CHAPTER X.. Nomination to the Presidency.

NOMINATION TO THE PRESIDENCY.

Early Suggestions--Letters on Subject--Garfield Letter--Action of State Convention--Cincinnati Convention--Course of his Friends--First and Second Day's Events--Speech of Noyes--Balloting--Nominated on Seventh Ballot--Officially Notified--Habits--Personal Appearance--Family--Letter of Acceptance--Character as a Soldier, Magistrate, and Man--Domestic Surroundings.

No able man can for a long time fill the office of chief magistrate of one of the three great States of the Union without having his name more or less mentioned by his friends in connection with the presidency. As early as October, 1871, the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Cincinnati, at a large public meeting held in that city just prior to the fall election, introduced Governor Hayes as the next Republican candidate for President of the United States.

In 1872 a modest poet was inspired by the surrounding sentiment to sing:

"We bow not down to yonder rising sun, As did the Parsee worshiper of old, But bend in homage when its race is run, And watch it sink in purple-fretted gold. And thus to thee, oh Hayes! the tried, the true, On battle-field and in the civic chair, Our heart's deep gratitude, thy meed and due, (As closes far too soon thy proud career), Goes out with benedictions pure and high: Oh may thy set be brief, and, like the sun, Rise thou again--thy light to fill the sky, A brighter course of glory still to run, Till millions now unborn shall hail thy name In ages yet to come, with grand acclaim!"

Early in 1875 he was overwhelmed with letters urging upon him the acceptance of the third nomination for governor. Many of these letters presented as an inducement in favor of acceptance that if he ran for governor and succeeded in beating Allen, the prize of the presidency would be within his reach. To one of these letters from a leading editor he replied on April 10:

"The personal advantages you suggest rather tend to repel me. The melancholy thing in our public life is the insane desire to get higher.... But now I can't take that direction, and I will be ever so much obliged if you will help drop me out of it as smoothly as may be."

To a member of the State legislature he wrote:

"Content with the past, I am not in a state of mind about the future. It is for us to act well in the present. George E. Pugh used to say there is no political hereafter."

In the canvass of 1875, so much were the hearts of the people set upon having their great State leader the National leader, that the masses were invited in announcements for political meetings to come out and hear "the next President of the United States."

As illustrating the firmness of Governor Hayes in adhering to convictions, we give below a letter addressed to Hon. James A. Garfield. It must be remembered that at the time this letter was written the paper money madness prevailed through Ohio and in Congress to an alarming extent.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF OHIO, } COLUMBUS, March 4, 1876. }

My Dear General:

I have your note of 2d. I am kept busy with callers, correspondence, and the routine details of the office, and have not therefore tried to keep abreast of the currents of opinion on any of the issues. My notion is that the true contest is to be between inflation and a sound currency. The Democrats are again drifting all to the wrong side. We need not divide on details, on methods, or time when.

The previous question will again be irredeemable paper as a permanent policy, or a policy which seeks a return to coin. My opinion is decidedly against yielding a hair's breadth.

We can't be on the inflation side of the question. We must keep our face, our front, firmly in the other direction. "No steps backward," must be something more than unmeaning platform words. "The drift of sentiment among our friends in Ohio," which you inquire about, will depend on the conduct of our leading men. It is for them to see that the right sentiment is steadily upheld. We are in a condition such that firmness and adherence to principle are of peculiar value just now. I would "consent" to no backward steps. To yield or compromise is weakness, and will destroy us. If a better resumption measure can be substituted for the present one, that may do. But keep cool. We can better afford to be beaten in Congress than to back out.

Sincerely, R. B. HAYES.

Here is high courage and lofty political morality. The letter proclaims the grand truth that the only inquiry worthy of a statesman is, not what the tendency of public opinion is, but what ought it to be?

To a delegate to the Cincinnati Convention he wrote, under date of April 6:

"Having done absolutely nothing to make myself the candidate of Ohio, I feel very little responsibility for future results. When the State Convention was called it seemed probable that if I encouraged my friends to organize for the purpose, every district would elect my decided supporters. But to make such an effort in my own behalf, to use Payne's phrase on repudiation, 'I abhorred.'"

The Republican State Convention, which met March 29, had passed, by a unanimous vote, and with boundless enthusiasm, the following resolution:

"The Republican party of Ohio, having full confidence in the honesty, ability, and patriotism of Rutherford B. Hayes, cordially presents him to the National Republican Convention, for the nomination for president of the United States, and our State delegates to that Convention are instructed and the district delegates are requested to use their earnest efforts to secure his nomination."

We shall not stop to trace the growth of the Hayes sentiment in other States. When the Sixth Republican National Convention assembled in Cincinnati, on June 14, 1876, the situation was this: Hayes was the first choice of every one for the second place on the ticket, and every one's second choice for the first. He and his friends had in no way antagonized other candidates, and had been guilty of no uncharitableness of judgment toward them. In the convention, he was modestly presented as the one candidate who could harmonize all interests, and unite all party elements. His friends argued that he combined merit and availability to a higher degree than any one whose name was before the convention.

The spirit of the convention was good, and there seemed a willing response to this portion of the opening prayer:

"By Thy grace, give to them a spirit of concord, that harmony may prevail in their counsels; a spirit of wisdom that may discern and use the right means to promote the end for which they are convened; a spirit of patriotism, that the prosperity of the Nation may overshadow all personal or sectional desires; a spirit of courage, that they may be faithful to the deepest convictions of duty."

Ex-Governor Morgan, of New York, Chairman of the National Executive Committee, in his opening address, pertinently said:

"Resumption accomplished, then, in all human probability, will follow ten or fifteen years of prosperity, equal to that of any former period, perhaps greater than the country has yet seen. If you will, in addition, put a plank in your platform, declaring for such an amendment of the constitution as will extend the presidential office to six years, and make the incumbent ineligible for re-election, you will deserve the gratitude of the American people."

The Hon. Theodore M. Pomeroy, Temporary Chairman, forcibly declared:

"No, gentlemen, the late war was not a mere prize-fight for National supremacy. It was the outgrowth of the conflict of irreconcilable moral, social, and political forces. Democracy had its lot with the moral, social, and political forces of the cause which was lost; the Republican party with those which triumphed and survived. The preservation of the results of that victory devolves upon us here and now. Democracy has no traditions of the past, no impulses of the present, no aspirations for the future, fitting it for this task. The reaction of 1874 has already spent itself in a vain effort to realize the situation. It has simply demonstrated that no change in the machinery of the government can be had outside of the Republican party, without drawing with it a practical nullification of the great work of reconstruction, financial chaos, and administrative revolution. The present House of Representatives has succeeded in nothing except the development of its own incapacity."

The additional speeches delivered on the first day (which was devoted to organization) were by Senator Logan, General Joseph R. Hawley, Ex-Governor Noyes, Rev. Henry Highland Garnett, Ex-Governor Wm. A. Howard, of Michigan, and Fred. Douglass.

Mr. Douglass was vociferously applauded, when he said:

"The thing, however, in which I feel the deepest interest, and the thing in which I believe this country feels the deepest interest, is that the principles involved in the contest which carried your sons and brothers to the battle-field, which draped our Northern churches with the weeds of mourning, and filled our towns and our cities with mere stumps of men--armless, legless, maimed, and mutilated--the thing for which you poured out your blood and piled a debt for after-coming generations higher than a mountain of gold, to weigh down the necks of your children and your children's children--I say those principles, those principles involved in that tremendous contest, are to be dearer to the American people in the great political struggle now upon them than any other principles we have."

The most significant event of the first day's proceedings was the reading from the platform, by George William Curtis, of the outspoken address of the Republican Reform Club of the city of New York.

The Hon. Edward McPherson, of Pennsylvania, was chosen permanent chairman. The important events of the second day's proceedings were the adoption of the platform and the putting presidential candidates in nomination. The candidate the convention subsequently selected was placed in nomination by Ex-Governor Noyes, of Ohio, through the following eminently appropriate speech:

GENTLEMEN:--On behalf of the forty-four delegates from Ohio, representing the entire Republican party of Ohio, I have the honor to present to this convention the name of a gentleman well known and favorably known throughout the country; one held in high respect, and much beloved, by the people of Ohio; a man who, during the dark and stormy days of the rebellion, when those who are invincible in peace and invisible in battle were uttering brave words to cheer their neighbors on, himself, in the fore-front of battle, followed his leaders and his flag until the authority of our government was established from the lakes to the Gulf, and from the river round to the sea. A man who has had the rare good fortune since the war was over to be twice elected to Congress from the district where he resided, and subsequently the rarer fortune of beating successively for the highest office in the gift of the people of Ohio, Allen G. Thurman, George H. Pendleton, and William Allen. He is a gentleman who has somehow fallen into the habit of defeating Democratic aspirants for the Presidency, and we in Ohio all have a notion that from long experience he will be able to do it again. In presenting the name of Governor Hayes, permit me to say we wage no war upon the distinguished gentlemen whose names have been mentioned here to-day. They have rendered great service to their country, which entitles them to our respect and to our gratitude. I have no word to utter against them. I only wish to say that General Hayes is the peer of these gentlemen in integrity, in character, in ability. They appear as equals in all the great qualities which fit men for the highest positions which the American people can give them. Governor Hayes is honest; he is brave; he is unpretending; he is wise, sagacious, a scholar, and a gentleman. Enjoying an independent fortune, the simplicity of his private life, his modesty of bearing, is a standing rebuke to the extravagance--the reckless extravagance--which leads to corruption in public and in private places.

Remember now, delegates to the convention, that a responsible duty rests upon you. You can be governed by no wild impulse. You can run no fearful risks in this campaign. You must, if you would succeed, nominate a candidate here who will not only carry the old, strong Republican States, but who will carry Indiana, Ohio, and New York, as well as other doubtful States. We care not who the man shall be, other than our own candidate. Whoever you nominate, men of the convention, shall receive our heartiest and most earnest efforts for their success. But we beg to submit that in Governor Hayes you have those qualities which are calculated best to compromise all difficulties, and to soften all antagonisms. He has no personal enemies: His private life is so pure that no man has ever dared to assail it. His public acts throughout all these years have been above suspicion even. I ask you, then, if, in the lack of these antagonisms, and with all of these good qualities, living in a State which holds its election in October, the result of which will be decisive, it may be, of the presidential campaign--it is not worth while to see to it that a candidate is nominated against whom nothing can be said, and who is sure to succeed in the campaign?

In conclusion, permit me to say that, if the wisdom of this convention shall decide at last that Governor Hayes' nomination is safest, and is best, that decision will meet with such responsive enthusiasm here in Ohio as will insure Republican success at home, and which will be so far-reaching and wide-spreading as to make success almost certain from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The nomination was seconded by Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, Colonel J. W. Davis, of West Virginia, Hon. A. St. Gem, and Hon. J. P. Jones, of Missouri.

The third and last day of the sitting of the Convention was employed in balloting and in making the nominations.

At twenty minutes to 11 the balloting for president began:

FIRST BALLOT.

Bl: Blaine Mo: Morton Co: Conkling Br: Bristow Hy: Hayes Hr: Hartranft Wh: Wheeler Je: Jewell

-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- STATES. | Bl | Mo | Co | Br | Hy | Hr | Wh | Je -----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Alabama | 10 | | | 7 | 2 | | | 1 Arkansas | | 12 | | | | | | California | 9 | | 1 | 2 | | | | Connecticut | | | | 2 | | | | 10 Delaware | 6 | | | | | | | Florida | 1 | 4 | 8 | | | | | Georgia | 5 | 6 | 8 | 3 | | | | Illinois | 38 | | | 3 | 1 | | | Indiana | | 30 | | | | | | Iowa | 22 | | | | | | | Kansas | 10 | | | | | | | Kentucky | | | | 24 | | | | Louisiana | 2 | 14 | | | | | | Maine | 14 | | | | | | | Maryland | 16 | | | | | | | Massachusetts | 6 | | | 17 | | | 3 | Michigan | 8 | | 1 | 9 | 4 | | | Minnesota | 10 | | | | | | | Mississippi | | 12 | | 3 | | | | Missouri | 14 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | | Nebraska | 6 | | | | | | | Nevada | | | 2 | 3 | 1 | | | New Hampshire | 7 | | | 3 | | | | New Jersey | 13 | | | | 5 | | | New York | | | 69 | 1 | | | | North Carolina | 9 | 2 | 7 | 1 | | | | Ohio | | | | | 44 | | | Oregon | 6 | | | | | | | Pennsylvania | | | | | | 58 | | Rhode Island | 2 | | | 6 | | | | South Carolina | | 13 | | 1 | | | | Texas | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 | | | | Tennessee | 4 | 10 | | 10 | | | | Vermont | 1 | | | 8 | 1 | | | Virginia | 16 | 3 | 3 | | | | | West Virginia | 8 | | | | 2 | | | Wisconsin | 20 | | | | | | | Arizona | 2 | | | | | | | Colorado | 6 | | | | | | | Dakota | 2 | | | | | | | Idaho | 2 | | | | | | | Montana | 2 | | | | | | | New Mexico | 2 | | | | | | | Utah | 2 | | | | | | | District of Columbia | | 2 | | | | | | Washington | 2 | | | | | | | Wyoming | 1 | | | 1 | | | | -----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Totals |285 |125 | 99 |113 | 61 | 58 | 3 | 11 -----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

The second ballot resulted as follows: Blaine, 296; Morton, 120; Bristow, 114; Conkling, 93; Hayes, 64; Hartranft, 63: Wheeler, 3; Washburne, 1.

Third ballot: Blaine, 293; Bristow, 121; Morton, 113; Conkling, 90; Hartranft, 08; Hayes, 67; Wheeler, 2; Washburne, 1.

Fourth ballot: Blaine, 292; Bristow, 126; Morton, 108; Conkling, 84; Hartranft, 71; Hayes, 68; Washburne, 3; Wheeler, 2.

Fifth ballot: Whole number of votes cast, 755. Necessary to a choice, 378. Not voting, 1. Blaine, 286; Morton, 95; Bristow, 114; Conkling, 82; Hayes, 104; Hartranft, 69; Wheeler (Mass.), 2; Washburne, (Ga. 1, 111. 1, Minn. 1), 3.

On this ballot Hayes passed from the fifth to the third place, through the aid of 22 votes cast for him by Michigan, and 12 by North Carolina. This was the first distinct foreshadowing of the result.

On the sixth ballot Hayes was second, the vote standing: Blaine, 308; Hayes, 113; Bristow, 111; Morton, 85; Conkling, 81; Hartranft, 50; Washburne, 5; Wheeler, 2.

The decisive ballot stood:

SEVENTH BALLOT.

STATES. Hayes Blaine Bristow

Alabama 17 3 Arkansas 1 11 California 3 16 Connecticut 3 2 7 Delaware 6 Florida 8 Georgia 7 14 1 Illinois 3 35 5 Indiana 25 5 Iowa 22 Kansas 10 Kentucky 24 Louisiana 2 14 Maine 14 Maryland 16 Massachusetts 21 5 Michigan 22 Minnesota 1 9 Mississippi 16 Missouri 10 20 Nebraska 6 Nevada 6 New Hampshire 3 7 New Jersey 6 12 New York 61 9 North Carolina 20 Ohio 44 Oregon 6 Pennsylvania 28 30 Rhode Island 6 2 South Carolina 7 7 Texas 15 1 Tennessee 18 6 Vermont 10 Virginia 8 14 West Virginia 4 6 Wisconsin 4 16 Arizona 2 Colorado 6 Dakota 2 Idaho 2 Montana 2 New Mexico 2 Utah 2 District of Columbia 2 Washington 2 Wyoming 2

Totals 381 351 21

The nomination of Governor Hayes was received with indescribable enthusiasm, with long-continued cheering, and every other demonstration of joy and delight.

Outside of Ohio the State that contributed most to this far-reaching result was Michigan. From the fact that Mr. Bristow telegraphed to the Kentucky delegation several hours before the crisis was reached to cast their votes for Hayes, that State should share, after Michigan, the honor of achieving the grand result. Indiana, North Carolina, and New York followed close upon Kentucky, if it is possible to compare the value of the aid each State brought.

On motion of the Hon. Wm. P. Frye, of Maine, Rutherford B. Hayes was declared the unanimous choice of the Republican National Convention for President of the United States.

This great convention concluded its labors by nominating the able and incorruptible Wm. A. Wheeler, of New York, for vice-president by acclamation.

On the 17th of June, the day following the nomination, the committee appointed by the convention to notify Governor Hayes of the fact presented themselves in the executive office at Columbus.

Mr. McPherson, the chairman, approaching him, said:

"GOVERNOR HAYES: We have been deputed by the National convention of the Republican party, holden at Cincinnati on the 14th of the present month, to inform you officially that you have been unanimously nominated by that convention for the office of President of the United States. The manner in which that action was taken, and the response to it from every portion of the country, attest the strength of the popular confidence in you and the belief that your administration will be wise, courageous, and just. We say, sir, your administration, for we believe that the people will confirm the action of the convention, and thus save the country from the control of the men and the operations of the principles and policy of the Democratic party. We have also been directed to ask your attention to the summary of the Republican doctrine contained in the platform adopted by the convention. In discharging this agreeable duty we find cause of congratulation in the harmonious action of the convention, and in the hearty response given by the people we see the promise of assured success. Ohio, we know, trusts and honors you. Henceforth you belong to the whole country. Under circumstances so auspicious, we trust you will indicate your acceptance of the nomination."

The governor, who had had no intimation as to what the length or character of the address would be, was left in doubt with respect to the response expected from him by the committee. He, however, without embarrassment, but in an intentionally subdued tone of voice, gave this appropriately brief reply:

"SIR: I have only to say in response to your information that I accept the nomination. Perhaps at the present time it would be improper for me to say more than this, although even now I should be glad to give some expression to the profound sense of gratitude I feel for the confidence reposed in me by yourselves and those for whom you act. At a future time I shall take occasion to present my acceptance in writing, with my views upon the platform."

Since his nomination for the presidency, Governor Hayes has changed in no perceptible respect the habits, recreations, or labors of his daily life. He rises early and accomplishes much work before breakfast. He labors in the executive office in the capitol from nine until five, discharging his varied duties as governor, answering or dictating the answers to be given his official, political, and private correspondence, and remaining at all times accessible to visitors of every age, sex, color, and condition, who seek to see him. His evenings are passed with his family, or at the social parties of his many friends. He makes his customary trips to his home and farms near Fremont, and, while profitably managing large property interests, finds time to devote to pioneer history, to domestic architecture, to gardening, to general literature, to languages, and other liberal studies and pursuits. He is sobered, but not overpowered or oppressed by the new responsibilities cast upon him. He suffers himself to be--as he ever has been--natural. Moderate, discreet, and wise in all things as he has been in the past and is in the present, he is conspicuously one who grows wiser each day that he lives.

Governor Hayes has reached the age of fifty-four, is five feet nine inches in height, and weighs one hundred and eighty pounds. Perfect health and habits leave him just in the ripe maturity of physical manhood and mind. His shoulders and breast are broad, his frame solid and compact, his limbs muscular and strong. He has a fresh, ruddy complexion, is full of activity and elasticity, and is very fond of the amusements of young people. He has an exceptionally high and full forehead, a prominent nose, and bluish-gray eyes. A heavy sandy mustache and beard, which are silvered a little, conceal his mouth and chin. His light-brown hair is thin and slightly sprinkled with gray.

The Governor is the father of eight children, five of whom are now living. Those still living were born as follows: Birchard Austin, November 4, 1853; Webb Cook, March 20, 1856; Rutherford Platt, June 24, 1858; Fanny Hayes, September 2, 1867; Scott Russell, February 8, 1871.

The youngest of these children was born in Columbus, the others in Cincinnati. The oldest son graduated at Cornell University, in the class of 1874, and is now at the Harvard Law School. The second son passed three years at Cornell, and is now at home. The third son is at Cornell.

