that in his judgment the whiskey tax should be so modified as to permit all who use pure alcohol in the arts or mechanical pursuits to have it free from tax. In all such cases the tax should be remitted without danger of fraud, just as now the tax on spirits exported is remitted.

“Besides your general and sweeping opposition to the President’s recommendation have you any further specific objection?”

“Yes,” answered Mr. Blaine; “I should seriously object to the repeal of the duty on wool. To repeal that would work great injustice to many interests and would seriously discourage what we should encourage, namely, the sheep culture among farmers throughout the Union. To break wool-growing and be dependent on foreign countries for the blanket under which we sleep and the coat that covers our back is not a wise policy for the National Government to enforce.”

“Do you think if the President’s recommendation were adopted it would increase our export trade?”

“Possibly in some articles of peculiar construction it might, but it would increase our import trade tenfold as much in the great staple fabrics, in woollen and cotton goods, in iron, in steel, in all the thousand and one shapes in which they are wrought. How are we to export staple fabrics to the markets of Europe unless we make them cheaper than they do in Europe, and how are we to manufacture them cheaper than they do in Europe unless we get cheaper labor than they have in Europe?”

“Then you think that the question of labor underlies the whole subject?”

“Of course it does,” replied Mr. Blaine. “It is, in fact, the entire question. Whenever we can force carpenters, masons, ironworkers, and mechanics in every department to work as cheaply and live as poorly in the United States as similar workmen in Europe, we can, of course, manufacture just as cheaply as they do in England and France. But I am totally opposed to a policy that would entail such results. To attempt it is equivalent to a social and financial revolution, one that would bring untold distress.”

“Yes, but might not the great farming class be benefited by importing articles from Europe instead of buying them at higher prices at home?”

“The moment,” answered Mr. Blaine, “you begin to import freely from Europe you drive our own workmen from mechanical and manufacturing pursuits. In the same proportion they become tillers of the soil, increasing steadily the agricultural products and decreasing steadily the large home demand which is constantly enlarging as home manufactures enlarge. That, of course, works great injury to the farmer, glutting the market with his products and tending constantly to lower prices.”

“Yes, but the foreign demand for farm products would be increased in like ratio, would it not?”

“Even suppose it were,” said Mr. Blaine, “do you know the source from which it will be supplied? The tendency in Russia to-day, and in the Asiatic possessions of England, is toward a large increase of the grain supply, the grain being raised by the cheapest possible labor. Manufacturing countries will buy their breadstuffs where they can get them the cheapest, and the enlarging of the home market for the American farmer being checked, he would search in vain for one of the same value. His foreign sales are already checked by the great competition abroad. There never was a time when the increase of a large home market was so valuable to him. The best proof is that the farmers are prosperous in proportion to the nearness of manufacturing centres, and a protective tariff tends to spread manufactures. In Ohio and Indiana, for example, though not classed as manufacturing States, the annual value of fabrics is larger than the annual value of agricultural products.”

“But those holding the President’s views,” remarked the reporter, “are always quoting the great prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846.”

“That tariff did not involve the one destructive point recommended by the President, namely, the retaining of direct internal taxes in order to abolish indirect taxes levied on foreign fabrics. But the country had peculiar advantages under it by the Crimean War involving England, France, and Russia, and largely impairing their trade. All these incidents, or accidents, if you choose, were immensely stimulating to the trade in the United States, regardless to the nature of our tariff. But mark the end of this European experience with the tariff of 1846, which for a time gave an illusory and deceptive show of prosperity. Its enactment was immediately followed by the Mexican War; then, in 1848, by the great convulsions of Europe; then, in 1849 and succeeding years, by the enormous gold yield in California. The powers made peace in 1856, and at the same time the output of gold in California fell off. Immediately the financial panic of 1857 came upon the country with disastrous force. Though we had in these years mined a vast amount of gold in California, every bank in New York was compelled to suspend specie payment. Four hundred millions in gold had been carried out of the country in eight years to pay for foreign goods that should have been manufactured at home, and we had years of depression and distress as an atonement for our folly.”

“Then do you mean to imply that there should be no reduction of the national revenue?”

“No; what I have said implies the reverse. I would reduce it by a prompt repeal of the tobacco tax, and would make here and there some changes in the tariff, not to reduce protection, but wisely foster it.”

“Would you explain your meaning more fully?”

“I mean,” said Mr. Blaine, “that no great system of revenue, like our tariff, can operate with efficiency and equity unless the changes of trade be closely watched and the law promptly adapted to those changes. But I would make no change that should impair the protective character of the whole body of the tariff laws. Four years ago, in the act of 1883, we made changes of the character I have tried to indicate. If such changes were made, and the fortifying of our sea coast thus undertaken at a very moderate annual outlay, no surplus would be found after that already accumulated had been disposed of. The outlay of money on fortifications, while doing great service to the country, would give good work to many men.”

“But what about the existing surplus?”

“The abstract of the message I have seen,” replied Mr. Blaine, “contains no reference to that point. I, therefore, make no comment further that to endorse Mr. Fred. Grant’s remark, that a surplus is always easier to handle than a deficit.”

The reporter repeated the question whether the President’s recommendation would not, if adopted, give us the advantage of a large increase in exports.

“I only repeat,” answered Mr. Blaine, “it would vastly increase our imports while the only export it would seriously increase would be our gold and silver. That would flow out bounteously, just as it did under the tariff of 1846. The President’s recommendation enacted into law would result, as did an experiment in drainage of a man who wished to turn a swamp into a productive field. He dug a drain to a neighboring river, but it happened, unfortunately, that the level of the river was higher than the level of the swamp. The consequence need not be told. A parallel would be found when the President’s policy in attempting to open a channel for an increase of exports should simply succeed in making way for a deluging inflow of fabrics to the destruction of home industry.”

“But don’t you think it important to increase our export trade?”

“Undoubtedly; but it is vastly more important not to lose our own great market or our own people in vain effort to reach the impossible. It is not our foreign trade that has caused the wonderful growth and expansion of the republic. It is the vast domestic trade between thirty-eight States and eight Territories, with their population of, perhaps, 62,000,000 to-day. The whole amount of our export and import trade together has never, I think, reached $1,900,000,000 any one year. Our internal home trade on 130,000 miles of railway, along 15,000 miles of ocean coast, over the five great lakes and along 20,000 miles of navigable rivers, reaches the enormous annual aggregate of more than $40,000,000,000, and perhaps this year $50,000,000,000.

“It is into this illimitable trade, even now in its infancy and destined to attain a magnitude not dreamed of twenty years ago, that the Europeans are struggling to enter. It is the heritage of the American people, of their children, and of their children’s children. It gives an absolutely free trade over a territory nearly as large as all Europe, and the profit is all our own. The genuine Free-trader appears unable to see or comprehend that this continental trade—not our exchanges with Europe—is the great source of our prosperity. President Cleveland now plainly proposes a policy that will admit Europe to a share of this trade.”

“But you are in favor of extending our foreign trade, are you not?”

“Certainly I am, in all practical and advantageous ways, but not on the principle of the Free-traders, by which we shall be constantly exchanging dollar for dime. Moreover, the foreign trade is often very delusive. Cotton is manufactured in the city of my residence. If a box of cotton goods is sent 200 miles to the province Of New Brunswick, it is foreign trade. If shipped 17,000 miles round Cape Horn to Washington Territory it is domestic trade. The magnitude of the Union and the immensity of its internal trade require a new political economy. The treatises written for European States do not grasp our peculiar situation.”

“How will the President’s message be received in the South?”