Three weeks from the day that Governor Hayes was nominated for the Presidency, his private secretary, Captain A. E. Lee, put upon the telegraphic wires, at Columbus, the following accurate copy of:

THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE.

COLUMBUS, OHIO, July 8, 1876.

Hon. Edward McPherson, Hon. Wm. A. Howard, Hon. Joseph H. Rainey, and others, Committee of the Republican National Convention.

GENTLEMEN: In reply to your official communication of June 17, by which I am informed of my nomination for the office of President of the United States by the Republican National Convention at Cincinnati, I accept the nomination with gratitude, hoping that, under Providence, I shall be able, if elected, to execute the duties of the high office as a trust for the benefit of all the people.

I do not deem it necessary to enter upon any extended examination of the declaration of principles made by the convention. The resolutions are in accord with my views, and I heartily concur in the principles they announce. In several of the resolutions, however, questions are considered which are of such importance that I deem it proper to briefly express my convictions in regard to them.

The fifth resolution adopted by the convention is of paramount interest. More than forty years ago, a system of making appointments to office grew up, based upon the maxim "To the victors belong the spoils." The old rule, the true rule, that honesty, capacity, and fidelity constitute the only real qualifications for office, and that there is no other claim, gave place to the idea that party services were to be chiefly considered. All parties, in practice, have adopted this system. It has been essentially modified since its first introduction. It has not, however, been improved.

At first the president, either directly or through the heads of departments, made all the appointments. But gradually the appointing power, in many cases, passed into the control of members of Congress. The offices, in these cases, have become not merely rewards for party services, but rewards for services to party leaders. This system destroys the independence of the separate departments of the government; it tends directly to extravagance and official incapacity; it is a temptation to dishonesty; it hinders and impairs that careful supervision and strict accountability by which alone faithful and efficient public service can be secured; it obstructs the prompt removal and sure punishment of the unworthy. In every way it degrades the civil service and the character of the government. It is felt, I am confident, by a large majority of the members of Congress, to be an intolerable burden, and an unwarrantable hindrance to the proper discharge of their legitimate duties. It ought to be abolished. The reform should be thorough, radical, and complete.

We should return to the principles and practice of the founders of the government, supplying by legislation, when needed, that which was formerly established custom. They neither expected nor desired from the public officer any partisan service. They meant that public officers should owe their whole service to the government and to the people. They meant that the officer should be secure in his tenure as long as his personal character remained untarnished, and the performance of his duties satisfactory. If elected, I shall conduct the administration of the government upon these principles; and all constitutional powers vested in the executive will be employed to establish this reform.

The declaration of principles by the Cincinnati Convention makes no announcement in favor of a single presidential term. I do not assume to add to that declaration; but, believing that the restoration of the civil service to the system established by Washington and followed by the early presidents can be best accomplished by an executive who is under no temptation to use the patronage of his office to promote his own re-election, I desire to perform what I regard as a duty, in stating now my inflexible purpose, if elected, not to be a candidate for election to a second term.

On the currency question, I have frequently expressed my views in public, and I stand by my record on this subject. I regard all the laws of the United States relating to the payment of the public indebtedness, the legal tender notes included, as constituting a pledge and moral obligation of the Government, which must in good faith be kept. It is my conviction that the feeling of uncertainty inseparable from an irredeemable paper currency, with its fluctuations of values, is one of the great obstacles to a revival of confidence and business, and to a return of prosperity. That uncertainty can be ended in but one way--the resumption of specie payments; but the longer the instability connected with our present money system is permitted to continue, the greater will be the injury inflicted upon our economical interests, and all classes of society.

If elected, I shall approve every appropriate measure to accomplish the desired end, and shall oppose any step backward.

The resolution with respect to the public school system is one which should receive the hearty support of the American people. Agitation upon this subject is to be apprehended, until, by constitutional amendment, the schools are placed beyond all danger of sectarian control or interference. The Republican party is pledged to secure such an amendment.

The resolution of the convention on the subject of the permanent pacification of the country, and the complete protection of all its citizens in the free enjoyment of all their constitutional rights, is timely and of great importance. The condition of the Southern States attracts the attention and commands the sympathy of the people of the whole Union. In their progressive recovery from the effects of the war, their first necessity is an intelligent and honest administration of government, which will protect all classes of citizens in all their political and private rights. What the South most needs is peace, and peace depends upon the supremacy of law. There can be no enduring peace if the constitutional rights of any portion of the people are habitually disregarded. A division of political parties, resting merely upon distinctions of race, or upon sectional lines, is always unfortunate, and may be disastrous. The welfare of the South, alike with that of every other part of the country, depends upon the attractions it can offer to labor, to immigration, and to capital. But laborers will not go, and capital will not be ventured, where the constitution and the laws are set at defiance, and distraction, apprehension, and alarm, take the place of peace-loving and law-abiding social life. All parts of the constitution are sacred, and must be sacredly observed--the parts that are new no less than the parts that are old. The moral and material prosperity of the Southern States can be most effectively advanced by a hearty and generous recognition of the rights of all by all--a recognition without reserve or exception.

With such a recognition fully accorded, it will be practicable to promote, by the influence of all legitimate agencies of the general government, the efforts of the people of those States to obtain for themselves the blessings of honest and capable local government.

If elected, I shall consider it not only my duty, but it will be my ardent desire, to labor for the attainment of this end.

Let me assure my countrymen of the Southern States that if I shall be charged with the duty of organizing an Administration, it will be one which will regard and cherish their truest interests--the interests of the white and of the colored people both, and equally; and which will put forth its best efforts in behalf of a civil policy which will wipe out forever the distinction between North and South in our common country.

With a civil service organized upon a system which will secure purity, experience, efficiency, and economy; with a strict regard for the public welfare, solely, in appointments; with the speedy, thorough, and unsparing prosecution and punishment of all public officers who betray official trusts; with a sound currency; with education unsectarian and free to all; with simplicity and frugality in public and private affairs, and with a fraternal spirit of harmony pervading the people of all sections and classes, we may reasonably hope that the second century of our existence as a Nation will, by the blessing of God, be pre-eminent as an era of good feeling, and a period of progress, prosperity, and happiness.

Very respectfully, Your fellow-citizen, R. B. HAYES.

The non-partisan verdict upon this letter is that it is faultless in style, sound in principle, courageous, broad and elevated in tone, liberal, wise, statesmanlike, and strong. It is, in short, the declaration of faith of an honest man who has a heart in his breast and a head on his shoulders, with purity in that heart and brains in that head.

The conclusions which follow our study of the public career of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, and the study of that interior life, the beauty of which the world will not know until he has passed from it, are briefly these.

In boyhood, in battle, in the civic chair, in the esteem of his State, in every duty and relation of life, he has been first, and now, it would seem, is first in the hearts of his countrymen. As a student, he was foremost; as a lawyer, he was in the front rank; as a soldier, he was the bravest; as a legislator, the most judicious; as a governor, second to none of Ohio's great magistrates.

The most striking characteristic of Hayes as a soldier was his personal intrepidity. Anthony Wayne, Francis Marion, and Ethan Allen were called brave men in the Revolution, and so they were; but we look in vain in their histories for as numerous proofs of unsurpassable daring as the hero of Cloyd Mountain, Cedar Creek, and South Mountain, has given us. Four horses shot under him; four wounds in action; fighting after he fell; a hundred days exposed to death under fire--these are the evidences of as lofty a courage as is yet known among men.

As a regimental, brigade, and division commander, his most striking quality as a leader was his impetuosity. General Crook used to say that Hayes fought infantry as other men fought cavalry. He was always wanting to move forward, to charge, to get at the enemy with cold steel. His favorite step was the double-quick; his choice of distance two paces; and his preferred mode of fighting, the hand-to-hand grapple. This meant business, was decisive, and was soon over.

Another characteristic was his constant care for the comfort of his soldiers. He was much in the hospitals, cheering up the wounded, writing letters for them, and sending last messages from the lips of the dying to wives, mothers, and friends. He shared his blanket, his last crust, his last penny, with the neediest of his men, and abstained from food when they had none.

His house is to-day, and has been since the war, a soldiers' home, where all who served with him are invited to come at all times and partake at his own table with his wife and children. Seldom is this generous hospitality imposed on by the members of his large military family. Once, only, a pseudo-soldier, whom the children called the "Veteran," having served two days and a half in the army, remained just double the term of his military service under the governor's roof. He doubtless found that the rations at this camp were good.

As a civil magistrate, Governor Hayes has developed executive and administrative abilities of the highest order. He has a practical, common-sense, direct way of doing things. He first finds what things ought to be done, and then how. When his own party has been in a minority, he has made friends with a few of the most reasonable men in the opposition, and through them, as instruments, has accomplished his purposes.

He is a discriminating judge of human nature, and is magnetic enough to make legislators follow his lead, as his soldiers followed him.

He has fixed rules of official conduct to which he adheres in all cases. For example, if he has a judge to appoint--and he has appointed many to fill vacancies--his simple inquiry is, Whom do the members of the legal profession want, who live in the judicial district to be provided for? When that fact is accurately ascertained, the appointment follows as a matter of course, even though the lawyer preferred may be his personal enemy. In the interests of learning, higher education, human benevolence, and equal rights, Hayes has accomplished more than any governor Ohio has yet had. We make this statement with the honorable records of old Jeremiah Morrow, Corwin, Chase, Tod, Brough, and Cox spread before us.

In a word, Governor Hayes is square-built, solid and sound, mentally, morally, and physically. His integrity is a proverb; his fidelity to his convictions is recognized by political enemies; his record is of unassailable soundness; and there is absolutely nothing vulnerable in his character. He has a Lincoln-like soundness of judgment, and is as inexorably just as old John Marshall. He is a man absolutely free from eccentricities and affectations; he neither walks nor talks on stilts. His manners have the warmth and grace that sincerity and simplicity give. In bearing, he is animated and thoughtful, manly and refined. His firmness, while it does not amount to obstinacy, marks the clear-cut individuality and decision of his character. He has the guiding faculty and the power of containing himself. He takes a just measure both of himself and of other men. If the country will do this, his future is as secure as his past. If president, he would do the right thing at the right time, in the right way. His election will give us, not a "solid South" or a solid North, but a solid Union!

Since experience has taught us how essential it is that the representative of the women of America in the executive mansion should worthily represent all that is best and most elevated in our social life, a word in regard to the companion of Governor Hayes may not be out of taste. If any public man in our history has been more fortunate and happy in his home surroundings and family relations, we are not aware who he may be. If the voice of the people should decree the transplanting of the ideal home of this family from the capital of Ohio to the capital of the Republic, the pure and elevating influences radiating from such a home would pervade and purify the social life of the National city, if not of the land. A severer simplicity would mark the inner and the outer life of the president's household. Extravagance in dress and living, wastefulness in vain displays and in ambitious entertainments, would find no encouragement from the mistress of the Nation's mansion. The lessons of truth and piety, of purity and virtue, of charity and benevolence, of sincerity and self-forgetfulness, would be taught by example. A whole people could here find in illustration the sacredness of the family and the holiness of home.

A union of rare accomplishments, social and domestic, with beauty of features, manners, and character, may yet be found in a successor of Mrs. Madison.

A doctor of divinity and a doctor of laws, the president of the Ohio Wesleyan University, bears this weighty testimony, in a public address, to the correctness of what we have hereinbefore recorded:

"It is in no spirit of partisanship, nor with the slightest reference to merely political ends, but simply in illustration of our subject that we add, already there are hopeful signs of reformation in our National life. It is a sign of progress that the suspicion of sullied purity is beginning to be fatal to a public man. It is an omen of good when in a large and representative convention, with the names of many distinguished men before it, one is borne above them all on the tide of popular enthusiasm and with ringing peals of applause is presented to the American people, without effort of his own, as a candidate for the highest office in the Nation, not only because of his eminent ability, but largely because of the transparent purity of his character and his high, manly, moral worth.

"It is doubtless a cause of honest pride to the citizens of this town, irrespective of political creeds and preferences, that the man thus highly distinguished is a native of your classic city. By reason of its youth this university can not claim him as a son, but it regards with maternal pride his not less worthy companion, who, after graduation at one of the best female colleges in the State, indicated her rare good sense by passing through much of the college curriculum of our university here.

"If, by the decree of the people and the providence of God, this worthy pair, honored graduates of Ohio's higher schools of learning, shall be lifted to the highest position and power and influence in the Nation, we have reason to believe that they will illustrate the salutary influence of that cultured goodness of which we have spoken, and that the National capital and the entire National domain will enjoy a purer atmosphere."

APPENDIX.

Speech of GENERAL R. B. HAYES, delivered at Lebanon, Ohio, August 5, 1867.

Fellow-Citizens:

President Lincoln began his memorable address at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery with these words:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new Nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

This was Abraham Lincoln's opinion of what was accomplished and what was meant by the Declaration of Independence. His idea was that it gave birth to a Nation, and that it dedicated that Nation to equal rights.

Now, so far as the performance of duty in the present condition of our country is concerned, "this is the whole law and the prophets." The United States are not a confederacy of independent and sovereign States, bound together by a mere treaty or a compact, but the people of the United States constitute a Nation, having one flag, one history, "one country, one constitution, one destiny." Whoever seeks to divide this Nation into two sections--into a North and a South, or into four sections, according to the cardinal points of the compass, or into thirty or forty independent sovereignties--is opposed to the Nation, and the Nation's friends should be opposed to him.

Washington, in his Farewell Address, says:

"The unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize.... The name of American, which belongs to you in your National capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings, and successes."

The sentiment of Nationality is the sentiment of the Declaration of Independence; it is the sentiment of the fathers; it is the sentiment which carried us through the war of the Revolution, and through the war of the late Rebellion; and it is a sentiment which the people of the United States ought forever to cultivate and cherish.

The great idea to which the Nation, according to Mr. Lincoln, was dedicated by the fathers is expressed in the Declaration in these familiar phrases: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

An intelligent audience will not wish to hear discussion as to the import of these sentences. Their language is simple, their meaning plain, and their truth undoubted. The equality declared by the fathers was not an equality of beauty, of physical strength, or of intellect, but an equality of rights. Foolish attempts have been made by those who hate the principles of the fathers to destroy the great fundamental truth of the Declaration, by limiting the application of the phrase "all men" to the men of a single race.

But Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration leaves no room to doubt what he meant by these words. The gravest charge he made against the King of Great Britain in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence was the following:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people, who never offended him, capturing and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain, determined to keep open market where MEN should be bought and sold."

In this sentence the word "men" is written by Jefferson in capital letters, showing with what emphasis he wished to declare that the King of Great Britain was making slaves of a people to whom belonged the rights of men.

Unfortunately for our country, that King, and others who "waged cruel war against human nature itself," had already succeeded in planting in the bosom of American society an element implacably hostile to human rights, and destined to become the enemy of the Union, whenever the American people, in their National capacity, should refuse assent to any measures which the holders of slaves should deem necessary or even important for the security or prosperity of their "peculiar institution."

I need not, upon this occasion, repeat what is now familiar history--how, by the invention of the cotton-gin, and the consequent enormous increase of the cotton crop, slave labor in the cotton States, and slave breeding in the Northern slave States, became so profitable that the slaveholders were able, for many years, largely to influence, if not control, every department of the National Government. The slave power became something more than a phrase--it was a definite, established, appalling fact. The Missouri controversy, South Carolina nullification, the Texas controversy, the adoption of the compromise measures of 1850, and the repeal of the Missouri compromise in 1854, were all occasions when the country was compelled to see the magnitude, the energy, the recklessness, and the arrogance of the slave power.

Precisely when the men who wielded that power determined to destroy the Union it is not now necessary to inquire. Threats of disunion were made in the first Congress that assembled under the constitution. Upon various pretexts they were repeated from time to time, and no one doubts that slavery was at the bottom of them. In 1833 General Jackson wrote to Rev. A. J. Crawford: "Take care of your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frown of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext ... and disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question." General Jackson was no doubt right as to the existence of a settled purpose to break up the Union, and to establish a Southern Confederacy, as long ago as 1832. But why was there such a purpose? On what ground did it stand?

Great political parties, whether sectional or otherwise, do not come by accident, nor are they the invention of political intrigue. A faction born of a clique may have some strength at one or two elections, but the wisest political wire-workers can not, by merely "taking thought," create a strong and permanent party. The result of the Philadelphia Convention last summer probably taught this truth to the authors of that movement. Great political movements always have some adequate cause.

Now, on what did the conspirators who plotted the destruction of the Union and the establishment of a Southern Confederacy rely? In the first place, they taught a false construction of the National constitution, which was miscalled State rights, the essential part of which was that "any State of the Union might secede from the Union whenever it liked." This doctrine was the instrument employed to destroy the unity of the Nation. The fact which gave strength and energy to those who employed this instrument was that in the southern half of the Union, society, business, property, religion, and law were all based on the proposition that over four millions of our countrymen, capable of civilization and religion, were, because of their race and color, "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The practice, founded upon this denial of the Declaration of Independence, protected by law and sanctioned by usage, was our great National transgression, and was the cause of our great National calamity.

In a country where discussion was free, sooner or later, parties were sure to be formed on the issues presented by the slaveholders. The supporters of the Union and of human rights would band together against the supporters of disunion and slavery. For many years after the struggle really began, the issues were not clearly defined, and neither party was able to occupy its true and final position, or to rally to its standard all who were in fact its friends. Old parties encumbered the ground. Men were slow to give up old associations and leave the discussion of obsolete, immaterial, or ephemeral issues.

At last the crisis came. In 1860, Mr. Lincoln, who was unfriendly to slavery and faithful to the Union, was elected president. The party of disunion and slavery were prepared for this event. Their action was prompt, decisive, and defiant. They proceeded to organize southern conventions, and formally to withdraw from the Union, and undertook to establish a new government and a new Nation on the soil of the United States.

Prior to 1860 the party calling itself Democratic had gathered under one name and one organization almost the whole of the secessionists of the South and a large body of the people of the North, many of whom had no sympathy either with secession or slavery. In 1860 the secessionists were so arrogant in their demands that the great body of the Democratic party in the North refused to yield to them, and supported Mr. Douglass in opposition both to Mr. Lincoln, and to the disunion and slavery candidate, Mr. Breckenridge. But it was well known that many leading Democrats who supported Mr. Douglass leaned strongly toward the southern Calhoun democracy, and that their sympathies were with slave-holding or at least with slaveholders.

The evidence of this is abundantly furnished in their recorded opinions. The most distinguished and perhaps the most influential Democrat now actively engaged in politics in Ohio, who presided over and addressed the last Democratic State Convention held at Columbus, Mr. Pendleton, delivered a speech in the House of Representatives on the 18th of January, 1861.

You will recollect how far the slaveholders had progressed in their great rebellion at that date. Mr. Pendleton himself says:

"To-day, sir, four States of this Union have, so far as their power extends, seceded from it. Four States, as far as they are able, have annulled the grants of power made to the Federal Government; they have resumed the powers delegated by the Constitution; they have canceled, so far as they could, every limitation upon the full exercise of all their sovereign rights. They do not claim our protection; they ask no benefit from our laws; they seek none of the advantages of the confederation. On the other hand, they renounce their allegiance; they repudiate our authority over them, and they assert that they have assumed--some of them that they have resumed--their position among the family of sovereignties, among the nations of the earth.... To-day, even while I am speaking, Georgia is voting upon this very question. And unless the signs of the times very much deceive us, within three weeks other States will be added to the number."

Mr. Pendleton might also have said that prior to that date, forts, arsenals, dock-yards, mints, and other places and property belonging to the United States, had been seized by organized and armed bodies of rebels; the collection of debts due in the South to Northern creditors had been stopped; South Carolina had declared that any attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter by the United States would be regarded by that State as an act of hostility against her and equivalent to a declaration of war; the Star of the West, an unarmed vessel, with the American flag floating at her mast-head, carrying provisions to the famishing garrison of Fort Sumter, had been fired on and driven from Charleston harbor; in short, at that date the rebels were engaged in actual war against the Nation, and the only reason why blood had not been shed was that the National government had failed in its duty to defend the Nation's property, and to maintain the sacredness of the National flag.