“I don’t dare to answer that question. The truth has been so long obscured by certain local questions of unreasoning prejudice that nobody can hope for industrial enlightenment among the leaders just yet. But in my view the South above all sections of the Union needs a protective tariff. The two Virginias, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia have enormous resources and facilities for developing and handling manufactures. They cannot do anything without protection. Even progress so vast as some of those States have made will be checked if the President’s message is enacted into law. Their Senators and Representatives can prevent it, but they are so used to following anything labelled ‘democratic’ that very probably they will follow the President and the progress already made. By the time some of the Southern States get free iron ore and coal, while tobacco is taxed, they may have occasion to sit down and calculate the value of democratic free trade to their local interests.,”

“Will not the President’s recommendation to admit raw material find strong support?”

“Not by wise Protectionists in our time. Perhaps some greedy manufacturers may think that with free coal or free iron ore they can do great things, but if they should succeed in trying will, as the boys say, catch it on the rebound. If the home trade in raw materials is destroyed or seriously injured railroads will be the first to feel it. If that interest is crippled in any direction the financial fabric of the whole country will feel it quickly and seriously. If any man can give a reason why we should arrange the tariff to favor the raw material of other countries in a competition against our material of the same kind, I should like to hear it. Should that recommendation of the President be approved it would turn 100,000 American laborers out of employment before it had been a year in operation.”

“What must be the marked and general effect of the President’s message?”

“It will bring the country where it ought to be brought—to a full and fair contest on the question of protection. The President himself makes the one issue by presenting no other in his message. I think it well to have the question settled. The democratic party in power is a standing menace to the industrial prosperity of the country. That menace should be removed or the policy it foreshadows should be made certain. Nothing is so mischievous to business as uncertainty, nothing so paralyzing as doubt.”

G. W. SMALLEY.

THE NATIONAL CONVENTIONS OF 1888.

The Democratic Convention.

The Democratic party, being in power, assumed the customary rôle of the majority party, and after a close struggle its National Committee called its Convention at St. Louis, June 5th, two weeks in advance of the time fixed by the Republicans. The sessions continued throughout three days, being somewhat prolonged by the differences of opinion upon the platform, the immediate friends of the Cleveland administration desiring an unqualified endorsement of the Presidential message relating to the tariff, and as well to the Mills bill, the measure supported in the lower House of Congress by all of the Democrats save those led by Samuel J. Randall, who stood upon the platform “straddle” of 1884. Finally the differences were partially adjusted by a reaffirmation of the platform of 1884, and very decided endorsements of both the President’s message and the Mills bill. The result was not satisfactory to the Protective-Tariff Democrats, but they were without large or courageous representation, and the platform was adopted with but one dissenting vote. (For platform and comparison of platforms of the Conventions of the two great parties, see Book II.)

On the third day Grover Cleveland, of New York, was nominated for President by acclamation. A ballot was started for Vice-President, between Allen G.Thurman, of Ohio, and Governor Gray, of Indiana, but before it closed Thurman’s nomination was so apparent that Gray was withdrawn, and the nomination made unanimous. In the midst of the applause which followed, the California delegation presented to the Convention thousands of the “red bandana” worn by the “old Roman” Thurman, and it was immediately placed upon the standard of every State, and accepted as the emblem of the Democratic party.

The Republican Convention.

The National Convention of the Republican party met in Chicago, June 19th, and continued its sessions until the evening of the 25th. Major McKinley, of Ohio, was the Chairman of the Committee on Platform, and on the second day made a unanimous report, which was adopted with great enthusiasm.

The platforms of the two great parties, better than anything else, illustrate the lines of difference between them. One of the lines was plainly drawn by President Cleveland’s message to Congress. This paper plainly advocated a reduction of tariff duties with a view to reduce to the actual requirements of an economic administration of governmental affairs, the surplus in the treasury, then approximating $80,000,000. He opposed the repeal or reduction of the internal revenue taxes, upon the ground that they were placed upon luxuries. Mr. Blaine answered this message for the Republican party, and opposed any system of tariff reduction which tended to free trade, and favored the repeal of the internal revenue taxes upon tobacco and upon all liquors used in the arts. So that the truthful and probably the most compact statement of the position of the two great parties is this: The Democratic party in the campaign of 1888 favors an established tendency to free trade; the Republican party opposes any such tendency, and rather than promote it in any way, would repeal all of the internal revenue taxes and enlarge the pension list—in this way disposing of the treasury surplus. The platform of the Republican party not only followed, but went beyond the expressed views of Mr. Blaine, and accepted in the plainest way the issue thrust upon the country by Mr. Cleveland’s message. The position of the two great parties had been anticipated by their respective leaders, and both Conventions advanced beyond the lines laid down by these leaders, and entered upon the campaign in this shape.

During the ballotings of the Republican Convention Mr. Blaine was upon all save the last solidly supported by the California delegation and by scattering votes. On the last day Hon. Charles A. Boutelle, Chairman of the Maine delegation, read two cablegrams from Mr. Blaine, who was then in Edinboro, Scotland, asking his friends to respect his Paris letter of declination. It was at any time within the power of his friends to nominate him, but his final refusal led nearly all of them to vote for General Benjamin Harrison, of Indiana, at all times one of the leading candidates before the Convention. There was no general combination, but the nomination was largely traceable to the expediency of selecting both of the candidates from pivotal States.

Summary of the Ballots. │ │ │ │ Friday. │ Saturday. │ Monday. ─────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼────────────── │ 1st 2d 3d│ 4th 5th│ 6th 7th 8th Sherman, │ 229 249 244│ 235 224│ 244 231 119 Gresham, │ 111 108 123│ 98 87│ 91 91 59 Depew, │ 99 99 91│ Withdrawn. Alger, │ 84 116 122│ 135 142│ 137 120 100 Harrison,│ 80 91 94│ 217 213│ 231 278 544 Allison, │ 72 75 88│ 88 99│ 73 76 Ingalls, │ 28 16 Withdrawn. │ Phelps, │ 25 18 5│ │ Rusk, │ 25 20 16│ │ Fitler, │ 24 Withdrawn. │ Hawley, │ 13 Withdrawn. │ Lincoln, │ 3 2 2│ 1 │ 2 McKinley,│ 2 3 8│ 11 14│ 12 16 4 Miller, │ 2│ │ Douglas, │ │ 1 │ Foraker, │ │ 1 │ 1 1 Grant, │ │ │ 1 Haymond, │ │ │ 1 Blaine, │ 35 33 35│ 42 48│ 40 15 5 ─────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼────────────── Total, │ 830 830 830│ 829 827│ 829 832 831

Mr. Griggs, of New Jersey, presented the name of William Walter Phelps, of New Jersey, for Vice-President, which was seconded by Mr. Gibson, of Ohio, Mr. Eagan, of Nebraska, and Mr. Oliver, of Iowa, and others.

Senator Warner Miller, of New York, presented the name of Hon. Levi P. Morton, of New York, which was seconded by Mr. Sage, of California, Governor Foster, of Ohio, Mr. Oliver, of South Carolina, General Hastings, of Pennsylvania, and others.

Mr. McElwee, of Tennessee, presented the name of William R. Moore, of that State.

One ballot was taken, resulting as follows:

Morton 591 Phelps 119 Bradly 103 Bruce 11 Thomas 1

The nomination was then made unanimous.

Mr. Boutelle, of Maine, then addressed the Chair and stated that he desired to offer a resolution to be added to the platform, as follows:

“The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people and the purity of the home. The Republican party cordially sympathizes with all wise and well-directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.”

As soon as this was read there was a rush from the various States to second the motion, and, after some time, the question was put and the resolution adopted by a rising vote, only one delegate from Maryland recording himself in the negative. In this way the above temperance sentiment was made part of the platform. It was due largely to the attitude of the Republican party within many of the States, where in the current and previous year it favored high license laws and the submission to a vote of the people prohibitory constitutional amendments.

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1888.

Shortly after the adjournment of the National Conventions, the National Committees of the two great parties opened headquarters in New York City, Senator M. S. Quay being Chairman of the Republican National and Executive committees, with full authority in one head, while ex-Senator Barnum headed the Democratic National, and Calvin Brice its Executive Committee. Both Committees devoted themselves to practical political work, and the result was a greater expenditure of money than was ever previously known. From information gathered by the writer, it can be safely stated that the Democratic National Committee, with its drafts upon the Federal office-holders, raised two millions of dollars, while the Republican business men and manufacturers contributed one million three hundred thousand to their National Committee. It was a business battle, largely waged between the manufacturing and importing interests, the smaller farmers being allies of the manufacturers, the planters adhering to their support of the Free Trade tendencies of the Democratic party. The literary and oratorical features of the canvass were not neglected, and tariff discussion was the order of the day and the night throughout the entire country. The pivotal States were, in the order of their importance, New York, Indiana, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, and California. From the day of General Harrison’s nomination, Indiana became, and continued, the scene of the most intense political excitement. Visiting delegations called upon the nominee from every town and hamlet in the State, and the fever extended to adjacent States. The ordeal was a most trying one for a candidate, and, for a time, there was grave fear that a mistake might be made, or a trap sprung, like that of Burchard’s upon Blaine in 1884; but General Harrison was singularly fortunate in all of his remarks, and yet so earnest and able that his own work soon began to be recognized as the best of the campaign. President Cleveland was compelled by his official duties, and probably by inclination, to keep out of even the speaking part of the campaign.

Senator Quay regarded New York as the sole key to the contest, and his determination to carry that State, even at the risk of all others, was maintained with the greatest firmness. The usual appeals came from hopeful States, like Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and even Delaware and Maryland, while alarming predictions as to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa flew thick and fast; but the Republican National Chairman, wisely clothed with absolute authority as general of the battle, kept up his steady assault upon New York, and organized so closely that the usual frauds in New York City and Brooklyn became impossible. The wisdom of this policy was confirmed by the result, and to it is directly traceable the Republican victory which followed. General Harrison carried New York by 14,000 plurality, while Governor Hill, the Democratic candidate for reëlection, carried it by 18,000. This apparent political phenomenon finds its explanation in the liquor issue, which attracted wide attention throughout the State. Warner Miller, the Republican candidate, favored high license, while Governor Hill opposed it.

The Northwest, always before believed to be inclined to Free Trade, gave surprising tariff majorities, while Kansas proved the banner Republican State, giving over 80,000 for Harrison in a territory made up mostly by farmers. Indeed, the farming excelled many of the manufacturing sections in showing tariff or Republican gains.

Results proved to be very close in Connecticut, the two Virginias, Maryland, and Tennessee, and for a time the attitude of the lower House of Congress was in doubt. At this writing the Republican majority is estimated at seven, and the new Congress will have to consider more than a dozen contested seats. The Republicans made a net gain of one in the Senate by their success in the counties of Sussex and Kent, in Delaware. This was due to a quarrel between the Bayard and Saulsbury factions of the State. New Jersey remained with the Democrats, and the Republicans elected General Goff for Governor of West Virginia, with three Labor men holding the balance of power in the Legislature.

ELECTORAL VOTE.

Harrison. Cleveland. California 8 Alabama 10 Colorado 3 Arkansas 7 Illinois 22 Connecticut 6 Indiana 15 Delaware 3 Iowa 13 Florida 4 Kansas 9 Georgia 12 Maine 6 Kentucky 13 Massachusetts 14 Louisiana 8 Michigan 13 Maryland 8 Minnesota 7 Mississippi 9 Nebraska 5 Missouri 16 Nevada 3 New Jersey 9 New Hampshire 4 North Carolina 12 New York 36 South Carolina 9 Ohio 23 Tennessee 11 Oregon 3 Texas 13 Pennsylvania 30 Virginia 12 Rhode Island 4 West Virginia 6 Vermont 4 ——— Wisconsin 11 168 ——— 233 168 ——— Harrison’s majority 65

Here is a majority of 65 electors, and yet less than 3000 votes in New York, cast for Cleveland, would have reëlected him, but with grave danger to the country, because of disputed results in the two Virginias.

THE POPULAR VOTE—1888.

Rep. Dem. Pro. Labor. Alabama 57,197 117,320 583 Arkansas 58,752 85,962 614 10,613 California 124,809 117,899 5,761 1,591 Colorado 50,831 37,345 2,490 1,287 Connecticut 74,584 74,920 4,234 240 Delaware 12,950 16,414 400 1 Florida 26,659 39,561 403 Georgia 40,413 100,742 1,802 136 Illinois 370,241 348,360 21,562 8,556 Indiana 263,361 261,013 9,881 2,694 Iowa 211,598 179,877 3,550 9,105 Kansas 182,610 102,580 6,452 36,236 Kentucky 155,154 183,800 5,225 622 Louisiana 30,181 84,941 130 Maine 73,734 50,482 2,690 1,345 Maryland 99,761 106,172 5,358 1,241 Massachusetts 183,447 151,990 8,641 Michigan 236,307 213,404 20,942 4,542 Minnesota 142,492 104,385 15,341 1,097 Mississippi 30,096 85,476 218 22 Missouri 236,325 261,957 4,954 15,853 Nebraska 108,425 80,552 9,429 4,226 Nevada 7,088 5,149 41 N. Hampshire 45,728 43,457 1,570 13 New Jersey 144,344 151,493 7,904 New York 650,337 635,965 30,321 5,362 N. Carolina 134,784 147,902 2,788 Ohio 416,054 396,455 24,356 3,496 Oregon 33,293 26,524 1,677 363 Pennsylvania 526,223 446,934 20,758 3,873 Rhode Island 21,960 17,533 1,281 South Carolina 13,740 65,825 Tennessee 138,988 158,779 5,969 48 Texas 88,422 234,883 4,749 29,459 Vermont 45,192 16,788 1,459 Virginia 150,442 151,977 1,678 West Virginia 75,052 75,558 669 1,064 Wisconsin 176,553 155,232 14,277 8,552 ────────────────────────────────────────────────── Totals 5,438,157 5,535,626 250,157 150,624

ANALYSIS OF THE POPULAR VOTE.

In the following tables the vote is arranged according to sections: The Northern States, the Middle or Border States, and the Gulf States.

THE NORTHERN STATES.

1884. │ 1888. ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Rep. Dem. │ Rep. Dem. Maine 72,209 52,140│ 72,659 49,730 N. Hampsh’e 43,249 39,183│ 45,728 43,444 Vermont 39,514 17,331│ 45,192 16,788 Massachus’ts 146,724 122,352│ 183,447 151,990 Rhode Island 19,030 12,391│ 21,960 17,533 Connecticut 65,923 67,199│ 74,584 74,920 New York 562,005 563,154│ 649,114 635,715 New Jersey 123,366 127,778│ 144,426 151,154 Penna. 473,804 392,785│ 526,223 446,934 Ohio 400,082 368,280│ 416,054 396,455 Indiana 238,463 244,990│ 263,361 261,013 Illinois 337,469 312,351│ 370,241 348,360 Michigan 192,669 149,835│ 236,307 213,404 Wisconsin 161,157 146,459│ 176,553 155,232 Iowa 197,089 177,316│ 211,592 177,899 Minnesota 111,685 70,065│ 136,359 99,664 Colorado 36,166 27,603│ 51,796 37,610 California 102,416 89,288│ 124,809 117,729 Kansas 154,406 90,132│ 182,610 102,580 Nebraska 76,912 54,391│ 108,425 80,552 Nevada 7,193 5,578│ 7,238 5,326 Oregon 26,860 24,604│ 33,293 26,524 ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Totals 3,608,965 3,153,912│4,081,971 3,610,556

Republican majority in 1888 471,415 Republican majority in 1884 455,053 ——————— Republican gain 16,362

MIDDLE (OR BORDER) STATES.