At that crisis Mr. Pendleton delivered and sent forth a speech bearing this significant motto: "But, sir, armies, money, blood, can not maintain this Union--justice, reason, peace, may." The speech was according to its motto. Accustomed as he is to speak cautiously, and in a scholarly and moderate way, we can not be mistaken as to his drift. On the authority of the National government he says:

"Now, sir, what force of arms can compel a State to do that which she has agreed to do? What force of arms can compel a State to refrain from doing that which her State government, supported by the sentiment of her people, is determined to persist in doing.... Sir, the whole scheme of coercion is impracticable. It is contrary to the genius and spirit of the Constitution."

These extracts sufficiently and fairly show Mr. Pendleton's notion of the duty and authority of the Nation in that great crisis. He held the States rights doctrines of Calhoun and Breckenridge, and not the National principles of Washington and Jackson.

As to the treatment of rebels already in arms, and as to the "demands" of the slave power, consider this advice which he gave to Congress and the people:

"If these Southern States can not be conciliated; if you, gentlemen, can not find it in your hearts to grant their demands; if they must leave the family mansion, I would signalize their departure by tokens of love; I would bid them farewell so tenderly that they would be forever touched by the recollection of it; and if in the vicissitudes of their separate existence they should desire to come together with us again in one common government, there should be no pride to be humiliated, there should be no wound inflicted by my hand to be healed. They should come and be welcome to the places they now occupy."

Thus we see there were those who, with honeyed phrases and soft words, would have looked smilingly on, while the great Republic--the pride of her children, the hope of the ages--built by the fathers at such an expense of suffering, of treasure, and of blood, was stricken by traitors' hands from the roll of living Nations, and while an armed oligarchy should establish in its stead a nation founded on a denial of human rights, and under whose sway south of the Potomac more than half of the territory of the old Thirteen Colonies--soil once fertilized by the best blood of the Revolution--should, for generations to come, continue to be tilled by the unrequited toil of slaves.

The best known, the boldest, and perhaps the ablest leader of the peace Democracy in the North is Mr. Vallandigham. He was chairman of the committee on resolutions in the last Democratic State Convention in Ohio, and reported the present State platform of his party. He, probably, still enjoys in a greater degree than any other public man the affection and confidence of the positive men of the Ohio Democracy, who, from beginning to end, opposed the war. On the 20th of February, 1861, he delivered a speech in the House of Representatives in support of certain amendments which he proposed to the Constitution of the United States. In an appendix to that speech, he published an extract from a card in the Cincinnati Enquirer of November 10, 1860, from which I quote:

"And now let me add that I did say, ... in a public speech at the Cooper Institute, on the 2d of November, 1860, that if any one or more of the States of this Union should at any time secede, for reasons of the sufficiency and justice of which, before God and the great tribunal of history, they alone may judge, much as I should deplore it, I never would, as a representative in Congress of the United States, vote one dollar of money whereby one drop of American blood should be shed in a civil war.... And I now deliberately repeat and reaffirm it, resolved, though I stand alone, though all others yield and fall away, to make it good to the last moment of my public life." Here was another strong man of large influence solemnly pledged to allow the Union to be broken up and destroyed, in case the rebel conspirators chose that alternative, rather than forgo their demands in favor of oppression and against human rights.

On the 23d of January, 1861, the Democratic party held a State Convention at Columbus. Remember, at that date the air was thick with threats of war from the South. The rebels were organizing and drilling; arms robbed from the National arsenals were in their hands; and the question upon all minds was whether the Republic should perish without having a single blow struck in her defense, or whether the people of the loyal North should rise as one man, prepared to wage war until treason and, if need be, slavery went down together. On this question, that convention was bound to speak. Silence was impossible. There were present war Democrats and peace Democrats, followers of Jackson, and followers of Calhoun. There was a determined and gallant struggle on the part of the war Democrats, but the superior numbers, or more probably the superior tactics and strategy, of the peace men triumphed.

The present candidate of the Democratic party for Governor of Ohio, Judge Thurman, a gentleman of character and ability, a distinguished lawyer and judge and a politician of long experience, succeeded in passing through the convention this resolution:

"Resolved, That the two hundred thousand Democrats of Ohio send to the people of the United States, both North and South, greeting; and when the people of the North shall have fulfilled their duties to the constitution and to the South, then, and not until then, will it be proper for them to take into consideration the question of the right and propriety of coercion."

In support of this famous resolution, Judge Thurman addressed the convention, and, among other things, is reported to have said:

"A man is deficient in understanding who thinks the cause of disunion is that the South apprehended any overt act of oppression in Lincoln's administration. It is the spirit of the late presidential contest that alarms the South.... It would try the ethics of any man to deny that some of the Southern States have no cause for revolution.... Then you must be sure you are able to coerce before you begin the work. The South are a brave people. The Southern States can not be held by force. The blacks won't fight for the invaders.... The Hungarians had less cause of complaint against Austria than the South had against the North."

When we reflect on what the rebels had done and what they were doing when this resolution was passed, it seems incredible that sane men, having a spark of patriotism, could for one moment have tolerated its sentiments. The rebels had already deprived the United States of its jurisdiction and property in about one-fourth of its inhabited territory, and were rapidly extending their insurrection so as to include within the rebel lines all of the slave States. The lives and property of Union citizens in the insurgent States were at the mercy of traitors, and the National flag was everywhere torn down, and shameful indignities and outrages heaped upon all who honored it.

This resolution speaks of fulfilling the duties of the people of the North to the South. The first and highest duty of the people of the North to themselves, to the South, to their country, and to God, was to crush the rebellion. All speeches and resolutions against either the right or the propriety of coercion merely gave encouragement, "moral aid and comfort," more important than powder and ball, to the enemies of the Nation.

Do I state too strongly the mischievous, the fatal tendency of these proceedings? The resolution adopted by the peace Democracy of Ohio is addressed in terms "to the people of all the States, North and South," and in fact was sent, I am informed, to the governors of all the States.

In the South, Union men were laboring by every means in their power to prevent secession. Their most cogent argument was that the National government would defend itself by war against rebellion. To this, the rebel reply was, "There will be no war. Secession will be peaceable. The peace party of the North will prevent coercion. If there is fighting, it will be as Ex-President Pierce writes to Jefferson Davis, 'The fighting will not be along Mason and Dixon's line merely. It will be within our own borders, in our own streets.'"

For the evidence of the correctness of this opinion, the rebels could point confidently to such speeches and resolutions as those we are now considering. Governor Orr, of South Carolina, in a recent speech at the Charleston Board of Trade banquet, is reported to have said:

"I know there is an apprehension widespread in the North and West that, after the reconstruction of the Southern States, we shall fall into the arms of our old allies and associates, the old Democratic party. I say to you, gentlemen, however, that I would give no such pledges. We have accounts to settle with that party, gentlemen, before I, at least, will consent to affiliate with it. Many of you will remember that, when the war first commenced, great hopes and expectations were held out by our friends in the North and West that there would be no war, and that if it commenced, it would be North of Mason and Dixon's line, and not in the South."

Without pausing to inquire how much strength accrued to the rebellion in its earlier stages by the encouragement it received from sympathizers in the North, let us pass on to the spring and summer of 1861, after the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, and when the armies of the Union and of the rebellion were facing each other upon a line of operations extending from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. The most superficial observer could not fail to discover these facts.

In the South, where slavery was strongest, the rebellion was strongest. Where there were few slaveholders, there were few rebels. South Carolina and Mississippi, having the largest number of slaves in proportion to population, were almost unanimous for rebellion. Western Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, East Tennessee, had few slaves, and love of the Union and hatred of secession in those mountain regions was nearly universal.

The counterpart of this was found everywhere in the North. In counties and districts where the majority of the people had been accustomed to defend or excuse the practice of slave-holding and the aggressions of the slaveholders, there was much sympathy with the rebellion and strong opposition to the war. Men who abused and hated negroes did not usually hate rebels. On the other hand, anti-slavery counties and districts were quite sure to be Union to the core.

In Ohio, as in other free States, the Democratic party could not be led off in a body after the peace Democracy. Brough, Tod, Matthews, Dorsey, Steedman, and a host of Democrats of the Jackson school, nobly kept the faith. Lytle, McCook, Webster, and gallant spirits like them, from every county and neighborhood of our State, sealed their devotion to the Union and to true Democracy with their life's blood.

They believed, with Douglass, in the last letter he ever wrote, that "it was not a party question, nor a question involving partisan policy; it was a question of government or no government, country or no country, and hence it became the imperative duty of every Union man, every friend of constitutional liberty, to rally to the support of our common country, its government and flag, as the only means of checking the progress of revolution, and of preserving the Union of the States."

They believed the words of Douglass' last speech: "This is no time for a detail of causes. The conspiracy is now known. Armies have been raised, war is levied to accomplish it. There are only two sides to the question. Every man must be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutrals in this war--only patriots and traitors."

As the war progressed, the great political parties of the country underwent important changes, both of organization and policy. In the North, the Republican party, the great body of the American or Union party of 1860, and the war Democracy formed the Union party. The Democracy of the South, for the most part, became rebels, and in the North those who did not unite with the Union party generally passed under the control and leadership of the peace Democracy.

At the beginning of the war, the creed of the Union party consisted of one idea--it labored for one object--the restoration of the Union. Slavery, the rights of man, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, were for the time lost sight of in the struggle for the Nation's life. As late as August, 1862, President Lincoln wrote to Mr. Greeley: "My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

Slowly, gradually, after repeated disasters and disappointments, the eyes of the Union leaders were opened to the fact that slavery and rebellion were convertible terms; that the Confederacy, according to its Vice-President, Alexander H. Stephens, was founded upon "exactly the opposite idea" from that of Jefferson and the fathers. "Its foundations," said he, "are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Mr. Lincoln and the Union party, struggling faithfully onward, finally reached the solid ground that the American government was founded on the broad principles of right, justice, and humanity, and that, for this Nation, "Union and liberty" were indeed "one and inseparable."

The leaders of the peace Democracy were for a time overwhelmed by the popular uprising which followed the attack on Fort Sumter, and were not able during the year 1861 or the early part of 1862 to mark out definitely the course to be pursued. But, like the Union party, they gradually approached the position they were ultimately to occupy.

Their success in the autumn elections of 1862 encouraged them to enter upon the pathway in which they have plodded along consistently if not prosperously ever since. Opposition to the war measures of Mr. Lincoln's administration, and in particular to every measure tending to the enfranchisement and elevation of the African race, became their settled policy. By this policy they were placed in harmony with their former associates, the rebels of the South. The rebels were fighting to destroy the Union. The peace party were opposing the only measures which could save it. The rebels were fighting for slavery. The peace party were laboring in their way to keep alive and inflame the prejudice against race and color, on which slavery was based.

The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the repeal of the fugitive slave law, Mr. Lincoln's proclamation of emancipation, in a word, every step of the Union party toward enfranchisement of the colored people, the peace Democracy opposed. Every war measure, every means adopted to strengthen the cause of the Union and weaken the rebellion, met with the the same opposition. Whatever Mr. Lincoln or Congress did to get money, to get men, or to obtain the moral support of the country and the world--tax laws, tariff laws, greenbacks, government bonds, army bills, drafts, blockades, proclamations--met the indiscriminate and bitter assaults of these men. The enlistment of colored soldiers, a measure by which between one and two hundred thousand able-bodied men were transferred from the service of the rebels in corn-fields to the Union service in battle-fields--how Mr. Lincoln and the Union party were vilified for that wise and necessary measure! But worse, infinitely worse, than mere opposition to war measures, were their efforts to impair the confidence of the people, to diminish the moral power of the government, to give hope and earnestness to the enemies of the Union, by showing that the administration was to blame for the war, that it was unnecessary, unjust, and that it had been perverted from its original object, and that it could not but fail.

I need not go beyond the record of leaders of the Ohio Democracy of to-day for proof what I am saying. Mr. Pendleton, usually so gentlemanly and prudent in speech, lost his balance after the victories of the peace Democracy in 1862. At the Democratic jubilee in Butler county over the elections, Mr. Pendleton is reported as saying:

"I came up to see if there were any Butternuts in Butler county. I came to see if there were any Copperheads in Butler county, as my friends of the Cincinnati Gazette and Commercial are fond of terming the Democracy of the country. I came up to tell you that there are a good many of that stripe of animals in old Hamilton. I have traveled about the country lately, and I assure you there is a large crop of Butternuts everywhere: not only that, but the quality and character of the nut is quite as good as the quantity."

Of course, Mr. Pendleton was applauded by his audience; and he returned to his place in the House of Representatives at Washington prepared to give expression to his views with the same plainness and boldness which marked the utterances of his colleague, Mr. Vallandigham.

On the 31st of January, 1863, he made an elaborate speech against the enlistment of negroes into the service of the United States, in which he said:

"I should be false to you, my fellow-representatives, if I did not tell you that there is an impression, growing with great rapidity, upon the minds of the people of the Northwest that they have been deliberately deceived into this war--that their patriotism and their love of country have been engaged to call them into the army, under the pretense that the war was to be for the Union and the Constitution, when, in fact, it was to be an armed crusade for the abolition of slavery. I tell you, sir, that unless this impression is speedily arrested it will become universal; it will ripen into conviction, and then it will be beyond your power to get from their broad plains another man, or from their almost exhausted coffers another dollar."

In the same speech he says:

"I said two years ago, on this floor, that armies, money, war can not restore this Union; justice, reason, peace, may. I believed it then; I have believed it at every moment since; I believe it now. No event of the past two years has for a moment shaken my faith. Peace is the first step to Union. Peace is Union. Peace unbroken would have preserved it; peace restored will, I hope, in some time reconstruct it. The only bonds which can hold these States in confederation, the only ties which can make us one people, are the soft and silken cords of affection and interest. These are woven in peace, not war; in conciliation, not coercion; in deeds of kindness and acts of friendly sympathy, not in deeds of violence and blood. The people of the Northwest were carried away by the excitement of April and May. They believed war would restore the Union. They trusted to the assurances of the president and his cabinet, and of Congress, that it should be carried on for that purpose alone. They trusted that it would be carried on under the Constitution. They were patriotic and confiding. They sent their sons, and brothers, and husbands to the army, and poured out their treasures at the feet of the administration. They feel that the war has been perverted from this end; that the Constitution has been disregarded; that abolition and arbitrary power, not Union and constitutional liberty, are the governing ideas of the administration. They are in no temper to be trifled with. They think they have been deceived. There is danger of revolution. They are longing for peace."

Need I pause to inquire who would receive encouragement, or whose spirits would be depressed, on reading these remarkable sentences? Imagine them read by the rebel camp-fires, or at the fire-sides of the rebel people. What hope, what exultation we should behold in the faces of those who heard them! On the other hand, at Union camp-fires, or by the loyal fire-sides of the North, what sorrow, what mortification, what depression such statements would surely carry wherever they were heard and believed!

The course of the peace Democracy of Ohio during the memorable contest of 1863, between Brough and Vallandigham, is too well known to require attention now. Judge Thurman was one of the committee who constructed the platform of the convention which nominated Mr. Vallandigham, and was the ablest member of the State Central Committee which had charge of the canvass in his behalf during his exile.

The key-note to that canvass was given by Mr. Vallandigham himself in a letter written from Canada, July 15, 1863. That letter contained the following:

"If this civil war is to terminate only by the subjugation or submission of the South to force and arms, the infant of to-day will not live to see the end of it. No, in another way only can it be brought to a close. Traveling a thousand miles and more, through nearly half of the Confederate States, and sojourning for a time at widely different points, I met not one man, woman, or child, who was not resolved to perish rather than yield to the pressure of arms, even in the most desperate extremity. And whatever may and must be the varying fortune of the war, in all which I recognize the hand of Providence pointing visibly to the ultimate issue of this great trial of the States and people of America, they are better prepared now every way to make good their inexorable purpose than at any period since the beginning of the struggle. These may be unwelcome truths; but they are addressed only to candid and honest men."

The assumption of the certain success of the rebellion, and that the war for the Union would assuredly fail, was the strong point of these gentlemen in favor of the election of Vallandigham and the defeat of Brough. Fortunately, the patriotic people saw the situation from another standpoint, and under the influence of different feelings and different sympathies.

In the elections of 1863, the peace Democracy of Ohio and other States sustained defeats which have no parallel in our political history. But, notwithstanding their reverses, the year 1864, the year of the presidential election, found the Ohio leaders possibly sadder, but certainly not wiser nor more patriotic than before.

At the National Convention at Chicago, in August, Mr. Pendleton was nominated for vice-president, Judge Thurman was a delegate of the State of Ohio at large, and Mr. Vallandigham as a district delegate, and as a member of the committee on platform, was the author of the following resolution adopted by the convention:

"Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that, after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under pretense of military necessity, or war power higher than the constitution, the constitution has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private rights have been alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of all the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States."

This resolution does not seem to require explanation or comment. But as General McClellan's letter accepting the nomination for president did not square well with this part of the party platform, Mr. Vallandigham, in a speech at Sidney, Ohio, September 24, 1864, explained it at some length. In that speech, he said:

"I am speaking now of the fact that this convention pronounced this war a failure, and giving you the reasons why it is a failure.... What has been gained by this campaign? More lives have been lost, more hard fighting has been done, more courage has been exhibited by the Federal as well as the Southern soldiers than in any former campaign, and what has been accomplished? General Grant is nearer to Richmond, occupying a territory of perhaps eleven miles, which was not in the possession of the United States when the campaign began, from City Point to the suburbs of Petersburg. To secure that he gave up all the country from Manassas down to Richmond and a large part of the valley.... How about the Southern campaign? General Sherman, through the courage of the best disciplined, best organized, and most powerful army that has been seen since the campaigns of the first Napoleon, has taken Atlanta--a town somewhat larger than Sidney. It has cost him sixty thousand men and four or five months of the most terrible campaign ever waged on this continent or any other, or any other part of the globe. He occupies from two to five miles on each side of a railroad of one hundred and thirty-eight miles in length. He has penetrated that far into Georgia. What has been surrendered to obtain that? All of Texas, nearly all of Louisiana, nearly all of Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and a part of Tennessee, which were in possession of the Federals on the first of May. Kentucky has been opened to continual incursions of the Confederate armies. All this has been surrendered in order to gain this barren strip of country on the line of the railroad. The war, then, has been properly pronounced a failure in a military point of view. The convention meant that it has failed to restore the Union, and there is not a Republican in the land who does not know it."

In the Sidney speech, Mr. Vallandigham says, also:

"What will you have now? Four years more of war? What guaranties of success have you? Do you want two million more of men to go forth to this war as the Crusaders went to the sepulcher at Jerusalem? The beginning of this administration found us with very little debt, comparatively no taxation, and peace and happiness among the States; and now look at the scene! Four more years of war, do you tell me, when the first four, with every advantage, has failed? Now, too, that the hearts of one-half of the people are turned away from war, and intent upon the arts of peace? What will be the consequence? Four thousand millions more of debt, five hundred millions more of taxation, more conscriptions, more calls for five hundred thousand men, more sacrifices for the next four years. All this is what Abraham Lincoln demands of you in order that the South may be compelled not to return to the Union, but to abandon slavery."

All this logic, this eloquence, this taxing the imagination to portray the horrors of war, failed to deceive the people; Lincoln was re-elected; the war went on, and a few short months witnessed the end of the armed rebellion, and the triumph of liberty and of Union.

Now came the work of reconstruction. The leaders of the Peace Democracy, who had failed in every measure, in every plan, in every opinion, and in every prediction relating to the war, were promptly on hand, and with unblushing cheek were prepared to take exclusive charge of the whole business of reorganization and reconstruction. They had a plan all prepared--a plan easily understood, easily executed, and which they averred would be satisfactory to all parties. Their plan was in perfect harmony with the conduct and history of its authors and friends during the war. They had been in very close sympathy with the men engaged in the rebellion, while their sympathy for loyal white people at the South was not strong, and they were bitterly hostile to loyal colored people both North and South. Their plan was consistent with all this.