1884. │ 1888. ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Rep. Dem. │ Rep. Dem. Delaware 12,951 16,964│ 12,950 16,414 Maryland 85,699 96,932│ 99,761 106,172 Virginia 139,356 145,497│ 150,442 151,977 W. Virginia 63,096 67,317│ 75,052 75,588 Kentucky 118,122 152,961│ 155,154 183,800 Tennessee 124,078 133,258│ 139,815 159,079 Arkansas 50,895 72,927│ 58,752 85,962 N. Carolina 125,068 142,950│ 134,784 147,902 Missouri 202,929 235,988│ 236,325 261,957 ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Totals 922,194 1,064,794│1,063,035 1,188,851

Democratic majority in 1884 142,600 Democratic majority in 1888 125,816 ——————— Democratic loss 16,784

GULF STATES.

S. Carolina 21,733 69,890│ 13,740 65,825 Florida 28,031 31,766│ 26,659 39,561 Georgia 28,617 97,292│ 40,496 100,499 Alabama 59,444 92,973│ 56,197 117,320 Mississippi 43,509 76,510│ 30,096 85,476 Louisiana 46,347 62,540│ 30,181 84,941 Texas 93,141 225,309│ 88,442 234,883 ────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────── Totals 328,822 656,280│ 285,811 728,505

Democratic majority in 1888 442,698 Democratic majority in 1884 327,458 ——————— Democratic gain 115,240

PRESIDENT HARRISON’S MESSAGE ON THE CHILEAN TROUBLES.

In October, 1891, directly after the overthrow of Balmaceda by the Congressionalists of Chile, U. S. Minister Egan sheltered a number of political refugees, as did other foreign ministers. Both the government and populace at Valparaiso took special umbrage at the action of the authorities of the United States, and as a result a mob of citizens, police and soldiers assaulted American sailors on shore, killing two and wounding sixteen. President Harrison’s message, sent to Congress on the 25th of January, 1892, is the strongest state paper in behalf of the rights of American citizens abroad yet given to the country. It explains all of the facts as to the Chilean difficulties, and as well lays down the principles which conduct his course. It was well received by the American Congress, and compelled Chile to act promptly in answer to the American demands. We quote its text, for it will be historically very valuable:

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: In my Annual Message, delivered to Congress at the beginning of the present session, after a brief statement of the facts then in the possession of this government touching the assault in the streets of Valparaiso, Chile, upon the sailors of the United States steamship Baltimore, on the evening of the 16th of October last, I said:

“This government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which has been conducted by the criminal court at Valparaiso. It is reported unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is expected that the result will soon be communicated to this government, together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by which the attention of Chile was called to this incident. If these just expectations should be disappointed, or further needless delay intervene, I will, by a special message, bring this matter again to the attention of Congress for such action as may be necessary.”

In my opinion the time has now come when I should lay before the Congress and the country the correspondence between this government and the government of Chile from the time of the breaking out of the revolution against Balmaceda, together with all other facts in the possession of the Executive Department relating to this matter.

The diplomatic correspondence is herewith transmitted, together with some correspondence between the naval officers for the time in command in Chilean waters and the Secretary of the Navy, and also the evidence taken at the Mare Island navy yard since the arrival of the Baltimore at San Francisco. I do not deem it necessary in this communication to attempt any full analysis of the correspondence or of the evidence. A brief restatement of the international questions involved, and of the reasons why the responses of the Chilean government are unsatisfactory is all that I deem necessary.

It may be well, at the outset, to say that whatever may have been said in this country or in Chile in criticism of Mr. Egan, our minister at Santiago, the true history of the exciting period in Chilean affairs, from the outbreak of the revolution until this time, discloses no act upon the part of Mr. Egan unworthy of his position, or that could justly be the occasion of serious animadversion or criticism. He has, I think, on the whole borne himself in very trying circumstances with dignity, discretion and courage, and conducted the correspondence with ability, courtesy and fairness.

It is worth while, also, at the beginning to say that the right of Mr. Egan to give shelter in the legation to certain adherents of the Balmaceda government who applied to him for asylum has not been denied by the Chilean authorities, nor has any demand been made for the surrender of these refugees.

That there was urgent need of asylum is shown by Mr. Egan’s note of August 24, 1891, describing the disorders that prevailed in Santiago, and by the evidence of Captain Schley as to the pillage and violence that prevailed at Valparaiso. The correspondence discloses, however, that the request of Mr. Egan for a safe conduct from the country, in behalf of these refugees, was denied.

The precedents cited by him in the correspondence, particularly the case of the revolution in Peru in 1865, did not leave the Chilean government in a position to deny the right of asylum to political refugees, and seemed very clearly to support Mr. Egan’s contention that a safe conduct to neutral territory was a necessary and acknowledged incident of the asylum. These refugees have very recently, without formal safe conduct, but by the acquiescence of the Chilean authorities, been placed on board the Yorktown, and are now being conveyed to Callao, Peru.

This incident might be considered wholly closed but for the disrespect manifested towards this government by the close and offensive police surveillance of the legation premises which was maintained during most of the period of the stay of the refugees therein.

After the date of my annual message and up to the time of the transfer of the refugees to the Yorktown, the legation premises seem to have been surrounded by police, in uniform, and police agents or detectives, in citizens’ dress, who offensively scrutinized persons entering or leaving the legation, and, on one or more occasions, arrested members of the minister’s family.

Commander Evans, who, by my direction, recently visited Mr. Egan at Santiago, in his telegram to the Navy Department described the legation as “a veritable prison,” and states that the police agents or detectives were, after his arrival, withdrawn during his stay. It appears further, from the note of Mr. Egan, of November 20, 1891, that, on one occasion at least, these police agents, whom he declares to be known to him, invaded the legation premises, pounding upon its windows and using insulting and threatening language towards persons therein.

This breach of the right of a minister to freedom from police espionage and restraint seems to have been so flagrant that the Argentine minister, who was dean of the diplomatic corps, having observed it, felt called upon to protest against it to the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Chilean authorities have, as will be observed from the correspondence, charged the refugees and the inmates of the legation with insulting the police; but it seems to me incredible that men whose lives were in jeopardy and whose safety could only be secured by retirement and quietness, should have sought to provoke a collision which could only end in their destruction, or to aggravate their condition by intensifying a popular feeling that at one time so threatened the legation as to require Minister Egan to appeal to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

But the most serious incident disclosed by the correspondence is that of the attack upon the sailors of the Baltimore in the streets of Valparaiso on the 16th of October last. In my annual message, speaking upon the information then in my possession, I said: “So far as I have yet been able to learn, no other explanation of this bloody work has been suggested than that it had its origin in hostility to those men as sailors of the United States, wearing the uniform of their government, and not in any individual act or personal animosity.”

We have now received from the Chilean government an abstract of the conclusions of the Fiscal General upon the testimony taken by the Judge of Crimes in an investigation which was made to extend over three months. I very much regret to be compelled to say that this report does not enable me to modify the conclusion announced in my annual message. I am still of the opinion that our sailors were assaulted, beaten, stabbed and killed, not for anything they or any of them had done, but for what the government of the United States had done, or was charged with having done by its civil officer and naval commanders. If that be the true aspect of the case, the injury was to the government of the United States, not to these poor sailors who were assaulted in the manner so brutal and so cowardly.

Before attempting to give an outline of the facts upon which this conclusion rests, I think it right to say a word or two upon the legal aspect of the case. The Baltimore was in the harbor of Valparaiso by virtue of that general invitation which nations are held to extend to the war vessels of other powers with which they have friendly relations. This invitation I think must be held ordinarily to embrace the privilege of such communication with the shore as is reasonable, necessary and proper for the comfort and convenience of the officers and men of such vessels. Captain Schley testifies that when his vessel returned to Valparaiso, on September 14th, the city officers, as is customary, extended the hospitalities of the city to his officers and crew.

It is not claimed that every personal collision or injury in which a sailor or officer of such naval vessel visiting the shore may be involved raises an international question; but I am clearly of the opinion that where such sailors or officers are assaulted by a resident population, animated by hostility to the government whose uniform these sailors and officers wear, and in resentment of acts done by their government, not by them, their nation must take notice of the event as one involving an infraction of its rights and dignity, not in a secondary way as where a citizen is injured and presents his claim through his own government, but in a primary way, precisely as if its minister or consul of the flag itself had been the object of the same character of assault.

The officers and sailors of the Baltimore were in the harbor of Valparaiso under the orders of their government, not by their own choice. They were upon the shore by the implied invitation of the government of Chile and with the approval of their commanding officer, and it does not distinguish their case from that of a consul that his stay is more permanent or that he holds the express invitation of the local government to justify his longer residence. Nor does it affect the question that the injury was the act of a mob. If there had been no participation by the police or military in this cruel work, and no neglect on their part to extend protection, the case would still be one, in my opinion, when its extent and character are considered, involving international rights.

The incidents of the affair are, briefly, as follows: On the 16th of October last, Captain Schley, commanding the United States steamer Baltimore, gave shore leave to 117 petty officers and sailors of his ship. These men left the ship about 1.30 P.M. No incident of violence occurred; none of our men were arrested; no complaint was lodged against them; nor did any collision or outbreak occur until about 6 o’clock P.M. Captain Schley says that he was himself on shore and about the streets until 5.40 P.M.; that he met very many of his men who were upon leave; that they were sober and were conducting themselves with propriety, saluting Chilean and other officers as they met them. Other officers of the ship, and Captain Jenkins, of the merchant ship Keweenaw, corroborate Captain Schley as to the general sobriety and good behavior of our men.

The Sisters of Charity at the hospital to which our wounded men were taken, when inquired of, stated that they were sober when received. If the situation had been otherwise, we must believe that the Chilean police authorities would have made arrests. About 6 P.M. the assault began, and it is remarkable that the investigation by the Judge of Crimes, though so protracted, does not enable him to give any more satisfactory account of its origin than is found in the statement that it began between drunken sailors. Repeatedly in the correspondence it is asserted that it was impossible to learn the precise cause of the riot. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Matta, in his telegram to Mr. Montt under date of December 31st, states that the quarrel began between two sailors in a tavern, and was continued in the street, persons who were passing joining in it.

The testimony of Talbot, an apprentice, who was with Riggin, is that the outbreak in which they were involved began by Chilean sailor spitting in the face of Talbot, which was resented by a knock-down. It appears that Riggin and Talbot were at that time unaccompanied by any others of their shipmates.

These two men were immediately beset by a crowd of Chilean citizens and sailors, through which they broke their way to a street car and entered it for safety. They were pursued, driven from the car, and Riggin was so seriously beaten that he fell in the street apparently dead. There is nothing in the report of the Chilean investigation made to us that seriously impeaches this testimony. It appears from Chilean sources that almost instantly, with a suddenness that strongly implies premeditation and preparation; a mob, stated by the police authorities at one time to number 2000, and at another 1000, was engaged in the assault upon our sailors, who are represented as resisting “with stones, clubs and bright arms.” The report of the Intendente of October 30th states that the fight began at 6 P.M. in three streets, which are named, that information was received at the intendencia at 6.15, and that the police arrived on the scene at 6.30, a full half hour after the assault began. At that time he says that a mob of 2000 men had collected, and that for several squares there was the appearance of a “real battle-field.”

The scene at this point is very graphically set before us by the Chilean testimony. The American sailors, who, after so long an examination, have not been found guilty of any breach of the peace, so far as the Chilean authorities are able to discover, unarmed and defenceless, are fleeing for their lives, pursued by overwhelming numbers, and fighting only to aid their own escape from death or to succor some mate whose life is in greater peril. Eighteen of them are brutally stabbed and beaten, while one Chilean seems, from the report, to have suffered some injury; but how serious or with what character of weapon, or whether by a missile thrown by our men or by some of his fellow-rioters is unascertained.

The pretense that our men were fighting “with stones, clubs, and bright arms,” is, in view of these facts, incredible. It is further refuted by the fact that our prisoners, when searched, were absolutely without arms, only seven penknives being found in the possession of the men arrested, while there were received by our men more than thirty stab wounds, every one of which was inflicted in the back, and almost every contused wound was in the back or back of the head. The evidence of the ship’s officer of the day is that even the jack-knives of the men were taken from them before leaving the ship.

As to the brutal nature of the treatment received by our men, the following extract from the account given of the affair by the La Patria newspaper, of Valparaiso, of October 17th, cannot be regarded as too friendly: “The Yankees, as soon as their pursuers gave chase, went by way of the Calle del Arsenal towards the city car station. In the presence of an ordinary number of citizens, among whom were some sailors, the North Americans took seats in the street car to escape from the stones which the Chileans threw at them. It was believed for an instant that the North Americans had saved themselves from popular fury, but such was not the case. Scarcely had the car begun to move, when a crowd gathered around and stopped its progress.

“Under these circumstances, and without any cessation of the howling and throwing of stones at the North Americans, the conductor entered the car, and seeing the risk of the situation to the vehicle, ordered them to get out. At the instant the sailors left the car, in the midst of a hail of stones, the said conductor received a stone blow on the head. One of the Yankee sailors managed to escape in the direction of the plaza Wheelright, but the other was felled to the ground by a stone. Managing to raise himself from the ground where he lay he staggered in an opposite direction from the station. In front of the house of Señor Mazzini he was again wounded, falling then senseless and breathless.”

No amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision of this brutal work. It should be noticed, in this connection that the American sailors arrested, after an examination, were, during the four days following the arrest, every one discharged, no charge of any breach of the peace or other criminal conduct having been sustained against a single one of them.

The Judge of Crimes, Foster, in a note to the Intendente, under date of October 22d, before the dispatch from the government, of the following day, which aroused the authorities of Chile to a better sense of the gravity of the affair, says: “Having presided temporarily over this court in regard to the seamen of the United States cruiser Baltimore, who have been tried on account of the deplorable conduct which took place.” The noticeable point here is that our sailors had been tried before the 22d of October, and that the trial resulted in their acquittal and return to their vessel.

It is quite remarkable and quite characteristic of the management of this affair by the Chilean police authorities that we should now be advised that seaman Davidson, of the Baltimore, has been included in the indictment, his offence being so far as I have been able to ascertain, that he attempted to defend a shipmate against an assailant who was striking at him with a knife. The perfect vindication of our men is furnished by this report; one only is found to have been guilty of criminal fault, and that for an act clearly justifiable.

As to the part taken by the police in the affair, the case made by Chile is also far from satisfactory. The point where Riggin was killed is only three minutes walk from the police station and not more than twice that distance from the Intendencia; and yet, according to their official report, a full half hour elapsed after the assault began before the police were upon the ground. It has been stated that all but two of our men have said that the police did their duty. The evidence taken at Mare Island shows that if such a statement was procured from our men it was accomplished by requiring them to sign a writing in a language they did not understand and by the representation that it was a mere declaration that they had taken no part in the disturbance. Lieutenant McCrea, who acted as interpreter, says in his evidence that when our sailors were examined before the Court the subject of the conduct of the police was so carefully avoided that he reported the fact to Captain Schley on his return to the vessel.

The evidences of the existence of animosity toward our sailors in the minds of the Chilean navy and of the populace of Valparaiso are so abundant and various as to leave no doubt in the mind of any one who will examine the papers submitted. It manifested itself in threatening and insulting gestures toward our men as they passed the Chilean men-of-war in their boats, and in the derisive and abusive epithets with which they greeted every appearance of an American sailor on the evening of the riot.

Captain Schley reports that boats from the Chilean warships several times went out of their course to cross the bows of his boats, compelling them to back water. He complained of the discourtesy, and it was corrected. That this feeling was shared by men of higher rank is shown by an incident related by Surgeon Stitt, of the Baltimore. After the battle of Placilla he, with other medical officers of the war vessels in the harbor, was giving voluntary assistance to the wounded in the hospitals. The son of a Chilean army officer of high rank was under his care, and when the father discovered it he flew into a passion and said he would rather have his son die than have Americans touch him, and at once had him removed from the ward.