According to it, the rebels were to be treated in the same manner as if they had remained loyal. All laws, State and National, all orders and regulations of the military, naval, and other departments of the government, creating disabilities on account of participation in the rebellion, were to be repealed, revoked, or abolished. The rebellious States were to be represented in Congress by the rebels without hindrance from any test oath. All appointments in the army, in the navy, and in the civil service, were to be made from men who were rebels, on the same terms as from men who were loyal. The people and governments in the rebellious States were to be subjected to no other interference or control from the military or other departments of the general government than exists in the States which remained loyal. Loyal white men and loyal colored men were to be protected alone in those States by State laws, executed by State authorities, as if they were in the loyal States.

There were to be no amendments to the constitution, not even an amendment abolishing slavery. In short, the great rebellion was to be ignored or forgotten, or, in the words of one of their orators, "to be generously forgiven." The war, whose burdens, cost, and carnage they had been so fond of exaggerating, suddenly sank into what the Rev. Petroleum V. Nasby calls "the late unpleasantness," for which nobody but the abolitionists were to blame. Under this plan the States could soon re-establish slavery where it had been disturbed by the war. Jefferson Davis, Toombs, Slidell, and Mason could be re-elected to their old places in the Senate of the United States; Lee could be re-appointed in the army, and Semmes and Maury could be restored to the navy. Of course this plan of the Peace Democracy was acceptable to the rebels of the South.

But the loyal people, who under the name of the Union party fought successfully through the war of the rebellion, objected to this plan as wrong in principle, wrong in its details, and fatally wrong as an example for the future. It treats treason as no crime and loyalty as no virtue; it contains no guarantees, irreversible or otherwise, against another rebellion by the same parties and on the same grounds. It restores to political honor and power in the government of the Nation men who have spent the best part of their lives in plotting the overthrow of that government, and who for more than four years levied public war against the United States; it allows Union men in the South, who have risked all--and many of whom have lost all but life in upholding the Union cause--to be excluded from every office, State and National, and in many instances to be banished from the States they so faithfully laboured to save; it abandons the four millions of colored people to such treatment as the ruffian class of the South, educated in the barbarism of slavery and the atrocities of the rebellion, may choose to give them; it leaves the obligations of the Nation to her creditors and to the maimed soldiers and to the widows and orphans of the war, to be fulfilled by men who hate the cause in which those obligations were incurred; it claims to be a plan which restores the Union without requiring conditions; but, in conceding to the conquered rebels the repeal of laws important to the Nation's welfare, it grants conditions which they demand, while it denies to the loyal victors conditions which they deem of priceless value.

In the meantime, President Johnson having declared that "the rebellion, in its revolutionary progress, had deprived the people of the rebel States of all civil government," proceeded by military power to set up provisional State governments in those States, and to require them to declare void all ordinances of secession, to repudiate the rebel debt, and to adopt the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, proposed by the Union party, abolishing slavery throughout the United States. The Peace Democracy opposed all conditions, and, instinctively unsound upon human rights, opposed the amendment abolishing slavery. The elections of 1865 settled that question against them, and deprived them of New Jersey, the last free State which adhered to their fallen fortunes.

At the session of Congress of 1865-66, the president, finding that his co-called State governments in the rebel States--created by military power alone and without the sanction of the legislative power of the government--had accepted his conditions; insisted that those States were fully restored to their former proper relations with the general government, and that they were again entitled to representation in the same manner with the loyal States. This plan accorded with the wishes of all unrepentant rebels, and as a matter of course received the support of their allies of the Peace Democracy.

The Union party, at the sacrifice of all of the power and patronage of the administration they had elected, firmly opposed and finally defeated this project. They required, before the complete restoration of the rebel States, that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution should be adopted, which was framed to secure civil rights to the colored people, equal representation between the free States and the former slave States, the disqualification for office of leading rebels, the payment of the loyal obligations to creditors, to maimed soldiers, and to widows and orphans, and the repudiation of the rebel debt, and of claims to payment for slaves. On the adoption of this amendment turned the elections of 1866. After the amplest debates before the people the Union party carried the country in favor of the amendment, electing more than three-fourths of the members of the House of Representatives. They also secured the adoption of the amendment in twenty-one out of the twenty-four States now represented, which have acted upon it by an average vote in the State legislature of more than four to one.

In striking contrast with this was the action of the rebel States. Tennessee alone ratified the amendment. The other ten promptly and defiantly rejected it by an average majority in their State legislatures of more than fifty to one. When, therefore, the Thirty-ninth Congress met in the session of 1866-67 they found the work of reconstruction in those ten States still unaccomplished.

Now, in what condition were those ten rebel States? In the first place all political power in those States was in the hands of rebels, and for the most part of leading and unrepentant rebels. Their governors, their members of legislature, their judges, their county and city officers, and their members of Congress, with rare exceptions, were rebels. Such was their political condition.

What was their condition with respect to the preservation of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private grievances? After the suppression of the rebellion the next plain duty of the National government was to see that the lives, liberty, and property of all classes of citizens were secure, and especially to see that the loyal white and colored citizens who resided or might sojourn in those States did not suffer injustice, oppression, or outrage because of their loyalty. Loyal men, without distinction of race or color, were clearly entitled to the full measure of protection usually found in civilized countries, if in the nature of things it was possible for the Nation to furnish it.

Inquiring as to the condition of things in the South, I waive the uniform current of information derived from the press and other unofficial sources from all parts of the South, and rely exclusively on the official reports of army officers like Grant, Thomas, Sheridan, and Howard--officers of clear heads, of strong sense, and of spotless integrity, whose business it is to know the facts, and who all united in warning the Nation that Union men, either white or colored, were not safe in the South.

General Grant says that the class at the South who "will acknowledge no law but force" is sufficiently formidable to justify the military occupation of that territory.

General Sheridan, in an official report, says the "trial of a white man for the murder of a freedman in Texas would be a farce; and, in making this statement, I make it because truth compels me, and for no other reason.... Over the killing of many freedmen nothing is done." General Sheridan cites cases in which our National soldiers wearing the uniform of the Republic have been deliberately shot "without provocation" by citizens, and the grand jury refused to find a bill against the murderers. Even in Virginia, General Schofield was compelled to resort to a military tribunal because "a gentleman" who shot a negro dead in cold blood "was instantly acquitted by one of the civil courts."

General Ord reports in Arkansas fifty-two murders of freed persons by white men in the past three or four months, and no reports have been received that the murderers have been imprisoned or punished.... "The number of murders reported is not half the number committed."

General Sickles says that in South Carolina, "in certain counties, such as Newberry, Edgecombe, and Laurens, so much countenance was given to outrages on freedmen by the indifference of the civil authorities and by the population, who made themselves accomplices in the crimes, that other measures became necessary."

In Mississippi, General Thomas calls attention to the legislation in regard to colored people. "It is oppressive, unjust, and unconstitutional." The laws as to buying real estate, bearing arms, making contracts, and the like, are of such a character "that the constitutional gift of freedom is not much more than a name."

General Sheridan, speaking of Louisiana, says: "Homicides are frequent in some localities. Sometimes they are investigated by a coroner's jury, which justifies the act and releases the perpetrator; in other cases, ... the parties are held to bail in a nominal sum; but the trial of a white man for the killing of a freedman can, in the existing state of society in this State, be nothing more or less than a farce."

General Thomas, in February last, in relation to the display of the rebel flag in Rome, Georgia, said: "The sole cause of this and similar offenses lies in the fact that certain citizens of Rome, and a portion of the people of the States lately in rebellion, do not and have not accepted the situation, and that is that the late civil war was a rebellion, and history will so record it.... Everywhere in the States lately in rebellion treason is respectable and loyalty odious. This the people of the United States who ended the rebellion and saved the country will not permit; and all attempts to maintain this unnatural order of things will be met by decided disapproval."

Upon these official reports, showing not merely that atrocious crimes were everywhere committed against loyal people, but that the civil authorities did not even attempt to prevent them by the punishment of the perpetrators, it became the plain duty of Congress to adopt measures "to enforce peace and good order in the rebel States, until loyal and Republican State governments could be legally established." How well this duty was performed will appear from a brief examination of the reconstruction acts which were passed by Congress in March last, and by the auspicious results which followed their adoption and execution.

By these acts, the ten rebel States were divided into five military districts, subject to the military authority of the United States; and it was made the duty of the president to assign military officers, not below the rank of brigadier-general, to command each of said districts, and to detail a sufficient military force to enable such officers to perform their duties. The duties of military commanders were defined as follows, in the 3d section of the act:

"Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders; or when, in his judgment, it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference, under color of State authority, with the exercise of military authority under this act shall be null and void."

The act also sets forth the manner in which the people of any one of the rebel States could form a State constitution, and the terms on which the State would be fully restored to proper relations with the Union. The most important provisions are those relating to the qualifications of voters, and the one requiring the adoption of the amendment to the constitution proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, known as article fourteen. The right of suffrage is given to all men of suitable age and residence, without distinction of race or color, except a limited number who are excluded for participation in the rebellion.

In pursuance of these acts, the district of Louisiana and Texas was placed under the command of General Sheridan; Arkansas and Mississippi under General Ord; Alabama, Georgia, and Florida under General Pope; North Carolina and South Carolina under General Sickles; and Virginia under General Schofield. The merits of this plan are obvious.

1. It places the rebels again under the control of the power which conquered them, and of the very officers to whom they surrendered.

2. It is well calculated to afford protection to all loyal people, white or colored, against those who would oppress or injure them on account of their loyalty.

3. It places the new State governments of the South upon the solid basis of justice and equal rights.

This plan received in Congress the support of many members of Congress who did not uniformly vote with the Union party, and was acceptable to some of its most distinguished adversaries. In the Senate, Reverdy Johnson, a Maryland Democrat, voted for it, and made effective speeches in its support. The loyal press of the North, without exception, upheld it.

In the South, its success was everywhere gratifying and unexampled. Its enemies had said that it would organize anarchy in the rebel States--that it would immediately inaugurate a war of races between whites and blacks--and compared the condition of the South under it to the condition of India under English oppression, and to Hungary under the despotism of Austria.

But the course of the public press, and the conduct, the letters, and speeches of public men in the rebel States, vindicated the wisdom and justice of the measure. I will quote only from rebel sources.

In Virginia, the Charlottesville Chronicle addressed its readers as follows:

"FOR WHITE FOLKS AND COLORED FOLKS.--Every colored person may now go where and when he pleases. He is a free man and a full citizen. This is not all; by another bound they have become voters. They will take part in the government of the country. No people was ever so suddenly, so rapidly lifted up.

"Shall we all live happily together, or shall we hate each other, and quarrel and bear malice?

"Let us all try and get on together. The land is big enough. Let the whites accommodate themselves to the new state of things. Let them be polite and kind to all, and be always ready to accord to every man, whether white or colored, his full rights. We make bold to say that the behavior of the colored people of this State, since they were set free, has surprised all fair-minded white people. We do not believe the white people, under the same circumstances, would have behaved so well by twenty per cent. They have shown the greatest moderation. They have passed from plantation hands to freedom and the ballot without outward excitement."

The Richmond Examiner, the organ of the fire-eaters, says of the colored people:

"This class of our population, as a general thing, manifest a disposition to prepare themselves for the altered political condition in which the events of the past two years have placed them. The sudden abolition of slavery did not, as most persons expected, turn their heads. They have been, in the main, orderly and well behaved. They have not presumed upon their newly-acquired freedom to commit breaches of the peace or to be guilty of any acts calculated to sow dissension between the two races. The utmost good feeling is felt by the white people of this city toward the negroes. There is not one particle of bitterness felt for them."

In South Carolina, Wade Hampton addressed a mixed assembly of whites and colored people at Columbia, in which he quoted from a former speech to his old soldiers:

"There is one other point on which there should be no misunderstanding as to our position--no loop on which to hang a possible misconstruction as to our views--and that is the abolition of slavery. The deed has been done, and I, for one, do honestly declare that I never wish to see it revoked. Nor do I believe that the people of the South would now remand the negro to slavery, if they had the power to do so unquestioned.

"Under our paternal care, from a mere handful, he grew to be a mighty host. He came to us a heathen; we made him a Christian. Idle, vicious, savage in his own country, in ours he became industrious, gentle, civilized. As a slave, he was faithful to us; as a freeman, let us treat him as a friend. Deal with him frankly, justly, kindly, and, my word for it, he will reciprocate your kindness. If you wish so see him contented, industrious, useful, aid him in his efforts to elevate himself in the scale of civilization, and thus fit him not only to enjoy the blessings of freedom, but to appreciate his duties."

After stating the provisions of the "military bill," as he calls the reconstruction law, he said to the colored people:

"But suppose the bill is pronounced unconstitutional; how then? I tell you what I am willing to see done. I am willing to give the right of suffrage to all who can read and who pay a certain amount of taxes; and I agree that this qualification shall bear on white and black alike. You would have no right to complain of a law which would put you on a perfect political equality with the whites, and which would put within your reach and that of your children the privilege enjoyed by any class of citizens."

In Georgia, the prevailing sentiment is indicated by the following. The Atlanta New Era says:

"We freely accept the Sherman platform as the only means whereby to rescue the country from total destruction, and if we mistake not, our backbone will prove sufficiently strong to enable us to look the issue full in the face, without a shudder. It is our bounden duty, and that of every other patriot and well-wisher of the South, to at once signify an unconditional acceptance of the measures perfected by Congress for our restoration to the Union, and heartily co-operate with the United States authorities in securing that most desirable end."

The Augusta Press, alluding to the recent meeting of negroes at Columbia, S. C., and the fact that speeches were made by General Wade Hampton and others, states that--

"All good citizens all over the South entertain precisely the same kind feelings for the colored people that were exhibited by these eminent Carolinians, and it is unfortunate that these sentiments are not more widely manifested in meetings for public counsel with them. 'Representative men' in every community should be prompt and earnest in signifying their wish to co-operate with the colored people in the administration of the laws and the preservation of harmony and good will. To this end, we deem it our duty to urge that in every community public meetings be held, in which the two races may take friendly counsel together."

In Florida, Hon. R. S. Mallory, a former Democratic United States Senator, is reported to have said, at a large meeting composed of whites and blacks, in Pensacola, that--

"The recent legislation of Congress ought to be submitted to in good faith; that, as the negro was now entitled to vote, it was the interest of the State that he should be educated and enlightened, and made to comprehend the priceless value of the ballot, and the importance to himself and to the State of its judicious use.

"Let us fully and frankly acknowledge, as well by deeds as by words, their equality with us, before law, and regard it as no less just to ourselves and them than to our State and her best interests to aid in their education, elevation, and enjoyment of all the rights which follow their new condition."

Governor Patton, of Alabama, says:

"It seems to me that it is the true feeling of the Southern people to contribute their best influence in favor of an early organization of their respective States, in accordance with the requirements of the recent reconstruction act. Congress claims the right to control this whole question. In my humble judgment, it is unwise to contend longer against its power, or to struggle further against its repeatedly expressed will."

* * * * *

"The freedmen are now to vote the first time. We should cherish against them no ill-feeling. The elective franchise is conferred upon them; let them exercise it freely, and in their own way. No effort should be made to control their votes, except such as may tend to enable them to vote intelligently, and such as may be necessary to protect them against mischievous influences to which, from their want of intelligence, they may possibly be subjected. Above all things, we should discourage everything which may tend to generate antagonism between white and colored voters."

In Mississippi, Albert G. Brown, a former Democratic United States Senator, and a rebel, says:

"To those who think it most becoming men in my situation to keep quiet, I am free to say 'that is very much my own opinion.'"

"As I speak reluctantly, you will not be surprised if I say as little as possible."

* * * * *

"The negro is a fixture in this country. He is not going out of it; he is not going to die out, and he is not going to be driven out. Nor is his exodus from the country desirable. I am frank in saying if they, every one of them, could be packed in a balloon, carried over the water, and emptied into Africa, I would not have it done, unless, indeed, it were already arranged that the balloon should return by the way of Germany, Ireland, Scotland, etc., and bring us a return cargo of white laborers. If the negro is to stay here, and it is desirable to have him do so, what is the duty of the intelligent white man toward him? Why, to educate him, admit him, when sufficiently instructed, to the right of voting, and as rapidly as possible prepare him for a safe and rational enjoyment of that 'equality before the law' which, as a free man, he has a right to claim, and which we can not long refuse to give."

The Mississippi Index says:

"There are some laws on our statute-book respecting negroes that are of no practical use, and will have to be done away with some day. The sooner we dispense with them the better. But in the matter of educating the negro we can accomplish more toward convincing the people of the North that we have been misrepresented and slandered than by legislative action. Let us take the work of education out of the hands of the Yankees among us. We can do this by encouraging the establishment of negro schools and placing them in the charge of men and women whom we know to be competent and trustworthy."

In Louisiana, General Longstreet, one of the most distinguished of the rebel Generals, says:

"The striking feature, and the one that our people should keep in view, is, that we are a conquered people. Recognizing this fact fairly and squarely, there is but one course left for wise men to pursue--accept the terms that are offered us by the conquerors. There can be no discredit to a conquered people for accepting the conditions offered by their conquerors. Nor is that any occasion for a feeling of humiliation. We have made an honest, and I hope that I may say, a creditable fight, but we have lost. Let us come forward, then, and accept the ends involved in the struggle.

"Our people earnestly desire that the constitutional government shall be re-established, and the only means to accomplish this is to comply with the requirements of the recent Congressional legislation."

* * * * *

"The military bill and amendments are peace offerings. We should accept them as such, and place ourselves upon them as the starting-point from which to meet future political issues as they arise."

"Like other Southern men, I naturally sought alliance with the Democratic party, merely because it was opposed to the Republican party. But, as far as I can judge, there is nothing tangible about it, except the issues that were staked upon the war and lost. Finding nothing to take hold of except prejudice, which can not be worked into good for any one, it is proper and right that I should seek some standpoint from which good may be done."

Quotations like these from prominent Democratic politicians, from rebel soldiers, and from influential rebel newspapers, might be multiplied indefinitely. Enough have been given to show how completely and how exactly the Reconstruction Acts have met the evil to be remedied in the South. My friend, Mr. Hassaurek, in his admirable speech at Columbus, did not estimate too highly the fruits of these measures. Said he:

"And, sir, this remedy at once effected the desired cure. The poor contraband is no longer the persecuted outlaw whom incurable rebels might kick and kill with impunity; but he at once became 'our colored fellow-citizen,' in whose well-being his former master takes the liveliest interest. Thus, by bringing the negro under the American system, we have completed his emancipation. He has ceased to be a pariah. From an outcast he has been transformed into a human being, invested with the great National attribute of self-protection, and the re-establishment of peace, and order, and security, the revival of business and trade, and the restoration of the Southern States on the basis of loyalty and equal justice to all, will be the happy results of this astonishing metamorphosis, provided the party which has inaugurated this policy remains in power to carry it out."

The Peace Democracy generally throughout the North oppose this measure. In Ohio they oppose it especially because it commits the people of the Nation in favor of manhood suffrage. They tell us that if it is wise and just to entrust the ballot to colored men in the District of Columbia, in the Territories, and in the rebel States, it is also just and wise that they should have it in Ohio and in the other States of the North.

Union men do not question this reasoning, but if it is urged as an objection to the plan of Congress, we reply: There are now within the limits of the United States about five millions of colored people. They are not aliens or strangers. They are here not by the choice of themselves or of their ancestors. They are here by the misfortune of their fathers and the crime of ours. Their labor, privations, and sufferings, unpaid and unrequited, have cleared and redeemed one-third of the inhabited territory of the Union. Their toil has added to the resources and wealth of the nation untold millions. Whether we prefer it or not, they are our countrymen, and will remain so forever.