This feeling is not well concealed in the dispatches of the Foreign Office, and had quite open expression in the disrespectful treatment of the American Legation. The Chilean boatmen in the bay refused, even for large offers of money, to return our sailors who crowded the Mole, to their ship when they were endeavoring to escape from the city on the night of the assault. The market boats of the Baltimore were threatened, and even quite recently the gig of Commander Evans, of the Yorktown, was stoned while waiting for him at the Mole.

The evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected by the Chilean people; that threats have been made against our men, and that in one case, somewhat early in the afternoon, the keeper of one house into which some of our men had gone, closed his establishment in anticipation of the attack, which he advised them would be made upon them as darkness came on.

In a report of Captain Schley to the Navy Department he says: “In the only interview that I had with Judge Foster, who is investigating the case relative to the disturbance before he was aware of the entire gravity of the matter, he informed me that the entire assault upon my men was the outcome of hatred for our people among the lower classes because they thought we had sympathized with the Balmaceda Government on account of the Itata matter, whether with reason or without he could, of course, not admit; but such he thought was the explanation of the assault at that time.”

Several of our men sought security from the mob by such complete or partial changes in their dress as would conceal the fact of their being seamen of the Baltimore, and found it then possible to walk the streets without molestation. These incidents conclusively establish that the attack was upon the uniform—the nationality—and not upon the men.

The origin of this feeling is probably found in the refusal of this government to give recognition to the Congressional party before it had established itself, in the seizure of the Itata for an alleged violation of the Neutrality law in the cable incident, and in the charge that Admiral Brown conveyed information to Valparaiso of the landing at Quinteros. It is not my purpose to enter here any defense of the action of this government in these matters. It is enough for the present purpose to say that if there was any breach of international comity or duty on our part it should have been made the subject of official complaint through diplomatic channels, or of reprisals for which a full responsibility was assumed.

We cannot consent that these incidents and these perversions of the truth shall be used to excite a murderous attack upon our unoffending sailors and the Government of Chile go acquit of responsibility. In fact the conduct of this government during the war in Chile pursued those lines of international duty which we had so strongly insisted upon on the part of other nations when this country was in the throes of civil conflict. We continued the established diplomatic relations with the government in power until it was overthrown, and promptly and cordially recognized the new government when it was established.

The good offices of this government were offered to bring about a peaceful adjustment, and the interposition of Mr. Egan to mitigate severities and to shelter adherents of the Congressional party were effective and frequent. The charge against Admiral Brown is too base to gain credence with any one who knows his high personal and professional character.

Recurring to the evidence of our sailors, I think it is shown that there were several distinct assaults, and so nearly simultaneous as to show that they did not spread from one point. A press summary of the report of the Fiscal shows that the evidence of the Chilean officials and others was in conflict as to the place of origin, several places being named by different witnesses as to the locality where the first outbreak occurred. This, if correctly reported, shows that there were several distinct outbreaks, and so nearly at the same time as to cause this confusion.

La Patria, in the same issue from which I have already quoted, after describing the killing of Riggin and the flight which from that point extended to the Mole, says: “At the same time in other streets of the port the Yankee sailors fought fiercely with the people of the town, who believed to see in them incarnate enemies of the Chilean navy.”

The testimony of Captain Jenkins, of the American merchant ship Keweenaw, which had gone to Valparaiso for repairs, and who was a witness of some part of the assault upon the crew of the Baltimore, is strongly corroborative of the testimony of our own sailors when he says that he saw Chilean sentries drive back a seaman, seeking shelter, upon a mob that was pursuing him. The officers and men of Captain Jenkins’ ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which were practiced toward Americans in Valparaiso. When American sailors even of merchant ships, can only secure their safety by denying their nationality, it must be time to readjust our relations with a government that permits such demonstrations.

As to the participation of the police, the evidence of our sailors shows that our men were struck and beaten by police officers before and after arrest, and that one, at least, was dragged with a lasso about his neck by a mounted policeman. That the death of Riggin was the result of a rifle shot fired by a policeman or soldier on duty is shown directly by the testimony of Johnson, in whose arms he was at the time, and by the evidence of Charles Langen, an American sailor, not then a member of the Baltimore’s crew, who stood close and saw the transaction. The Chilean authorities do not pretend to fix the responsibility of this shot upon any particular person, but avow their inability to ascertain who fired it, further than that it was fired from a crowd.

The character of the wound, as described by one of the surgeons of the Baltimore, clearly supports his opinion that it was made by a rifle ball, the orifice of exit being as much as an inch or an inch and a quarter in width. When shot, the poor fellow was unconscious, and in the arms of a comrade, who was endeavoring to carry him to a neighboring drug store for treatment. The story of the police, that in coming up the street they passed these men and left them behind them is inconsistent with their own statement as to the direction of their approach and with their duty to protect them, and is clearly disproved. In fact, Riggin was not behind, but in front of the advancing force, and was not standing in the crowd, but was unconscious and supported in the arms of Johnson when he was shot.

The communications of the Chilean government in relation to this cruel and disastrous attack upon our men, as will appear from the correspondence, have not in any degree taken the form of a manly and satisfactory expression of regret, much less of apology. The event was of so serious a character that if the injuries suffered by our men had been wholly the result of an accident in a Chilean port, the incident was grave enough to have called for some public expression of sympathy and regret from the local authorities. It is not enough to say that the affair was lamentable, for humanity would require that expression even if the beating and killing of our men had been justifiable.

It is not enough to say that the incident is regretted, coupled with the statement that the affair was not of an unusual character in ports where foreign sailors are accustomed to meet. It is not for a generous and sincere government to seek for words of small or equivocal meaning in which to convey to a friendly power an apology for an offence so atrocious as this. In the case of the assault by a mob in New Orleans upon the Spanish consulate in 1851, Mr. Webster wrote to the Spanish minister, Mr. Calderon, that the acts complained of were a “disgraceful and flagrant breach of duty and propriety,” and that his government “regrets them as deeply as Minister Calderon or his government could possibly do;” that “these acts have caused the President great pain, and he thinks a proper acknowledgment is due to her Majesty’s government.” He invited the Spanish consul to return to his post, guaranteeing protection, and offering to salute the Spanish flag if the consul should come in a Spanish vessel. Such a treatment by the government of Chile of this assault would have been more creditable to the Chilean authorities; and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its dignity and honor.

In our note of October 23d last, which appears in the correspondence, after receiving the report of the board of officers appointed by Captain Schley to investigate the affair, the Chilean government was advised of the aspect which it then assumed, and called upon for any facts in its possession that might tend to modify the unfavorable impression which our report had created. It is very clear from the correspondence that before the receipt of this note the examination was regarded by the police authorities as practically closed. It was, however, reopened and protracted through a period of nearly three months. We might justly have complained of this unreasonable delay, but in view of the fact that the government of Chile was still provisional, and with a disposition to be forbearing and hopeful of a friendly termination, I have awaited the report which has but recently been made.

On the 21st instant I caused to be communicated to the government of Chile, by the American minister at Santiago, the conclusions of this government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions I adhere. They were stated as follows:

“First—That the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early information of the event gave to it, viz: That an attack was made upon the uniform of the United States Navy, having its origin and motive in a feeling of hostility to this government, and not on any account of the sailors or any of them.

“Second—That the public authorities of Valparaiso flagrantly failed in their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the Chilean soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. He (the President) thinks the preponderance of the evidence and of the inherent probabilities lead to the conclusion that Riggin was killed by the police or soldiers.

“Third—That he (the President) is therefore compelled to bring the case back to the position taken by this government in the note of Mr. Wharton on October 23d last, *** and to ask for a suitable apology and for some adequate reparation for the injury done to this country.”