They are more than countrymen--they are citizens. Free colored people were citizens of the colonies. The Constitution of the United States, formed by our fathers, created no disabilities on account of color. By the acts of our fathers and of ourselves, they bear equally the burdens and are required to discharge the highest duties of citizens. They are compelled to pay taxes and to bear arms. They fought side by side with their white countrymen in the great struggle for independence, and in the recent war for the Union. In the revolutionary contest, colored men bore an honorable part, from the Boston massacre, in 1770, to the surrender of Cornwallis, in 1781. Bancroft says: "Their names may be read on the pension rolls of the country side by side with those of other soldiers of the revolution." In the war of 1812 General Jackson issued an order complimenting the colored men of his army engaged in the defense of New Orleans. I need not speak of their number or of their services in the war of the rebellion. The Nation enrolled and accepted them among her defendants to the number of about two hundred thousand, and in the new regular army act, passed at the close of the rebellion, by the votes of Democrats and Union men alike, in the Senate and in the House, and by the assent of the president, regiments of colored men, cavalry and infantry, form part of the standing army of the Republic.

In the navy, colored American sailors have fought side by side with white men from the days of Paul Jones to the victory of the Kearsarge over the rebel pirate Alabama. Colored men will, in the future as in the past, in all times of National peril, be our fellow-soldiers. Tax-payers, countrymen, fellow-citizens, and fellow-soldiers, the colored men of America have been and will be. It is now too late for the adversaries of nationality and human rights to undertake to deprive these tax-payers, freemen, citizens, and soldiers of the right to vote.

Slaves were never voters. It was bad enough that our fathers, for the sake of Union, were compelled to allow masters to reckon three-fifths of their slaves for representation, without adding slave suffrage to the other privileges of the slaveholder. But free colored men were always voters in many of the Colonies, and in several of the States, North and South, after independence was achieved. They voted for members of the Congress which declared independence, and for members of every Congress prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution; for the members of the convention which framed the Constitution; for the members of many of the State conventions which ratified it, and for every president from Washington to Lincoln.

Our government has been called the white man's government. Not so. It is not the government of any class, or sect, or nationality, or race. It is a government founded on the consent of the governed, and Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, therefore properly calls it "the government of the governed." It is not the government of the native born, or of the foreign born, of the rich man, or of the poor man, of the white man, or of the colored man--it is the government of the freeman. And when colored men were made citizens, soldiers, and freemen, by our consent and votes, we were estopped from denying to them the right of suffrage.

General Sherman was right when he said, in his Atlanta letter, of 1864: "If you admit the negro to this struggle for any purpose, he has a right to stay in for all; and, when the fight is over, the hand that drops the musket can not be denied the ballot."

Even our adversaries are compelled to admit the Jeffersonian rule, that "the man who pays taxes and who fights for the country is entitled to vote."

Mr. Pendleton, in his speech against the enlistment of colored soldiers, gave up the whole controversy. He said: "Gentlemen tell us that these colored men are ready, with their strong arms and their brave hearts, to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to defend the integrity of the Union, which in our hands to-day is in peril. What is that Constitution? It provides that every child of the Republic, every citizen of the land is before the law the equal of every other. It provides for all of them trial by jury, free speech, free press, entire protection for life and liberty and property. It goes further. It secures to every citizen the right of suffrage, the right to hold office, the right to aspire to every office or agency by which the government is carried on. Every man called upon to do military duty, every man required to take up arms in its defense, is by its provisions entitled to vote, and a competent aspirant for every office in the government."

The truth is, impartial manhood suffrage is already practically decided. It is now merely a question of time. In the eleven rebel States, in five of the New England States, and in a number of the Northwestern States, there is no organized party able to successfully oppose impartial suffrage. The Democratic party of more than half of the States are ready to concede its justice and expediency. The Boston Post, the able organ of the New England Democracy, says:

"Color ought to have no more to do with the matter (voting) than size. Only establish a right standard, and then apply it impartially. A rule of that sort is too firmly fixed in justice and equality to be shaken. It commends itself too clearly to the good sentiment of the entire body of our countrymen to be successfully traversed by objections. Once let this principle be fairly presented to the people of the several States, with the knowledge on their part that they alone are to have the disposal and settlement of it, and we sincerely believe it would not be long before it would be adopted by every State in the Union."

The New York World, the ablest Democratic newspaper in the Union, says:

"Democrats in the North, as well as the South, should be fully alive to the importance of the new element thrust into the politics of the country. We suppose it to be morally certain that the new constitution of the State of New York, to be framed this year, will confer the elective franchise upon all adult male negroes. We have no faith in the success of any efforts to shut the negro element out of politics. It is the part of wisdom frankly to accept the situation, and get beforehand with the Radicals in gaining an ascendancy over the negro mind."

The Chicago Times, the influential organ of the Northwestern Democracy, says:

"The word 'white' is not found in any of the original constitutions, save only that of South Carolina. In every other State negroes, who possessed the qualifications that were required impartially of all men, were admitted to vote, and many of that race did vote, in the Southern as well as in the Northern States. And, moreover, they voted the Democratic ticket, for it was the Democratic party of that day which affirmed their right in that respect upon an impartial basis with white men. All Democrats can not, even at this day, have forgotten the statement of General Jackson, that he was supported for the presidency by negro voters in the State of Tennessee.

"The doctrine of impartial suffrage is one of the earliest and most essential doctrines of Democracy. It is the affirmation of the right of every man who is made a partaker of the burdens of the State to be represented by his own consent or vote in its government. It is the first principle upon which all true republican government rests. It is the basis upon which the liberties of America will be preserved, if they are preserved at all. The Democratic party must return from its driftings, and stand again upon the immutable rock of principles."

In Ohio the leaders of the Peace Democracy intend to carry on one more campaign on the old and rotten platform of prejudice against colored people. They seek in this way to divert attention from the record they made during the war of the rebellion. But the great facts of our recent history are against them. The principles of the fathers, reason, religion, and the spirit of the age are against them.

The plain and monstrous inconsistency and injustice of excluding one-seventh of our population from all participation in a government founded on the consent of the governed in this land of free discussion is simply impossible. No such absurdity and wrong can be permanent. Impartial suffrage will carry the day. No low prejudice will long be able to induce American citizens to deny to a weak people their best means of self-protection for the unmanly reason that they are weak. Chief Justice Chase expressed the true sentiment when he said "the American Nation can not afford to do the smallest injustice to the humblest and feeblest of her children."

Much has been said of the antagonism which exists between the different races of men. But difference of religion, difference of nationality, difference of language, and difference of rank and privileges are quite as fruitful causes of antagonism and war as difference of race. The bitter strifes between Christians and Jews, between Catholics and Protestants, between Englishmen and Irishmen, between aristocracy and the masses are only too familiar. What causes increase and aggravate these antagonisms, and what are the measures which diminish and prevent them, ought to be equally familiar. Under the partial and unjust laws of the Nations of the Old World men of one nationality were allowed to oppress those of another; men of one faith had rights which were denied to men of a different faith; men of one rank or caste enjoyed special privileges which were not granted to men of another. Under these systems peace was impossible and strife perpetual. But under just and equal laws in the United States, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics, Englishmen and Irishmen, the former aristocrat and the masses of the people, dwell and mingle harmoniously together. The uniform lesson of history is that unjust and partial laws increase and create antagonism, while justice and equality are the sure foundation of prosperity and peace.

Impartial suffrage secures also popular education. Nothing has given the careful observer of events in the South more gratification than the progress which is there going on in the establishment of schools. The colored people, who as slaves were debarred from education, regard the right to learn as one of the highest privileges of freemen. The ballot gives them the power to secure that privilege. All parties and all public men in the South agree that, if colored men vote, ample provision must be made in the reorganization of every State for free schools. The ignorance of the masses, whites as well as blacks, is one of the most discouraging features of Southern society. If Congressional reconstruction succeeds, there will be free schools for all. The colored people will see that their children attend them. We need indulge in no fears that the white people will be left behind. Impartial suffrage, then, means popular intelligence; it means progress; it means loyalty; it means harmony between the North and the South, and between the whites and the colored people.

The Union party believes that the general welfare requires that measures should be adopted which will work great changes in the South. Our adversaries are accustomed to talk of the rebellion as an affair which began when the rebels attacked Fort Sumter in 1861, and which ended when Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865. It is true that the attempt by force of arms to destroy the United States began and ended during the administration of Mr. Lincoln. But the causes, the principles, and the motives which produced the rebellion are of an older date than the generation which suffered from the fruit they bore, and their influence and power are likely to last long after that generation passes away. Ever since armed rebellion failed, a large party in the South have struggled to make participation in the rebellion honorable and loyalty to the Union dishonorable. The lost cause with them is the honored cause. In society, in business, and in politics, devotion to treason is the test of merit, the passport to preferment. They wish to return to the old state of things--an oligarchy of race and the sovereignty of States.

To defeat this purpose, to secure the rights of man, and to perpetuate the National Union, are the objects of the Congressional plan of reconstruction. That plan has the hearty support of the great generals (so far as their opinions are known)--of Grant, of Thomas, of Sheridan, of Howard--who led the armies of the Union which conquered the rebellion. The statesmen most trusted by Mr. Lincoln and by the loyal people of the country during the war also support it. The Supreme Court of the United States, upon formal application and after solemn argument, refuse to interfere with its execution. The loyal press of the country, which did so much in the time of need to uphold the patriot cause, without exception, are in favor of the plan.

In the South, as we have seen, the lessons of the war and the events occurring since the war have made converts of thousands of the bravest and of the ablest of those who opposed the National cause. General Longstreet, a soldier second to no living corps commander of the rebel army, calls it "a peace offering," and advises the South in good faith to organize under it. Unrepentant rebels and unconverted Peace Democrats oppose it, just as they opposed the measures which destroyed slavery and saved the nation.

Opposition to whatever the Nation approves seems to be the policy of the representative men of the Peace Democracy. Defeat and failure comprise their whole political history. In laboring to overthrow reconstruction they are probably destined to further defeat and further failure. I know not how it may be in other States, but if I am not greatly mistaken as to the mind of the loyal people of Ohio, they mean to trust power in the hands of no man who, during the awful struggle for the Nation's life, proved unfaithful to the cause of liberty and of Union. They will continue to exclude from the administration of the government those who prominently opposed the war, until every question arising out of the rebellion relating to the integrity of the Nation and to human rights shall have been firmly settled on the basis of impartial justice.

They mean that the State of Ohio, in this great progress, "whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuits for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life," shall tread no step backward.

Penetrated and sustained by a conviction that in this contest the Union party of Ohio is doing battle for the right, I enter upon my part of the labors of the canvass with undoubting confidence that the goodness of the cause will supply the weakness of its advocates, and command in the result that triumphant success which I believe it deserves.

Speech of GENERAL R. B. HAYES, delivered at Sidney, Ohio, Wednesday, September 4, 1867.

Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens:

It was very plain at the beginning of the pending canvass in Ohio that the leading speakers of the peace party of the State were desirous to persuade the people that at this election they were to pass upon different issues from those which have been considered in former elections. They undertook at the beginning, generally, to discuss questions which have not heretofore been much considered. They told the people that the old issues were settled, and that in this canvass in particular, there would be no propriety in discussing the record made by men during the war; that the war was over; that bygones ought to be permitted to be bygones; and they started a considerable number of subjects for discussion, which I claim are either unimportant matters, or are matters which are in no sense party questions. For example, Judge Ranney, in a very elaborate speech at Mansfield, of great length, discussed perhaps a dozen or fifteen topics, almost all of which are in no sense party questions. For example, he talked about the land grants that had been made to the railroads, particularly to the Pacific Railroad, during the last few years, and of the subsidies of money that by law have been given to the railroad companies. Now, this is but a specimen of the topics discussed by Judge Ranney. It is enough to say, in regard to the railroads, that they were voted for indiscriminately by Union men and by Democrats--peace Democrats and war Democrats--and that they were finally made laws by the signature of Andrew Johnson. They are in no sense, therefore, party issues; and the only purpose of discussing them is, so far as I can see, to mislead the people, and to withdraw their attention from the main issues before them.

Judge Thurman has discussed the subject of a standing army. He has spoken of the great expense of keeping up a standing army, and, as I think, has greatly exaggerated the sum requisite--naming two hundred and fifty millions as the annual expense of it. I suppose that is three or four, or perhaps five times as great as the actual amount: but I do not stop to argue that matter with him. I say to him, in regard to it, that Democrats voted for it in both houses, and it became a law by the signature of the president whom he supports. It is not, therefore, a party issue.

I can not, in any reasonable length of time, even name the various topics that have been discussed in this way. Perhaps none has attracted more attention than the subject of finances, and the main issue presented by our Democratic friends on that subject has been this--namely, that it is for the interest of the people to pay off the whole of the present bonded debt by an issue of greenbacks. At the beginning of the canvass, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and, I think, the leading peace party paper at Columbus, and Mr. Vallandigham, presented this as the leading question before the people. The Enquirer told us that Democratic conventions in forty counties had resolved in favor of it; and certainly if any one of the topics which have been presented in this way may be regarded as a party topic, that is one. If they have succeeded in making a new issue, that is one. On the 20th of last month, I spoke at Batavia, and I referred to that subject. I said that Judge Thurman was plainly committed against the issue of more greenbacks; that when we were in the midst of the war, and the necessities of the country were such that it was necessary to get money by every means in our power, he had told the people there was no constitutional authority to issue greenbacks. I said further, that in his speech at Waverly he had spoken of this currency as a currency of rags; and that, therefore, I was authorized to say he was opposed to this new scheme of the Cincinnati Enquirer. That speech of mine was reported in the Cincinnati Commercial of the next morning. On the following day, the 22d of August, the Enquirer noticed my speech. I will read you the whole of the Enquirer's article on that subject. I do this because I think, in this county as well as elsewhere, Democrats are claiming the votes of Union men on the ground that it is wise to pay off the bonded debt by an issue of greenbacks, and I wish to show that Judge Thurman is opposed to the scheme. Therefore, it is no party issue, because no party State convention has resolved in favor of it, and the peace party candidate for governor is against it. The Enquirer says, under the caption of "Judge Thurman and the bondholders:"

"In his speech at Batavia, Clermont county, on Tuesday, General Hayes, while discussing the payment of the public debt question, said:

"Judge Thurman has not yet spoken distinctly on this question. But his well-known opinion, that even the necessities of the war did not authorize, under our constitution, the issue of the legal-tender currency, coupled with the fact that he speaks of it in his Waverly speech as a currency of 'rags--only rags'--warrants me in saying that he is probably opposed, on grounds both of constitutional law and of expediency, to the financial scheme of Mr. Vallandigham and of the Cincinnati Enquirer. Judge Ranney and Judge Jewett are also evidently unwilling to accept the inflation theories of the Enquirer. They are both opposed to taking up the greenbacks now in circulation by an issue of bonds bearing interest, and repeat the same arguments against this policy of Johnson's administration which were urged by the Cincinnati Gazette and by Thaddeus Stevens and Judge Kelley, with much more cogency, a year or two ago."

Commenting on the above, the Enquirer says, editorially:

"This will render it necessary for Judge Thurman to do what he ought to have done in his first (Waverly) speech, define his position distinctly on this question. As one of his friends and supporters, we call upon him to put a stop to these representations of General Hayes by giving the people his views.

"Is he for the bondholders or the people? Does he believe that the debts due the bondholders should be paid in any other than the government money, which pays all other debts and liabilities, even those which were contracted in gold?

"Is he for one currency for the bondholders and another and different currency for the people?

"The Democracy of more than forty counties in Ohio have spoken out on this question, and we have no doubt the example will be followed by every county in the State. In some counties no other resolutions have been passed.

"The time has passed when the people kept step to the music of candidates. The latter must now march with and not against the people. Will Judge Thurman define his position, for thousands of votes may depend upon it?"

On the 27th of August, at Wapakoneta, Judge Thurman made a speech, which I hold in my hand--as you see, a very long speech, covering all of one side of the Commercial, and parts of two others. One would suppose that, a week having elapsed since the speech to which his attention was called had been made, that in this speech, at least, if this was an important issue of the canvass, we should have his position plainly and clearly defined. Of that long speech he devotes to that important question, which the Enquirer says is the real question, and which many of your speakers doubtless here say is the real question, precisely eleven lines--one short paragraph. And the pith of that paragraph is contained in these two lines: "I am sorry that what I have to say on that subject for publication I must reserve for some future time."

I think that this satisfactorily shows where my friend Judge Thurman stands on that issue, and that we therefore need no longer discuss it--in short, that, as a party question, it is abandoned by the candidate of the Democratic party. There is another phase of the financial question. Judge Ranney and Judge Jewett are telling the people that it is the policy of Secretary McCulloch to take up the greenback currency and issue in its stead interest-bearing bonds, not taxable, principal and interest, both payable in coin at the option of the secretary. That is true. That was the policy, and is the policy of Secretary McCulloch. But they go further, and say they are authorized to say that this is the policy of the Union party. I take issue with them on that statement. They offer no proof that it is true, except the fact that it is the policy of the Johnson administration; and I submit to an intelligent audience that the fact that Johnson and his administration are in favor of a measure is no evidence whatever that the Union party supports it. It is not for me to prove a negative, but I am prepared, nevertheless, to prove it. The very measure which was intended to carry out this policy of Secretary McCulloch to enable him to take up the greenback currency with interest-bearing bonds was introduced in Congress in March, 1866. I have here the votes upon that question, and I say to you that the Democratic party in both houses--all the members of the Democratic party in both houses--voted for Senator McCulloch's plan, and that Mr. Julian, Judge Schofield, Mr. Lawrence, all of whom I see here, and myself, a majority of the Republican members of Congress, voted against the scheme, and it became a law because a minority of the Union party, with the unanimous vote of the Democratic party, supported it; and because, when it was submitted to Andrew Johnson, instead of vetoing it, as he did all Union party measures, he wrote his name, on the 12th of April, at the bottom of it, "Approved, Andrew Johnson." Now, it is under that measure, and by virtue of that law, voted for by Mr. Finck and and Mr. LeBlond, of the Democratic party of Ohio, in the House of Representatives; it is by virtue of that law that to-day Secretary McCulloch is issuing interest-bearing bonds, not taxable, to take up the greenback currency of the country. I think, then, I am authorized in saying that these gentlemen are mistaken when they accuse the Union party of being in favor of taking up the greenback currency and putting in the place of it interest-bearing, non-taxable bonds.

This investigation of two or three of the leading questions presented to the people at the beginning of this canvass by the advocates of the peace party of Ohio is, I think, sufficient to warrant me in saying that all of the side issues presented are merely urged on the people to withdraw their minds from the great main issue which ought to engage the attention of the American Nation. What is that great issue? It is reconstruction. That is the main question before us, and until it is settled, and settled rightly, all other issues sink into insignificance in comparison with it. Fortunately for the Union party of Ohio, events are occurring every day at Washington which tend more and more clearly to define the exact question before the people, showing that the main question is whether the Union shall be reconstructed in the interests of the rebellion or in the interests of loyalty and Union; whether that reconstruction shall be carried on by men who, during the war, were in favor of the war and against the rebellion, or by men who in the North were against the war, and who in the South carried on the rebellion. On one side of this question we see Andrew Johnson, Judge Black, and the other leaders of the peace party of the North and the unrepentant rebels of the South; and on the other side is the great war secretary, Stanton, with General Grant, General Sheridan, General Thomas, General Howard, and the other Union commanders engaged in carrying out the reconstruction acts of Congress. This presents clearly enough the question before the people. General Grant, in one paragraph of his letter to the president, said to him:

"General Sheridan has performed his civil duties faithfully and intelligently. His removal will only be regarded as an effort to defeat the laws of Congress. It will be interpreted by the unreconstructed element in the South--those who did all they could to break up this government by arms, and now wish to be the only element consulted as to the method of restoring order--as a triumph. It will embolden them to renewed opposition to the will of the loyal masses, believing that they have the executive with them."

This presents exactly the question before the people. We want the loyal people of the country, the victors in the great struggle we have passed through, to do the work; we want reconstruction upon such principles, and by means of such measures that the causes which made reconstruction necessary shall not exist in the reconstructed Union; we want that foolish notion of State rights, which teaches that the State is superior to the Nation--that there is a State sovereignty which commands the allegiance of every citizen higher than the sovereignty of the nation--we want that notion left out of the reconstructed Union; we want it understood that whatever doubts may have existed prior to the war as to the relation of the State to the National government, that now the National government is supreme, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Again, as one of the causes of the rebellion, we want slavery left out, not merely in name, but in fact, and forever; we want the last vestige, the last relic of that institution, rooted out of the laws and institutions of every State; we want that in the South there shall be no more suppression of free discussion. I notice that in the long speech of my friend, Judge Thurman, he says that for nearly fifty years, throughout the length and breadth of the land, freedom of speech and of the press was never interfered with, either by the government or the people. For more than thirty years, fellow-citizens, there has been no such thing as free discussion in the South. Those moderate speeches of Abraham Lincoln on the subject of slavery--not one of them--could have been delivered without endangering his life, south of Mason and Dixon's line. We want in the reconstructed Union that there shall be the same freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the States of the South that there always has been in the States of the North. Again, we want the reconstructed Union upon such principles that the men of the South who, during the war, were loyal and true to the government, shall be protected in life, liberty, and property, and in the exercise of their political rights. It becomes the solemn duty of the loyal victors in the great struggle to see that the men who, in the midst of difficulties, discouragements, and dangers in the South were true, are protected in these rights. And, in order that our reconstruction shall be carried out faithfully and accomplish these objects, we further want that the work shall be in the hands of the right men. Andrew Johnson, in the days when he was loyal, said the work of reconstruction ought to be placed absolutely in the hands of the loyal men of the State; that rebels, and particularly leading rebels, ought not to participate in that work; that while that work is going on they must take back seats. We want that understood in our work of reconstruction. How important it is to have the right men in charge of this work appears upon the most cursory examination of what has already been done. President Lincoln administered the same laws substantially--was sworn to support the same constitution with Andrew Johnson--yet how different the reconstruction as carried out by these two men. Lincoln's reconstruction in all the States which he undertook to reorganize gave to those States loyal governments, loyal governors, loyal legislatures, judges, and officers of the law. Andrew Johnson, administering the same constitution and the same laws, reconstructs a number of States, and in all of them leading rebels are elected governors, leading rebels are members of the legislature, and leading rebels are sent to Congress. It makes, then, the greatest difference to the people of this country who it is that does the work.

This, my friends, brings me to a proposition to which I call the attention of every audience that I have occasion to address, and that is this, that until the work of reconstruction is complete, until every question arising out of the rebellion relating to the integrity of the Nation and to human rights has been settled, and settled rightly, no man ought to be trusted with power in this country, who, during the struggle for the Nation's life, was unfaithful to Union and liberty. That is the proposition upon which I go before the people of Ohio. At the beginning of the canvass, as I have said, the gentlemen who are engaged in advocating the claims of the peace party of Ohio did not desire to have this record discussed. I am happy to know by this long Wapakoneta speech of Judge Thurman that at last they have found it necessary to come to the discussion of the true question. Judge Thurman, in that speech, invites us to the discussion of it. He says:

"I give all of them this bold and unequivocal defiance, that there is no one act of my life, or one sentence ever uttered by me that I am not prepared to have investigated by the American people; and I wish them to stand up to the same rule, that I may see what is in their past record, and see how it tallies with what they say to the American people at the present time."

He proceeds to do this. He proceeds to examine the record of various gentlemen connected with the Union party. Now, I am not in the habit of giving challenges or accepting challenges, but I desire, for a few minutes, to ask the attention of this audience to the record of my friend, Judge Thurman. He under-takes to justify the course he took as a leader of the peace party of Ohio, by telling us what Mr. Lincoln said in 1848. Now, what is it that Mr. Lincoln said? He made a speech during the Mexican war as to the title which Texas had to certain lands in dispute between the State of Texas and Mexico, or rather between the United States and Mexico. He laid down the doctrine that a revolutionary government is entitled to own just as much of the property of the former government as it has succeeded in conquering; and he says, in the course of that speech, that it is the right of every people to revolutionize; that the right of revolution, in short, belongs to every people; that it was the right exercised by our forefathers in 1776. Now, that is all true--that is all correct; but how does my friend Judge Thurman find any justification for the rebellion in that? What is the right of revolution? It is the right to resist a government under which you live, if that government is guilty of intolerable oppression or injustice, but not otherwise. And that is the doctrine of Abraham Lincoln. Now, in order to make that a precedent for the rebellion, Judge Thurman is bound to take the position that, in the case of the rebel States, there had been acts of intolerable oppression and injustice done to that part of the country which went into rebellion. I know that the rebels, for the most part, did not put the rebellion upon that ground; but Judge Thurman now does it for them. He makes it out--or must make it out to sustain himself--that it was a case of revolution, growing out of the exercise of that right which our fathers exercised in 1776. Now, if Judge Thurman can show that there was justification for the rebellion, he has made out his case. If that rebellion was not justified by such circumstances--if there was no such intolerable injustice and oppression--he has failed in his precedent. He goes further, and says that Mr. Wade, Chief Justice Chase, Secretary Stanton, and General Butler all held sentiments before the war the same as the sentiments which he held then, and holds now, on the subject of the rights of the States. Suppose they did--suppose they belonged to the same party before the war--is that any defense of his conduct during the war? They saw fit, after the war had broken out, to rally to the side of their country, notwithstanding any notions or theories they might have held with regard to the rights of the States.

I do not stop now to discuss the correctness of Judge Thurman's opinions as to the course of these men prior to the war. It is enough for me to say that the question I make--the question which the people of Ohio make--is, What was your conduct after it was found that there was a conspiracy to break up the Union, after war was upon us, and armies were raised--what was your conduct then? That is the question before the people. And I ask of an intelligent audience, what was the duty of a good citizen after that war for the destruction of the government and the Union had begun? Need I ask any old Jackson Democrat what is his duty when the Union is at stake? In 1806, Aaron Burr proposed this matter to Andrew Jackson, of making a new confederacy in the Southwest. Jackson said:

"I hate the Dons, and I would like to see Mexico dismembered; but before I would see one State of this Union severed from the rest, I would die in the last ditch."

That was Jackson's Democracy. Douglass said:

"This is no time for delay. The existence of a conspiracy is now known; armies are raised to accomplish it. There can be but two sides to the question. A man must be either for the United States or against the United States. There can be no neutrals in this war--only patriots and traitors."

There is the Douglass doctrine. But I need not go back to Jackson and Douglass. I have the opinions of the very gentlemen who now lead the peace party on this subject. Let me read you a resolution, introduced and passed through a Democratic convention, in 1848, by Clement L. Vallandigham:

"Resolved, That whatever opinions might have been entertained of the origin, necessity or justice, by the Tories of the revolutionary war, by the Federalists of the late war with England, or by the Whigs and Abolitionists of the present war with Mexico, the fact of their country being engaged in such a war ought to have been sufficient for them and to have precluded debate on that subject till a successful termination of the war, and that in the meantime the patriot could have experienced no difficulty in recognizing his place on the side of his country, and could never have been induced to yield either physical or moral aid to the enemy."

I will quote also from Judge Thurman himself. In a speech lecturing one of his colleagues, who thought the Mexican war was unnecessary, he says:

"It is a strange way to support one's country, right or wrong, to declare after war has begun, when it exists both in law and in fact, that the war is aggressive, unholy, unrighteous, and damnable on the part of the government of that country, and on that government rests its responsibility and its wrongfulness. It is a strange way to support one's country right or wrong in a war, to tax one's imagination to the utmost to depict the disastrous consequences of the contest; to dwell on what it has already cost and what it will cost in future; to depict her troops prostrated by disease and dying with pestilence; in a word, to destroy, as far as possible, the moral force of the government in the struggle, and hold it up to its own people and the world as the aggressor that merits their condemnation. It was for this that I arraigned my colleague, and that I intend to arraign him. It was because his remarks, as far as they could have any influence, were evidently calculated to depress the spirits of his own countrymen, to lessen the moral force of his own government, and to inspire with confidence and hope the enemies of his country."

He goes on further to say:

"What a singular mode it was of supporting her in a war to bring against the war nearly all the charges that were brought by the peace party Federalists against the last war, to denounce it as an unrighteous, unholy, and damnable war; to hold up our government to the eyes of the world as the aggressors in the conflict; to charge it with motives of conquest and aggrandizement; to parade and portray in the darkest colors all the horrors of war; to dwell upon its cost and depict its calamities."

Now, that was the doctrine of Judge Thurman as to the duties of citizens in time of war--in time of such a war as the Mexican war even, in which no vital interest of the country could by possibility suffer. Judge Thurman says that General Hayes, in his speech, has a great many slips cut from the newspapers, and that he must have had some sewing society of old ladies to cut out the slips for him. I don't know how he found that out. I never told it, and you know the ladies never tell secrets that are confided to them. I hold in my hand a speech of Judge Thurman, from which I have read extracts, and I find that he has in it slips cut from more than twenty different prints, sermons, newspapers, old speeches, and pamphlets, to show how, in the war of 1812, certain Federalists uttered unpatriotic sentiments. I presume he must have acquired his slips on that day in the way he says I acquired mine now.

Now, my friends, I propose to hold Judge Thurman to no severe rule of accountability for his conduct during the war. I merely ask that it shall be judged by his own rule: "Your country is engaged in war, and it is the duty of every citizen to say nothing and do nothing which shall depress the spirits of his own countrymen, nothing that shall encourage the enemies of his country, or give them moral aid or comfort." That is the rule. Now, Judge Thurman, how does your conduct square with it? I do not propose to begin at the beginning of the war, or even just before the war, to cite the record of Judge Thurman. I am willing to say that perhaps men might have been mistaken at that time. They might have supposed in the beginning a conciliatory policy, a non-coercive policy, would in some way avoid the threatened struggle. But I ask you to approach the period when the war was going on, when armies to the number of hundreds of thousands of men were ready on one side and the other, and when the whole world knew what was the nature of the great struggle going on in America. Taking the beginning of 1863, how stands the conflict? We have pressed the rebellion out of Kentucky and through Tennessee. Grant stands before Vicksburg, held at bay by the army of Pemberton; Rosecranz, after the capture of Nashville, has pressed forward to Murfreesboro, but is still held out of East Tennessee by the army of Bragg. The army of the Potomac and the army of Lee, in Virginia, are balanced, the one against the other. The whole world knows that that exhausting struggle can not last long without deciding in favor of one side or the other. That the year 1863 is big with the fate of Union and of liberty, every intelligent man in the world knows--that on one side it is a struggle for nationality and human rights. There is not in all Europe a petty despot who lives by grinding the masses of the people, who does not know that Lincoln and the Union are his enemies. There is not a friend of freedom in all Europe who does not know that Lincoln and the loyal army are fighting in the cause of free government for all the world. Now, in that contest, where are you, Judge Thurman? It is a time when we need men and money, when we need to have our people inspired with hope and confidence. Your sons and brothers are in the field. Their success depends upon your conduct at home.

The men who are to advise you what to do have upon them a dreadful responsibility to give you wise and patriotic advice. Judge Thurman, in the speech I am quoting from, says:

"But now, my friends, I shall not deal with obscure newspapers or obscure men. What a private citizen like Allen G. Thurman may have said in 1861 is a matter of indifference."

Ah, no, Judge Thurman, the Union party does not propose to allow your record to go without investigation because you are a private citizen. I know you held no official position under the government at the time I speak of; but, sir, you had for years been a leading, able, and influential man in the great party which had often carried your State. You were acting under grave responsibilities. More than that, during that year 1863, you were more than a private citizen. You were one of the delegates to the State convention of that year; you were one of the committee that forms your party platform in that convention; you were one of the central committee that carries on the canvass in the absence of your standard-bearers; and you were one of the orators of the party. No, sir, you were not a private citizen in 1863. You were one of the leading and one of the ablest men in your party in that year, speaking through the months of July, August, September, and October, in behalf of the candidate of the peace party. You can not escape as a private citizen.

Well, sir, in the beginning of that eventful year, there rises in Congress the ablest member of the peace party, to advise Congress and to advise the people, and what does he say?

"You have not conquered the South. You never will. It is not in the nature of things possible, especially under your auspices. Money you have expended without limit; blood you have poured out like water."

Now, mark the taunt--the words of discouragement that were sent to the people and to the army of the Union:

"Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers--these are your trophies. Can you get men to enlist now at any price?"

Listen again to the words that were sent to the army and to the loyal people:

"Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home."

We knew that, Judge Thurman, better than Mr. Vallandigham knew it. We had seen our comrades falling and dying alone on the mountain side and in the swamps--dying in the prison-pens of the Confederacy and in the crowded hospitals, North and South. Yet he had the face to stand up in Congress, and say to the people and the world, "Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home." Judge Thurman, where are you at this time? He goes to Columbus to the State convention, on the 11th of June of that year, in all the capacities in which I have named him--as a delegate, as committeeman, and as an orator--and he spends that whole summer in advocating the election of the man who taunted us with the words, "Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers--these are your trophies."

In every canvass you know there is a key-note. What was the key-note of that canvass? Who sounded it? It came over to us from Canada. On the 15th of July, 1863, Mr. Vallandigham wrote, accepting the nomination of that convention of Judge Thurman's. He said, in his letter:

"If this civil war is to terminate only by the subjugation or submission of the South to force and arms, the infant of to-day will not live to see the end of it. No; in another way only can it be brought to a close. Traveling a thousand miles and more, through nearly half of the Confederate States, and sojourning for a time at widely different points, I met not one man, woman, or child who was not resolved to perish, rather than yield to the pressure of arms, even in the most desperate extremity. And whatever may and must be the varying fortune of the war, in all of which I recognize the hand of Providence pointing visibly to the ultimate issue of this great trial of the States and people of America, they are better prepared now, every way, to make good their inexorable purpose than at any period since the beginning of the struggle."

That was the key-note of the campaign. It was the platform of the candidate in behalf of whom Judge Thurman went through the State of Ohio--all over the State--in July, August, and September, up to the night of the 12th of October--making his last speech just twenty-four hours before the glad news went out to all the world, over the wires, that the people of Ohio had elected John Brough by over one hundred thousand majority, in preference to the author of the sentiment, "Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers."

And how true was that sentiment which had been endorsed by the peace party. I do not question the motives of men in any of my speeches. I merely ask as to the facts. "Better prepared," said he, "than ever before," on the 15th of July. On that theory, they went through the canvass to the end. What was the fact? On the 15th of July, 1863, Grant had captured Vicksburg. That gallant, glorious son of Ohio, who perished afterward in the Atlanta campaign, and whose honored remains now sleep near his old home on the lake shore, General James B. McPherson, on the 4th of July, had ridden at the head of a triumphant host into Vicksburg. On the 7th of July, Banks had captured Port Hudson. A few days afterward, a party of serenaders, calling upon Mr. Lincoln, saw that good man, who had been bowed down with the weight and cares of office; they saw his haggard face lit up with joy and cheer, and he said to them: "At last, Grant is in Vicksburg. The Father of Waters, the Mississippi, again flows unvexed to the sea."

On the 15th of July, what else had happened? The army of Lee, defiantly crowding up into Pennsylvania, and claiming to go where it pleased, and take what it pleased, only doubting whether they would first capture Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York, and concluding finally that it was a matter of military strategy first to capture the Army of the Potomac--that army, which had invaded Pennsylvania under such flattering auspices, was, on the 15th of July, when Mr. Vallandigham's letter was written, straggling back over the swollen waters of the Potomac, glad to escape from the pursuing armies of the Union, with the loss of thirty thousand of its bravest and best, killed, wounded, and captured, and utterly unable ever after during the war to set foot upon free soil except in such fragments as were captured by our armies in subsequent battles. That was the condition of the two great armies when Mr. Vallandigham uttered that sentiment; and on that sentiment my friend, Judge Thurman, argued his case through all that summer.

But wisdom was not learned even at the close of 1863 by this peace party. Things were greatly changed in the estimation of every loyal man. We had now not merely got possession of the Mississippi river--we had not merely driven the army of Lee out of Pennsylvania, never again to return, but the battle of Mission Ridge and the battle of Knoxville had been fought. That important strategic region, East Tennessee, was now within our lines. From that abode of loyalty, the mountain region of East Tennessee, we could pierce to the very heart of the Southern Confederacy. We were now in possession of the interior lines, giving us an immense advantage, and we were in a condition to march southeast to Atlanta and northeast to Richmond; yet with this changed state of affairs, where is my friend Judge Thurman? Advising the people? What is he advising them to do? He says Allen G. Thurman was a private citizen. Not so. He held no official position, I know, under the government. Fortunately for the people of this country, they were not giving official positions in Ohio to men of his opinions and sentiments at that time. [A voice, "They won't now, either."] But he was made delegate at large from the State of Ohio to the convention to meet at Chicago to nominate a president and form a platform on which that nominee should stand. Mr. Vallandigham was a district delegate and one of the committee to form a platform, and he drew the most important resolution. The principal plank of that platform is of his construction. You are perfectly familiar with it. It merely told the people that the war had been for four years a failure, and advised them to prepare to negotiate with this Confederate nation on our Southern borders. Well, when this advice was given to the Nation, we were still in the midst of the war, and were prosecuting it with every prospect of success. What had been accomplished in 1863 enabled us, with great advantages, to press upon the rebellion. I remember well when I first read that resolution declaring the war a four years' failure. It came to the army in which I was serving on the same day that the news came to us that Sherman had captured Atlanta. We heard of both together. The war a four years' failure, said the Chicago convention. I well remember how that evening our pickets shouted the good news to the pickets of the enemy. What good news? News that a convention representing nearly one-half of the people of the North had concluded that the war was a failure? No such news was shouted from our-picket line. The good news that they shouted was that Sherman had captured Atlanta.

This, my friends, is a part of that record which we are invited to examine by my friend Judge Thurman. I ask you to apply to it the principle that whoever, during the great struggle, was unfaithful to the cause of the country is not to be trusted to be one of the men to harvest and secure the legitimate fruits of the victory, which the Union people and the Union army won during the rebellion. In the great struggle in 1863 in Ohio, I had not an opportunity to hear the eloquent voice of John Brough, which I knew stirred the hearts of the people like the sound of a trumpet, but I read, as occasion offered, his speeches, and I saw not one in which he did not warn the young men--warn the Democrats of Ohio--that if they remained through that struggle opposed to this country, the conduct particularly of leading men would never be forgotten, and never forgiven. Now, in this canvass, I merely have to ask the people to remember the prediction of honest John Brough, and see that that prediction is made good.

It is not worth while now to consider, or undertake to predict, when we shall cease to talk of the records of those men. It does seem to me that it will, for many years to come, be the voice of the Union people of the State that for a man who as a leader--as a man having control in political affairs--that for such a man who has opposed the interests of his country during the war, "the post of honor is the private station." When shall we stop talking about it? When ought we to stop talking about that record, when leading men come before the people? Certainly not until every question arising out of the rebellion, and every question which is akin to the questions which made the rebellion, is settled. Perhaps these men will be remembered long after these questions are settled; perhaps their conduct will long be remembered. What was the result of this advice to the people? It prolonged the war; it made it impossible to get recruits; it made it necessary that we should have drafts. They opposed the drafts, and that made rioting, which required that troops should be called from all the armies in the field, to preserve the peace at home. From forty to a hundred thousand men in the different States of this Union were kept within the loyal States to preserve the peace at home. And now, when they talk to you about the debt and about the burden of taxation, remember how it happened that the war was so prolonged, that it was so expensive, and that the debt grew to such large proportions.