In the same note the attention of the Chilean government was called to the offensive character of a note addressed by Mr. Matta, its Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Montt, its minister at this capital, on the 11th ult. This dispatch was not officially communicated to this government, but as Mr. Montt was directed to translate it, and to give it to the press of this country, it seemed to me that it could not pass without official notice. It was not only undiplomatic, but grossly insulting to our naval officers and to the Executive Department, as it directly imputed untruth and insincerity to the reports of the naval officers and to the official communications made by the Executive Department to Congress. It will be observed that I have notified the Chilean government that unless this note is at once withdrawn and an apology as public as the offence made, I will terminate diplomatic relations.

The request for the recall of Mr. Egan upon the ground that he was not persona grata, was unaccompanied by any suggestion that could properly be used in support of it, and I infer that the request is based upon official acts of Mr. Egan, which have received the approval of this government. But however that may be, I could not consent to consider such a question until it had first been settled whether our correspondence with Chile could be conducted upon a basis of mutual respect.

In submitting these papers to Congress for that grave and patriotic consideration which the questions involved demand, I desire to say that I am of the opinion that the demands made of Chile by this government should be adhered to and enforced. If the dignity as well as the prestige and influence of the United States are not to be wholly sacrificed we must protect those who, in foreign ports, display the flag or wear the colors of this government against insult, brutality, and death, inflicted in resentment of the acts of their government, and not for any faults of their own. It has been my desire in every way to cultivate friendly and intimate relations with all the governments of this hemisphere.

We do not covet their territory; we desire their peace and prosperity. We look for no advantage in our relations with them except the increased exchanges of commerce upon a basis of mutual benefit. We regret every civil contest that disturbs their peace and paralyzes their development, and are always ready to give our good offices for the restoration of peace. It must, however, be understood that this government, while exercising the utmost forbearance towards weaker powers, will extend its strong and adequate protection to its citizens, to its officers, and to its humblest sailor, when made the victims of wantonness and cruelty in resentment, not of their personal misconduct, but of the official acts of their government.

Upon information received that Patrick Shields, an Irishman and probably a British subject, but at the time a fireman of the American steamer Keweenaw, in the harbor of Valparaiso for repairs, had been subjected to personal injuries in that city—largely by the police—I directed the Attorney-General to cause the evidence of the officers and crew of that vessel to be taken upon its arrival in San Francisco, and that testimony is also herewith transmitted.

The brutality and even savagery of the treatment of this poor man by the Chilean police would be incredible if the evidence of Shields was not supported by other direct testimony, and by the distressing condition of the man himself when he was finally able to reach his vessel. The captain of the vessel says:

“He came back a wreck: black from his neck to his hips, from beating; weak and stupid, and is still in a kind of paralyzed condition, and has never been able to do duty since.”

A claim for reparation has been made in behalf of this man, for, while he was not a citizen of the United States, the doctrine long held by us, as expressed in the Consular Regulations, is:

“The principles which are maintained by this government in regard to the protection as distinguished from the relief of seamen are well settled. It is held that the circumstance that the vessel is American is evidence that the seamen on board are such; and in every regularly documented merchant vessel the crew will find their protection in the flag that covers them.”

I have as yet received no reply to our note of the 21st inst., but, in my opinion, I ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.

BENJAMIN HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Jan. 25, 1892.

The National Conventions of 1892.

REPUBLICAN.

The National Republican Convention for 1892 was called to meet at Minneapolis June 7th. The Convention was close at hand before any candidates were named, other than President Harrison. In February Mr. Blaine had written to Mr. Clarkson, Chairman of the National Convention, saying that his name would not be presented as a candidate, and declining in such positive terms that it was accepted as meaning what it said at the time. Later on the opposition to the President’s nomination, led by a syndicate of very strong names—Platt, of New York; Quay, of Pennsylvania; Clarkson, of Iowa; Conger, of Ohio; Kellogg, of Louisiana; Wolcott, of Colorado; Bourne, of Oregon; Filley, of Missouri—agreed to present Mr. Blaine, upon the statement that he would accept if his nomination was plainly for the good of the party. Three days preceding the Convention Mr. Blaine suddenly resigned as Secretary of State, and thus created the impression that he would accept and that he was a candidate. The first effect of the resignation was to enthuse his friends, many of them already assembled at Minneapolis, but when the correspondence was published, and its terseness was traceable entirely to Mr. Blaine’s haste, a great reaction followed in all parts of the country, and groups of businessmen from all prominent towns and cities wired their delegates of the change in sentiment, and as a rule they were asked to re-nominate President Harrison. A feeling affected the Blaine delegates, and many of the leaders began to look for a third man, in the person of Major McKinley, the father of the tariff bill of 1890, since chosen Governor of Ohio. Major McKinley himself voted for Harrison and resisted a proposed stampede in his own behalf, which had been planned to plump Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania solidly for McKinley. The plan failed, partly because Harrison had gained largely over estimates after New York had voted, and Pennsylvania cast 19 votes for him at the only moment which could have been at all critical.

The Convention organized at noon on the 7th, with Major McKinley as its President. The first contest was upon the question of the majority and minority reports of the Committee on Contests, the majority being adopted and generally regarded as a victory for the friends of Harrison. The contests were important only in the case of Alabama, where two full sets of delegates disputed for the seats.

Senator Wolcott, of Colorado, presented the name of Mr. Blaine, and it was seconded by ex-Senator Warner Miller, of New York.

Ex-Secretary of the Navy Richard T. Thompson, of Indiana (on that day eighty-three years of age, and a delegate to every previous Republican National Convention), presented the name of President Harrison. It was seconded by Chauncey M. Depew, of New York, in a speech remarkable for its force and eloquence.

The first and only ballot was taken on the morning of June 10th, with the following result:

THE BALLOT IN DETAIL. ─────────────────────────────────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬───────── STATES. │Harrison.│ Blaine. │McKinley. ─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────── Alabama │ 15│ 0│ 7 Arkansas │ 15│ 0│ 1 California │ 8│ 9│ 1 Colorado │ 0│ 8│ 0 Connecticut │ 4│ 0│ 8 Delaware │ 4│ 1│ 1 Florida │ 8│ 0│ 0 Georgia │ 26│ 0│ 0 Idaho │ 0│ 6│ 0 Illinois │ 34│ 14│ 0 Indiana │ 30│ 0│ 0 Iowa │ 20│ 5│ 1 Kansas │ 11│ 0│ 9 Kentucky │ 22│ 2│ 1 Louisiana │ 8│ 8│ 0 Maine │ 0│ 12│ 0 Maryland │ 14│ 0│ 2 Massachusetts │ 18│ 1│ 11 Michigan │ 7│ 2│ 19 Minnesota │ 8│ 9│ 1 Mississippi │ 13½│ 4½│ 0 Missouri │ 28│ 4│ 2 Montana │ 5│ 1│ 0 Nebraska │ 15│ 0│ 1 Nevada │ 0│ 6│ 0 New Hampshire │ 4│ 2│ 0 New Jersey │ 18│ 2│ 0 New York │ 27│ 35│ 10 North Carolina │ 17⅔│ 2⅔│ 1 North Dakota │ 2│ 4│ 0 Ohio │ 1│ 0│ 45 Oregon │ 1│ 0│ 7 Pennsylvania │ 19│ 3│ 42 Rhode Island │ 5│ 1│ 1 South Carolina │ 13│ 3│ 2 South Dakota │ 8│ 0│ 0 Tennessee │ 17│ 4│ 3 Texas │ 22│ 6│ 0 Vermont │ 8│ 0│ 0 Virginia │ 9│ 13│ 2 Washington │ 1│ 6│ 1 West Virginia │ 12│ 0│ 0 Wisconsin │ 19│ 2│ 3 Wyoming │ 4│ 2│ 0 │ │ │ TERRITORIES. │ │ │ Alaska │ 2│ 0│ 0 Arizona │ 1│ 1│ 0 Dist. of Columbia │ 0│ 2│ 0 Indian Territory │ 1│ 1│ 0 New Mexico │ 6│ 0│ 0 Oklahoma │ 2│ 0│ 0 Utah │ 2│ 0│ 0 ─────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼───────── Total │ 535⅙│ 182⅙│ 182 ─────────────────────────────────────────┴─────────┴─────────┴───────── Absent and not voting, 1⅔.

Reed, of Maine, received 3 votes, and Lincoln, of Illinois, 1.

Major McKinley moved to make the nomination unanimous, and it was adopted with great enthusiasm.

In response to the unanimous request of the New York delegation, Hon. Whitelaw Reid was nominated for Vice-President by acclamation.

DEMOCRATIC.

The Democratic National Convention assembled at Chicago, June 21st, and its deliberations excited great interest because of the opposition of the New York delegation to the nomination of Cleveland. Under the leadership of Governor Hill, the New York Democracy, in the canvass of 1891, carried the State, electing Flower as Governor, and Hill as U. S. Senator, the latter only after a severe contest and depriving three Republican State Senators of their seats by contests settled before partisan courts. The New York opposition to Cleveland, with the active aid of Tammany, united upon Hill as a Presidential candidate. A “snap” or mid-winter State Convention was called to elect delegates to the National Convention, and 72 Hill men were chosen and instructed. This system of forestalling public sentiment angered the Cleveland Democrats, who signed a protest to the number of 200,000 and three months later elected a contesting delegation, with instructions for Cleveland. Mr. Croker, Tammany’s Chief, and State Chairman Murphy were the Hill leaders at Chicago, and they gave early and public notice, in very bitter language, that if nominated Cleveland could not carry New York. Ex-Secretary of the Navy Whitney was the Cleveland leader, and he readily mustered more than two-thirds of the Convention, and felt so assured of victory that he advised the withdrawal of the contest against Hill’s delegation. Singularly enough the minority desired the repeal of the unit rule, for they had ascertained, after a careful canvass, that Cleveland would lose enough votes to check and possibly prevent his nomination if all of the delegates were permitted to vote separately. The unit rule, however, was carefully re-enacted in the report of the Committee on Rules.

Governor Wm. L. Wilson, of West Virginia, was elected President. Governor Leon Abbett, of New Jersey, presented the name of Grover Cleveland; William C. DeWitt, of New York, that of Senator David B. Hill, and John M. Duncombe, of Iowa, that of Governor Boies. A ballot was reached at 4 o’clock on the morning of the 23d, the Cleveland leaders doing this to prevent combinations by the opposition.

THE BALLOT IN DETAIL.

─────────────────┬──────────┬─────┬──────┬───────┬─────────── STATES. │Cleveland.│Hill.│Boies.│Gorman.│Scattering. ─────────────────┼──────────┼─────┼──────┼───────┼─────────── Alabama │ 14│ 2│ 1│ 1│ 4 Arkansas │ 16│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 California │ 18│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Colorado │ 0│ 3│ 5│ 0│ 0 Connecticut │ 12│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Delaware │ 6│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Florida │ 5│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 3 Georgia │ 17│ 5│ 0│ 4│ 0 Idaho │ 0│ 0│ 6│ 0│ 0 Illinois │ 48│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Indiana │ 30│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Iowa │ 0│ 0│ 26│ 0│ 0 Kansas │ 20│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Kentucky │ 18│ 0│ 2│ 0│ 6 Louisiana │ 3│ 1│ 11│ 1│ 0 Maine │ 9│ 1│ 0│ 1│ 1 Maryland │ 6│ 0│ 0│ 9½│ 0 Massachusetts │ 24│ 4│ 1│ 0│ 1 Michigan │ 28│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Minnesota │ 18│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Mississippi │ 8│ 3│ 3│ 4│ 0 Missouri │ 34│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Montana │ 0│ 0│ 6│ 0│ 0 Nebraska │ 15│ 0│ 0│ 1│ 0 Nevada │ 0│ 0│ 4│ 2│ 0 New Hampshire │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 New Jersey │ 20│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 New York │ 0│ 72│ 0│ 0│ 0 North Carolina │ 3⅓│ 1│ 0│ 0│ 17⅔ North Dakota │ 6│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Ohio │ 14│ 6│ 16│ 5│ 5 Oregon │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Pennsylvania │ 64│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Rhode Island │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 South Carolina │ 2│ 3│ 13│ 0│ 0 South Dakota │ 7│ 0│ 1│ 0│ 0 Tennessee │ 24│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Texas │ 23│ 1│ 6│ 0│ 0 Vermont │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Virginia │ 12│ 11│ 0│ 1│ 0 Washington │ 8│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 West Virginia │ 7│ 1│ 0│ 3│ 1 Wisconsin │ 24│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Wyoming │ 3│ 0│ 0│ 3│ 0 │ │ │ │ │ TERRITORIES │ │ │ │ │ Alaska │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Arizona │ 5│ 0│ 0│ 1│ 0 Dist. of Columbia│ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 New Mexico │ 4│ 1│ 1│ 0│ 0 Oklahoma │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Utah │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 Indian Territory │ 2│ 0│ 0│ 0│ 0 ─────────────────┼──────────┼─────┼──────┼───────┼─────────── Total │ 617⅓│ 115│ 103│ 36½│ 38⅔ ─────────────────┴──────────┴─────┴──────┴───────┴───────────

Number of votes cast, 909½. Necessary to a choice, 607.

Of the scattering votes Campbell got two from Alabama.

Carlisle got 3 from Florida, 6 from Kentucky, 5 from Ohio. Total 14.

Stephenson got 16⅔ from North Carolina.

Pattison got 1 from West Virginia.

Russell got 1 from Massachusetts.

Whitney got 1 from Maine.

Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois, former Assistant Postmaster-General, was nominated Vice-President on the first ballot, his chief competitor being Senator Gray, of Indiana.

A notable scene in the Convention was created by Mr. Neal, of Ohio, who moved to substitute a radical free trade plank as a substitute for the somewhat moderate utterances reported by ex-Secretary of the Interior Vilas, who read the report of the Committee on Platform. The substitute denounced the protective tariff as a fraud.

Mr. Neal made an earnest speech in support of his substitute and was ably seconded by Mr. Watterson.

Mr. Vilas replied defending the majority report in a vigorous speech, which was as generously applauded as that which preceded. The debate was animated and made specially interesting by the suggestions and calls from the galleries. The substitute was finally accepted by Chairman Jones on behalf of the committee, but this did not satisfy the friends of the substitute, who persisted in having a roll call upon its adoption.

A synopsis of the platform was submitted to and received the approval of Mr. Cleveland, and it was reported that the Neal substitute was prepared by the anti-Cleveland leaders, and the fact that the roll call was persisted in by the anti-Cleveland men gave color to this report.

There was a great deal of confusion and excitement preceding the roll call, and its progress was watched with as much interest as though its result was to decide the nomination. The States at the head of the roll generally cast their votes according to what was believed to be the feeling of their delegations on the Presidency, but later on the order was more varied, States known to be for Cleveland casting their solid vote for the substitute. New York was loudly cheered when the 72 votes of the State were given for the substitute. It was a most inconsistent vote, as Tammany is not regarded as a free trade organization—rather as one favoring moderate tariffs. A ripple of excitement was occasioned when Chairman Hensel cast the 64 votes of Pennsylvania against the substitute. Mr. Wallace protested that 15 of the delegates favored the substitute, and he demanded that the delegation be polled. A colloquy followed between Hensel and Wallace on the rules of the Convention, and the point raised by the former that Wallace’s motion was not in order under the unit rules was sustained by the Chair.

The result of the vote was 564 for the substitute and 342 against it.

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

AMERICAN POLITICS.