There are other things, too, to be remembered. I recollect that at the close of the last session of Congress, I went over to Arlington, the estate formerly of Robert E. Lee, and I saw there the great National cemetery into which that beautiful place has been converted. I saw the graves of 18,000 Union soldiers, marked with white head-boards, denoting the name of each occupant, and his regiment and company. Passing over those broad acres, covered with the graves of the loyal men who had died in defense of their country, I came upon that which was even more touching than these 18,000 head-boards. I found a large granite, with this inscription upon it:

"Beneath this stone repose the remains of two thousand one hundred and eleven unknown soldiers, gathered, after the war, from the field of Bull Run and the route to the Rappahannock. Their remains could not be identified, but their names and deaths are recorded in the archives of their country, and its grateful citizens honor them as of their noble army of martyrs. May they rest in peace. September, 1866."

I say to those men who were instrumental and prominent in prolonging the war, by opposing it, that when honeyed words and soft phrases can erase from the enduring granite inscriptions like these, the American people may forget their conduct; but I believe they will not do so until some such miracle is accomplished.

That is all I desire to say this afternoon upon the record of the peace party of Ohio. A few words upon another topic that is much discussed in this canvass, and that is the proposed amendment to the constitution of the State of Ohio. At the beginning, I desire to say, that there may be no misunderstanding--and I suppose there is no misunderstanding upon that subject--that I am in favor of the adoption of that amendment, and I trust that every Union man, and every Democrat too, will vote for it next October. And why do I say this? Let us discuss it a moment. It consists of four parts. First, it disfranchises any man who becomes a resident of the State of Ohio, or who was a citizen of Ohio, who fought in the rebellion against the country. Isn't that right? If you want that to go into your constitution, vote for the amendment. It disfranchises every man who, being liable to the draft, when the country needed them at the front--when the soldiers doing their duty at the front were anxiously looking for their aid--it disfranchises every man who, at such time, ran away to escape the draft. Isn't that right? In the next place, it disfranchises every man who deserted his comrades at the front, and ran away to vote the peace party ticket at the rear. Isn't that right? It disfranchises him whether he voted that ticket or not, I may observe. If you want these provisions in your State constitution, vote for the amendment. In the next place, it gives the right of suffrage to all the negroes of Ohio. Mark the phrase: I have not said impartial suffrage or manhood suffrage. I wish to be understood. It gives the suffrage to the negroes of Ohio upon the same terms that it is given to white men. The reason I am in favor of that is because it is right.

Let me have the ears of my Democratic friends on that question a moment. If Democracy has any meaning now that is good--any favorable meaning--it is that Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is a government in which every man who has to obey the laws has a part in making the laws, unless disqualified by crime. Then the proposition I am for is a Democratic proposition. Again, it is according to the principles upon which good men have always desired to see our institutions placed, namely, that all men are entitled to equal rights before the law. They are not equal in any other respect. Nobody claims that they are. But we propose to give to each man the same rights which you want for yourself. It is, in short, obeying the rule of the Great Teacher: "Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you." Abraham Lincoln said: "No man is good enough to govern another without that other man's consent." Is not that true? Good as you think you are, are you good enough absolutely to govern another man without that other man's consent? If you really think so, just change shoes with that other man, and see if you are willing to be governed yourself, without your consent, by somebody else. The declaration of independence says governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Now, don't you see there is no way by which one man can give consent to be governed by another man in a republican government except by the ballot? There is no way provided by which you can consent to give powers to a government except by the ballot. Therefore every man governed under our system is entitled to the ballot.

So much for principle. One word now as to why our Democratic friends oppose it. I remember their opposing the extension of suffrage once under circumstances that made many of us think they were doing wrong. During the years 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864, I was a citizen of the Fifteenth ward, in Cincinnati; I had lived there ever since it was a ward. All the property I had in the world was taxed there, real or personal; and there was a party in Ohio of loyal Union men, who said I and others who were with me ought to have a right to vote, although I was not in the Fifteenth ward, but was serving the country in the field against the rebels. The Democratic party in Ohio--these very peace men--said no. Why did they say I should not vote? I never heard but one good reason, and that was the apprehension they had that if the soldiers did vote, they wouldn't vote the Democratic ticket. That's what's the matter. Now, I suspect we have the same difficulty on this proposition; I suspect that the real trouble is that they fear if the colored man has a vote, they have dealt so hardly with him these last few years that when he comes to vote he will vote against the Democratic party. That's what's the matter. Why, for the sake of political power, these Democrats of Ohio have not been unwilling to look kindly toward the colored man. Do you remember we once had black laws in Ohio which kept the colored men out of the State? Who repealed those laws? Why did they do it? The Democratic party did it, because they could get political power by it. I suspect that if it were quite certain that the colored vote would elect Allen G. Thurman Governor of Ohio, our Democratic friends would not object to it at all. What, then, do I say to the Union men? This objection may be very good for the Democrats, but it is not a wise one for you.

I commend to you Union men who are a little weak on this question, or perhaps I should say a little strong, the example of the Union men of the country during the war. Abraham Lincoln thought, in 1862, it was wise to proclaim freedom to the slaves. Many good Union men thought it was unwise--thought Mr. Lincoln was going too far or too fast--but the sequel justified the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln. Again, he thought it was wise that colored men should be placed in our armies. There were good soldiers and good Union men who thought it was unwise. They feared that Mr. Lincoln was going too fast or too far, but events justified it. Now, everybody agrees that in both cases Abraham Lincoln was right. Now, the example I commend to our Union friends who are doubting on this great question is the example of those Union men during the war who doubted the wisdom of these other measures. Greatly as they were opposed to the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, strongly as they were opposed to the enlistment of colored soldiers, I say to you I never heard of one good Union man, in the army or out of it, who left his party because of that difference with Mr. Lincoln. I commend that example to the Union men who now doubt about colored suffrage. The truth is, that every step made in advance toward the standard of the right has in the event always proved a safe and wise step. Every step toward the right has proved a step toward the expedient; in short, that in politics, in morals, in public and private life, the right is always expedient.

I thank you, fellow-citizens, for your kind attention.

Speech of GOVERNOR HAYES, on his re-nomination, delivered June 23, 1869.

Twice since the organization of existing political parties the people of Ohio have trusted the law-making power of the State in the hands of the Democratic party. They first tried the experiment twelve years ago, and such were the results that ten years elapsed before they ventured upon a repetition of it. Two years ago, in a time of reaction, which was general throughout the country, the Democratic party, by a minority of the popular vote, having large advantages in the apportionment, obtained complete control of the legislature in both of its branches. They came into power, proclaiming that the past ought to be forgotten; that old issues and divisions should be laid aside; that new ideas and new measures required attention; and they were particularly emphatic and earnest in declaring that the enormous burdens of debt and taxation under which the people were struggling made retrenchment and economy the supreme duty of the hour.

These were their promises, and the manner in which they were kept is now before the people for their judgment. Disregarding the well-known and solemnly-expressed will of Ohio, they began the business of their first session by passing fruitless resolutions to rescind the ratification of the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States.

They placed on the statute book visible admixture bills, to deprive citizens of the right of suffrage--a constitutional right long enjoyed and perfectly well settled by repeated decisions of the highest court having jurisdiction of the question.

They repealed the law allowing, after the usual residence, the disabled veterans of the Union army to vote in the township in which the National Soldiers' Home is situated; and enacted a law designed to deprive of the right of suffrage a large number of young men engaged in acquiring an education at "any school, seminary, academy, college, university, or other institution of learning." To prevent citizens who were deprived of their constitutional rights by these acts from obtaining prompt relief in the Supreme Court, they passed a law prohibiting that court from taking up causes on its docket according to its own judgment of what was demanded by public justice, in any case "except where the person seeking relief had been convicted of murder in the first degree, or of a crime the punishment of which was confinement in the penitentiary."

I believe it is the general judgment of the people of Ohio that the passage of these measures, unconstitutional as some of them are, and unjust as they all are, was mainly due to the fact that the classes of citizens disfranchised by them do not commonly vote with the Democratic party. The Republican party condemns all such legislation, and demands its repeal.

On the important subject of suffrage, General Grant, in his inaugural message, expresses the convictions of the Republican party. He says: "The question of suffrage is one which is likely to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citizens of the Nation are excluded from its privileges in any State. It seems to me very desirable that this question should be settled now, and I entertain the hope and express the desire that it may be by the ratification of the fifteenth amendment to the constitution."

During the canvass which resulted in the election of the late Democratic legislature the Republicans were charged with having used $800,000, raised for the relief of soldiers' families, to pay the State debt, and this charge was insisted upon, notwithstanding a majority of the Democratic members had supported the measure. The idea was everywhere held out that if the Democratic party were successful this money would be restored to the relief fund and expended for the benefit of the soldiers. The failure to redeem this pledge is aggravated by the fact that the legislature, by a strictly party vote in the Senate, refused to provide for the support of soldiers' destitute orphans at homes to be established without expense to the State by the voluntary contributions of patriotic and charitable people.

But of all the pledges upon which the Democratic party obtained power in the last legislature, the most important, and those in regard to which the just expectations of the people have been most signally disappointed, are their pledges in relation to financial affairs--to expenditure, to debt, and to taxation. Upon this subject the people are compelled to feel a very deep interest. The flush times of the war have been followed by a financial reaction, and for the last three or four years the country has been on the verge of a financial crisis. The burdens of taxation bear heavily upon labor and upon capital. The Democratic party, profuse alike of accusations against their adversaries, and of promises of retrenchment and reform, were clothed with power to deal with the heaviest part of these burdens, viz: with the expenditures, debts, assessments, and taxes which are authorized by State legislation. The results of their two years of power are now before the people. They are contained in the 65th and 66th volumes of the Laws of Ohio. Let any Republican diligently study these volumes, and he will fully comprehend the meaning of Job when he said, "Oh, that mine adversary had written a book." No intelligent man can read carefully these volumes, and note the number and character of the laws increasing the expenses and liabilities of the State and authorizing additional debts and additional taxation for city and village, for county and township purposes, without having the conviction forced upon him that the gentlemen who enacted these laws hold to the opinion that the way to increase wealth is to increase taxation, and that public debts are public blessings.

When the late Democratic Legislature assembled they found the revenue raised yearly in Ohio by taxation to pay the interest on the State and local debts and for State and local expenditures was $20,253,615.34. This is at the rate of almost forty dollars for every vote cast in the State at the last election, and exceeds seven dollars for each inhabitant of the State. Of this large sum collected annually by direct taxation less than one-fifth or $3,981,099.79 was for State purposes, and more than four-fifths or $16,272,515.34 was for local purposes. The increase of taxation for State purposes during the last few years has been small, but many items of taxation for local purposes are increasing rapidly. The taxation, for example, in the thirty-three cities of the State has increased until, according to the report of the auditor of State, "in several the rates of levy exceed three per cent, and the average rate in all is but little short of three per cent." In this condition of the financial affairs of the State, and in the embarrassed and depressed condition of the business of the country, the duty of the legislature was plain. They were to see that no unnecessary additional burdens were imposed upon the people--that all wholesome restraints and limitations upon the power of local authorities to incur debts and levy taxes should be preserved and enforced, and especially that no increase of liabilities should be authorized except in cases of pressing necessity.

Now consider the facts. These gentlemen professed to be scrupulously strict in their observance of the requirements of the constitution. Yet under provisions which contemplate one legislative session in two years they held two sessions in the same year, and three sessions in their term of two years. They were in session two hundred and sixty days--longer than was ever before known in Ohio, and at an expense of $250,624.10--more than double that of their Republican predecessors.

They created between thirty and forty new offices at a cost to the people for salaries, fees, and expenses of at least $75,000 per annum. They added to the State liabilities for various purposes about $1,500,000. In order to avoid an increase of taxes levied for State purposes they diminished the sum levied to pay the State debt, and increased the levy for other State purposes almost $600,000.

The acts of the last legislature in relation to local debts and local taxes are of the most extraordinary character. These acts relate to raising money for county purposes, for township purposes, for city and village purposes, and for special purposes. These taxes or debts are levied or incurred under the direction of county commissioners, township trustees, or of city or village councils, who derive their authority exclusively from State legislation. The State legislature has therefore the control of the whole matter. Now, the general statement which I wish to make, and which I believe is sustained by the facts, is, that the late Democratic legislature authorized greater local pecuniary burdens to be imposed upon the people of Ohio, without their consent, than were ever before authorized by any General Assembly, either in peace or war, since the organization of our State government.

Sixty or seventy different acts were passed authorizing debts to be contracted, amounting in the aggregate to more than $25,000,000. A large part of them bear eight per cent interest, and a very small part bear less than seven and three-tenths per cent interest. And they passed seventy or eighty acts by which additional taxes were authorized to the amount of over $10,000,000.

Now it is to be hoped, as to a considerable part of the local debts and local taxes authorized by the late Democratic legislature, that the people will not be burdened with them. It is to be hoped that county commissioners, city councils, and other local boards, will show greater moderation and economy in the exercise of their dangerous and oppressive powers under the laws than was exhibited in their enactment. But in any event, nothing is more certain than that the people of Ohio have great reason to apprehend that the evil consequences of these laws will be felt in their swollen tax bills for many years.

It is probable that many of the acts to which I have alluded, creating additional offices, incurring State liabilities, and authorizing local debts and taxes were required by sound policy. But a candid investigation will show that the larger part of these enormous burdens of expenditure, debt, and taxation could and ought to have been avoided.

The last legislature afforded examples of many of the worst evils to which legislative bodies are liable--long sessions, excessive legislation, unnecessary expenditures, and recklessness in authorizing local debts and local taxes. These evils "have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished." Let there be reform as to all of them. Especially let the people of all parties insist that the parent evil--long legislative sessions--shall be reformed altogether. Let the bad precedent of long sessions, set by the last legislature, be condemned, and the practice of short sessions established. With the average rate of taxation in the cities and large towns of the State--nearly three per cent.--legitimate business and industry can not continue to thrive, if the rate of taxation continues to increase. With the rates of interest for public debts ranging from seven and three-tenths per cent to eight per cent, the reckless increase of such debts must stop, or will seriously affect the prosperity of the State. These are subjects which deserve, and which, I trust, will receive, the profound attention of the people in the pending canvass.

It is said that one of the ablest Democratic members of the last legislature declared at its close that "enough had been done to keep the Democratic party out of power in Ohio for twenty years." Let the Republican press and the Republican speakers see to it that the history of the acts of that body be spread fully before the people, and I entertain no doubt that the declaration will be substantially made good.

It is probable that the discussions of the present canvass will turn more upon State legislation and less upon National affairs than those of any year since 1861. Neither senators nor representatives in Congress are to be chosen. But it is an important State election, and will be regarded as having a bearing on National politics. The Republicans of Ohio heartily approve of the principles of General Grant's inaugural message, and are gratified by the manner in which he is dealing with the leading questions of the first three months of his administration.

Under President Johnson, Secretary McCulloch hoarded millions of gold, to enable him to maintain a wretched rivalry with the gold gamblers of New York city. The Nation was defrauded of its just dues, and the National debt increased from November 1, 1867, to November 1, 1868, $35,625,102.82. General Grant began his financial policy by revoking his predecessor's pardons of revenue robbers, and by cutting down expenses in all directions; and Secretary Boutwell disposes of surplus gold in the purchase of interest-bearing bonds to the amount of two millions a week, and in his first quarter reduces the National debt more than twenty millions of dollars.

The two Democratic Johnsons, Andrew and Reverdy, furnished their ideas of a foreign policy in the Johnson-Clarendon treaty. They undertook to settle the American claims against England on account of the Alabama outrage by the award of a Commission, one-half of whose members were to be chosen by England and the other half by the United States; and, in case of a disagreement, an umpire was to be chosen by lot. That is to say, a great National controversy, involving grave questions of international law, and claims of undoubted validity, amounting to millions of money, was to be decided by the toss of a copper! The administration of General Grant crushed the disgraceful treaty, and proposes to deal with England on the principle laid down in General Grant's inaugural. The United States will treat all other Nations "as equitable law requires individuals to deal with each other;" but, "if others depart from this rule in their dealings with us, we may be compelled to follow their precedent."

On the great question of reconstruction, in what a masterly way and with what marked success has General Grant's administration begun. Congress had fixed its day of adjournment, and all plans for reconstructing the three unrepresented States had been postponed until next December. At this junction General Grant, on the 7th of April last, sent to Congress a special message recommending that before its adjournment it take the necessary steps for the restoration of the State of Virginia to its proper relations to the Union. As the ground of his recommendation he said: "I am led to make this recommendation from the confident hope and belief that the people of that State are now ready to co-operate with the National government in bringing it again into such relations to the Union as it ought as soon as possible to establish and maintain, and to give to all its people those equal rights under the law which were asserted in the declaration of independence, in the words of one of the most illustrious of its sons."

The message of the president was referred, in the House of Representatives, to the Committee on Reconstruction. That committee the next day reported a bill for the reconstruction of Virginia, and also of Mississippi and Texas. The character of the bill sufficiently appears by the first two sections relating to Virginia:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States, at such time as he may deem best for the public interest, may submit the constitution which was framed by the convention which met in Richmond, Virginia, on Tuesday, the 3d day of December, 1867, to the registered voters of said State, for ratification or rejection; and may also submit to a separate vote such provisions of said constitution as he may deem best.

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That at the same election the voters of said State may vote for and elect members of the General Assembly of said State and all the officers of said State provided for by the said constitution, and for members of Congress; and the officer commanding the district of Virginia shall cause the lists of registered voters of said State to be revised and corrected prior to such election, and for that purpose may appoint such registrars as he may deem necessary. And said election shall be held and returns thereof made in the manner provided by the election ordinance adopted by the convention which framed said constitution."

It will be seen that by this bill the people of Virginia were to proceed in the work of reconstruction at such time as the president might deem best, and that such reconstruction in all its parts was to be on the basis of equal political rights. The constitution to be submitted was framed by a convention, in the election of which colored citizens participated, and of which colored men were members. The "registered voters" who are to vote on its ratification or rejection, and also for members of the General Assembly, for State officers and for members of Congress, include the colored men of Virginia; and if the constitution is adopted, it secures to them equal political rights in that State. The remaining sections of the bill provide for the reconstruction of Mississippi and Texas on the same principles, and left the time and manner to the discretion of the president.

This bill was reported to the House of Representatives and unanimously agreed upon by a committee, of which four members were Democrats. The most distinguished Democratic representatives of the States of New York and Pennsylvania advocated its passage. Out of about seventy Democratic members of the House, only twenty-five voted against it, and the only Democratic members from Ohio who voted on the passage of the bill, voted for it.

It thus appears that upon the recommendation of General Grant even the Democratic party of Ohio, by their representatives in Congress, voted for equal political rights in Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas! And to-day the great body of the people of those States, Democrats and Conservatives as well as Republicans, have yielded assent to that great principle. In view of these facts I submit that I am fully warranted in saying that General Grant has begun the work of reconstruction in a masterly way and with marked success.

Again thanking you for the honor you have done me, I repeat, in conclusion, what I said two years ago. The people represented in this convention mean that the State of Ohio in the great progress, "whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuits for all, and to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life," shall tread no more steps backward. I shall enter upon my part of the labors of the canvass believing that the Union Republican party is battling for the right, and with undoubting confidence that the goodness of the cause will supply the weakness of its advocates, and command in the result that triumphant success which it deserves.

Speech of GENERAL R. B. HAYES, delivered at Zanesville, Ohio, Thursday, August 24, 1871.

The change of principles which a majority of the late Democratic State Convention at Columbus decided to make, commonly called the new departure, lends to the pending political contest in Ohio its chief interest. Indeed, there is no other salient feature in the Democratic platform. Resolutions in the usual form were adopted on several other political topics; but the main discussion, and the absorbing interest of the convention, was on the question of accepting as a finality the series of Republican measures which is generally regarded as the natural and legitimate result of the overthrow of the rebellion, and which is embodied in the last three amendments to the constitution.

Certain influential Democratic leaders in Ohio had become satisfied by the repeated defeats of their party that no considerable number of Republicans would ever aid the Democratic party to obtain power until it fully and explicitly accepted in good faith, as a final settlement of the questions involved, the leading Republican measures resulting from the war. They were convinced that Republicans generally regarded these measures of such vital importance that, until they were irrevocably established, other and minor questions would not be allowed to divide that great body of patriotic people who rallied together in support of the government during its struggle for existence. The important principles which Republicans claim should be accepted as settled are:

1. That the National power is the Supreme power of the land, and that the doctrine that the States are in any proper sense sovereign, including as it does the right of nullification and secession, is no longer to be maintained.

2. That all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens thereof, and entitled to equal rights, civil and political, without regard to race, color, or condition.

3. That the public debt resulting from the war is of binding obligation, and must be fully and honestly paid.

Mr. Vallandigham, with that boldness and energy for which he was distinguished, undertook the task of forcing his party to take the position required to make success possible in Ohio. In this work, he was encouraged, and probably aided, by the counsel and advice of that other eminent Democratic leader, Chief Justice Chase. The first authentic announcement of the new movement in Ohio was made by the Montgomery County Democratic Convention, held at Dayton, on the 18th day of May last. The speech and resolutions of Mr. Vallandigham in that body contained much sound Republicanism. He still clung to a general assertion of the State rights heresy, but accepted the last three constitutional amendments "as a settlement, in fact, of all the issues of the war," and "pledged" the Democratic party to the faithful and absolute enforcement of the constitution as it now is, "so as to secure equal rights to all persons, without distinction of race, color, or condition." On the subject of the National debt, and of currency, he was equally explicit. He declared "in favor of the payment of the public debt at the earliest practicable moment consistent with moderate taxation; that specie is the basis of all sound currency; and that true policy requires a speedy return to that basis as soon as practicable without distress to the debtor class of people."

Surely, here was a long stride away from the Democracy of the last ten years, and toward wholesome Republican ideas. If a Democratic victory could be gained by adopting Republican principles, the framer of the Dayton platform was not lacking in political sagacity. Unfortunately for the success of the scheme, no Ohio Democrat of conspicuous position, except Mr. Chase, is known to have approved Mr. Vallandigham's resolutions as a whole. The chief justice wrote to Mr. Vallandigham the well-known letter of May 20, in which he warmly congratulated him on the movement which was to return "the Democratic party to its ancient platform of progress and reform."

This was perfectly consistent with the previous opinions and public conduct of Mr. Chase. He had supported the three amendments to the constitution, and notwithstanding the censure of his Democratic associates, he had been signally active and influential in procuring the ratification by Ohio of the fifteenth amendment. In addition to this, he was probably the only prominent Western Democrat who was for the payment of the public debt in coin, and in favor of a speedy return to specie payments.

When the convention assembled, on the first of June, neither the talents and energy of Mr. Vallandigham nor the great name and authority of the chief justice were sufficient to carry through, in all its parts, the Dayton programme. The financial resolutions were stricken out and the oft-defeated greenback theory, slightly modified, was inserted in its place. Other important paragraphs of Mr. Vallandigham were also omitted, in which "secession, slavery, inequality before the law, and political inequality" were described as "belonging to the dead past" and "buried out of sight." This left as the new departure two resolutions, which were adopted only after strong opposition.

"1. Resolved, by the Democracy of Ohio, That denouncing the extraordinary means by which they were brought about, we recognize as accomplished facts the three several amendments to the constitution, recently adopted, and regard the same as no longer political issues before the country.

"2.... The Democratic party pledges itself to the full, faithful, and absolute enforcement of the constitution as it now is, so as to secure equal rights to all persons under it, without distinction of race, color, or condition."

The Democratic managers claim that by this movement they have taken such a position that, at least equally with the Republicans, they are entitled to the confidence and support of the early and earnest friends of the principles of the three recent constitutional amendments. They claim at the same time, in the same breath, that they are entitled also to the confidence of the Democratic people whom they have hitherto taught that the amendments were ratified by force and fraud; that they are revolutionary and void, and that they are a dangerous departure from the principles of the fathers of the republic, and destructive of all good government.

Now, the important question presented is, whether it is safe and wise to trust these amendments for interpretation, construction, and execution to the party which, from first to last, has fiercely opposed them. The safe rule is, if you want a law fairly and faithfully administered, entrust power only to its friends. It will rarely have a fair trial at the hands of its enemies. These amendments are no exception to this rule.

What the country most needs, and what good citizens most desire in regard to these great measures is peace--repose. They wish to be able to rest confidently in the belief that they are to be enforced and obeyed. They do not want them overthrown by revolutionary violence or defeated by fraud. They do not wish them repealed by constitutional amendments, abrogated by judicial construction, nullified by unfriendly legislation, State or National, or left a dead letter by non-action on the part of law-makers or executive officers. Has the time come when the country can afford to trust the Democratic party on these questions? Consider the facts.

The new departure is by no means generally accepted by the Democratic party, and where accepted the conversion is sudden and recent, and against the protest of a large element of sincere and inflexible Democrats.

The only State touching the borders of Ohio which has been reliably Democratic for the last five years is Kentucky. She sends to Congress an undivided Democratic delegation of two senators and nine representatives. At the late election, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of her Republicans under the splendid leadership of General Harlan, the Democratic organs are able to rejoice that they still hold the State by from thirty to forty thousand majority. Where did the Democrats of Kentucky, in their canvass, stand on the new departure? They marched in the old Democratic path. They turned no back somersault to catch Republican votes. On the very day that the Ohio Democracy were wrangling in convention over the bitter dose, Governor Leslie, addressing the Democracy of Lewis county, said: "As to the new amendments, I am out and out opposed to them. I care not who in Indiana, Ohio, or elsewhere may be for them. Those amendments were engrafted upon the constitution of the country, and proclaimed to the country as part and parcel of the constitution by force and by fraud, and not in the legitimate way laid down in the constitution. Ten States of this Union were tied hand and foot, and bayonets were presented to their breasts to make them consent against their will to the passage of these amendments. The procuring of these amendments was a fraud upon this people, and upon the people of the whole United States, and having been thus obtained, I hold that they ought to be repealed. There may be some Democrats who are not for their repeal, but the great body of our party is for it."

The Democratic candidate for lieutenant-governor, Mr. Carlisle, was equally decided. Said he: "In the first place, I do not think that the resolution passed by the Ohio Democracy, declaring that these constitutional amendments are no longer political issues before the country, will have the effect which they appear to have supposed it would.

"Instead of withdrawing them as subjects of political discussion, it will give them far more prominence than they ever had heretofore, and they will be confronted with them throughout the entire canvass. The only way in which any question can be withdrawn from the arena of political discussion is for both parties to ignore it altogether.

"This can not be done as to these amendments, because they present real living issues, in which the people feel a very deep interest. They are not dead issues, and politicians can not kill them by resolutions. The Ohio Democrats seem to recognize this to some extent at least, for they have simply attempted to turn the discussion away from the validity and merits of the amendments themselves to the question of their construction. In this I think they have made a grievous mistake."

In Indiana, the last authoritative Democratic utterance on this subject, was the passage, in January last, by the Senate of that State, of the following resolution, offered by Mr. Hughes, every Democrat supporting it:

"Resolved, That Congress has no lawful power derived from the constitution of the United States, nor from any other source whatever, to require any State of the Union to ratify an amendment proposed to the constitution of the United States as a condition precedent to representation in Congress; that all such acts of ratification are null and void, and the votes so obtained ought not to be counted to affect the rights of the people and the States of the whole Union, and that the State of Indiana protests and solemnly declares that the so-called fifteenth amendment is not this day, nor never has been in law, a part of the constitution of the United States."

It is not necessary to go to neighboring States for Democratic authorities, to show how far the new departure is from modern Democracy.

When this question was last debated before the people of Ohio, the Democratic position on the principle of the fifteenth amendment, and on its constitutional validity, if declared adopted, was thus stated:

Speaking of the principle of the amendment, Judge Thurman said: "I tell you it is only the entering wedge that will destroy all intelligent suffrage in this country, and turn our country from an intelligent white man's government into one of the most corrupt mongrel governments in the world."

On its validity, if declared adopted, General Ward said: "Fellow-citizens of Ohio, I boldly assert that the States of this Union have always had, both before and since the adoption of the constitution of the United States, entire sovereignty over the whole subject of suffrage in all its relations and bearings. Ohio has that sovereignty now, and it can not be taken from her without her consent, even by all the other States combined, except by revolutionary usurpation. The right to regulate suffrage as to the organization of its own government, and the election of officers under it, is an inalienable attribute of sovereignty, which the State could not surrender without surrendering its sovereign existence as a State. To take from Ohio the power of determining who shall exercise the right of suffrage is not an amendment of the constitution, but a revolutionary usurpation by the other States, in no wise constitutionally binding upon her sovereignty as a State."

These opinions are still largely prevalent in the Democratic party. When a new departure was announced at Dayton, the leading organ of the party in this State said:

"There are matters in the Montgomery county resolutions which, it is very safe to say, will not receive the approval of the State convention, and which should not receive its endorsement. They have faults of omission and commission. They evince a desire to sail with the wind, and as near the water as possible without getting wet. The Democracy everywhere believe that the constitution was altered by fraud and force, and do not intend to be mealy-mouthed in their expression of the outrage, whatever they may agree upon as to how the amendments should be treated in the future, for the sake of saving, if possible, what is left of constitutional liberty."

After the scheme was adopted in convention, the common sentiment was well expressed by the editor who said that "the platform was made for present use, and is marked with the taint of insincerity."

The speeches of Colonel McCook and other Democratic gentlemen exhibit, when carefully read, clearly enough the character of the new departure.

In accepting his nomination, Colonel McCook said: "Let me speak now upon the fifteenth amendment, which confers the right of suffrage upon the blacks. It was no legitimate consequence of the war; it was no legitimate consequence of secession; but it was passed in the exigency of a political party, that they might have control as much in Ohio as in those States in the South. I opposed it, as I did the fourteenth, from the beginning, and I have no regrets over that opposition. But now a word more upon it. If it contained nothing but this provision for suffrage there would be but little objection in it; but it contains a provision intended to confer power upon Congress which is dangerous to the liberties of the country, and the dangers can only be avoided by having Democratic Congresses in the future, who will trust no power to the executive which bears the purse and sword to interfere with our elections."

When interrogated on this subject at Chardon, he said: "When he received the nomination he had said that no black man who had received the right to vote under the 15th amendment ever could have it taken away. Repealing the 15th amendment would not take it away; that amendment is no more sacred, but just as sacred as any other part of the constitution; but repealing it could not take away a right." He was asked as to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments: "Do you regard them as in the same sense and to the same extent parts of the constitution as other portions?" He answered: "Yes, certainly. Can not men see the difference between opposing the adoption of a measure and yielding when it has been adopted, and opposition has become useless?" He was asked: "Are these amendments never again to become political questions?" "I have no authority or power to answer such a question. How can I answer as to all the future? How can I tell what the Democracy of New York or any other State may do? But how can they become political questions, now that they are acquiesced in by almost the entire people of the country?"

Mr. Hubbard, the chairman of Colonel McCook's first meeting, said: "The Democrats did not dispute that this amendment, which was adopted by constitutional forms, was valid; but, while accepting it, call it a 'new departure.' If you please, we don't surrender the right to make such returns to the old constitution as we may deem expedient. It is a future question that we are not bound to discuss."

The gentleman who has the second place on the Democratic ticket, Mr. Hunt, says: "There is no reasoning, and certainly no circumstance, which can give the 13th amendment more binding force than either of the other two amendments. If the 13th amendment abolished slavery, then the title to vote under the 15th amendment is as perfect as the title to liberty. The fact that they have been declared a part of the constitution does not preclude any legitimate discussion as to their expediency. Proper action will never be barred, for the statute of limitation will run with the constitution itself. Experience may teach the necessity of a change in any provision of the organic law, and any legislation to be permanent must conform to the living sentiment of the people."

These paragraphs furnish no adequate reply to the questions which an intelligent and earnest Republican, who believes in the wisdom and value of the amendments, would put to these distinguished gentlemen, when they ask him for his vote. He would ask: "If the Democratic party shall obtain the controlling power in the general government, in its several departments, executive, legislative, and judicial, and in the State governments, what would it do? Would it faithfully execute these amendments, or would it not rather use its power to get rid of them--either by constitutional amendment, by judicial decision, by unfriendly legislation, or by a failure or refusal to legislate?" Before the "new departure" can gain Republican votes, its friends must answer satisfactorily these questions. The speeches I have quoted fail to furnish such answers. Colonel McCook objects to the 15th amendment, because "it contains a provision intended to confer power upon Congress which is dangerous to the liberties of the country." Now, what is this dangerous provision? It reads: "Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Each of the three recent amendments contains a similar provision. Without this provision, they would be inoperative in more than half of the late rebel States. The complaints made of these provisions warn us that in Democratic hands the legislation required to give force and effect to these provisions would be denied.

But the most significant part of these speeches are the passages which refer to the repeal of the amendments. Mr. Hubbard said: "We don't surrender the right to make such returns to the old constitution as we may deem expedient. It is a future question that we are not bound to discuss." Colonel McCook says: "How can I answer for all the future? How can I tell what the Democracy of New York or any other State may do?" Mr. Hunt says: "The fact that they have been declared a part of the constitution does not preclude any legitimate discussion as to their expediency. Proper action will never be barred." The meaning of all this is that the Democratic party will acquiesce in the amendments while it is out of power. Whether or not it will try to repeal them when it gets power is a question of the future which they are not bound to discuss. Or as another distinguished gentleman has it, this question is "beyond the range of profitable discussion." In reply to these gentlemen, the well-informed Republican citizen when asked to vote for the new departure, is very likely to adopt their own phraseology, and to say, Whether I shall vote your ticket or not is a question of the future which it is not now proper to discuss--"it is beyond the range of profitable discussion;" and if he has the Democratic veneration for Tammany hall, he will say with Colonel McCook, "How can I tell what the Democracy of New York may do?"

Notwithstanding the decision of the late convention, it is probable that the real sentiment of the Democracy of Ohio is truly stated by the Butler county Democrat:

"Our position then, is, that while we regard the so-called amendments as gross usurpation and base frauds--not a part of the Federal constitution de facto nor de jure--and, therefore, acts which are void, we will abide by them until a majority of the people of the States united shall, at the polls, put men in power who shall hold them to be null and of no effect. We adhere strictly, on this point, to the second resolution of Hon. L. D. Campbell, adopted at the Democratic convention held in this county last May; and to refresh the minds of our readers we reproduce it here:

"2. That now, as heretofore, we are opposed to all lawlessness and disorder, and for maintaining the supremacy of the constitution and laws as the only certain means of public safety, and will abide by all their provisions until the same shall be amended, abrogated, or repealed by the lawfully constituted authorities."

The new departure has certainly very little claim to the support of Republican citizens. What are its claims on honest Democrats?

Colonel McCook, to make the new departure palatable to his Democratic supporters, tells them that a repeal of the fifteenth Amendment would fail of its object. That the right to vote, once exercised by the black man, can not be taken away. Is this sound either in law or logic? By the fifteenth amendment no State can deny the right to vote to any citizens on account of race or color. Suppose that amendment was repealed; what would prevent Kentucky from denying suffrage to colored citizens? Plainly nothing. And in case of such repeal it is probable that in less than ninety days thereafter every Democratic State would deny suffrage to colored citizens, and the great body of Democratic voters would heartily applaud that result. The truth is, no sound argument can be made, showing or tending to show that the new departure is consistent with the Democratic record. Hitherto Democracy has taught that, as a question of law, the amendments were made by force and fraud, and are therefore void; that, as a question of principles, this is a white man's government, and that to confer suffrage on the colored races--on the African or Chinaman--would change the nature of the government and speedily destroy it. Now the new departure demands that Democrats shall accept the amendments as valid, and shall take a pledge "to secure equal rights to all persons, without distinction of race, color, or condition." Sincere Democrats will find it very difficult to take that pledge, unless they are now convinced that their whole political life has been a great mistake.

When an individual changes his political principles--turns his coat merely to catch votes--he is generally thought to be unworthy of support, I entertain no doubt that the people of Ohio, at the approaching election, will, upon that principle, by a large majority, condemn the Democratic party for its bold attempt to catch Republican votes by the new departure.

Speech of GENERAL R. B. HAYES, delivered at Marion, Lawrence County, Ohio, July 31, 1875.

Fellow-citizens of Lawrence County:

It is a gratification for which I wish to make my acknowledgments to the Republican committee of this county, to have the privilege of beginning, in behalf of the Republicans of Ohio, the oral discussions of this important political canvass before the people of Lawrence county. Although my residence is separated from yours by the whole breadth of the State, we are not strangers. We have met before on similar occasions, and some of you were my comrades in the Union army during a considerable part of the great civil conflict which ended ten years ago. Those who had the honor and the happiness to serve together during that memorable struggle are not likely to forget each other. We shall forever regard those four years as the most interesting period of our lives.

The great majority of the people of Lawrence county, citizens as well as soldiers, have also good reason to recall the events and scenes of that contest with satisfaction and pride.

The official records of the State show how well Lawrence county performed her part in the war for the Union. From the beginning to the end, with the ballot at home and with the musket in the field, this county stood among the foremost of all the communities in the United States in devotion to the good cause. And since the Nation's triumph, Lawrence county, sooner or later, but never too late to rejoice in the final and decisive victory, has supported every measure required to secure the legitimate results of that triumph. You have done your part forever to set at rest the great questions of the past. It is settled that the United States constitute a Nation, and that their government possesses ample power to maintain its authority over every part of its territory against all opposers. It is settled that no man under the American flag shall be a slave. It is settled that all men born or naturalized in the United States and within its jurisdiction shall be citizens thereof, and have equal civil and political rights. It is settled that the debt contracted to save the Nation is sacred, and shall be honestly paid. You may well be congratulated that on all of these questions you fought and voted on the right side.

Fortunately, there is still further cause for congratulation. Our adversaries, who were on the wrong side of all of these questions, and who opposed us on all of them to the very last, are now compelled to be silent in their platform on every one of them. Not a single one of their fourteen resolutions raises any question on any of these long-contested subjects. It is not strange that they are silent. I do not choose on this occasion to recall the predictions of evil which they so confidently made when discussing the measures to which I have referred. It is enough for my present purpose to point to the grand results. When the Republican party, with Abraham Lincoln as president, received the government from the hands of the Democratic party, fifteen years ago, the Union of the fathers was destroyed. A hostile Nation, dedicated to perpetual slavery, had been established south of the Potomac, and claimed jurisdiction over one-third of the people and territory of the Republic. These States were "dissevered, discordant, belligerent"--our land was rent with civil feud, and ready to be drenched in fraternal blood. Now, behold the change! The Union is re-established on firmer foundations than ever before. Brave men in the South, who were then in battle array against us, now stand side by side with Union soldiers, with no shadow of discord between them. Slavery, which was then an impassable gulf between the hostile sections, is now gone; and good men of the South unite with good men of the North in thanking God that it is forever a thing of the past. Then there was no freedom of speech or of the press--no friendly mingling together of the people of the two sections of the country. Now the people of the South receive and greet as a fellow-citizen and a friend the vice-president--a citizen of Massachusetts, and an anti-slavery man from his youth; and Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina send their distinguished sons to celebrate with New England the centennial anniversaries of the early battles of the Revolution. The men of the North and the men of the South are now everywhere coming together in a spirit of harmony and friendship which this generation has not witnessed before, and which has not existed, until now, since Jefferson was startled by that "fire-ball in the night"--the Missouri question--more than fifty years ago.

In this era of good feeling and reconciliation a few men of morbid temperament, blind to what is passing before them, still talk of "bayonets" and "tyranny and cruelty to the South" and seek in vain to revive the prejudices and passions of the past. But there is barely enough of this angry dissent to remind us of the terrible scenes through which we have passed, and to fill us with gratitude that the house which was divided against itself is divided no longer, and that all of its inhabitants now have a fair start and an equal chance in the race of life.

Let us now proceed to the consideration of some of the questions which engage the attention of the people of Ohio. The war which the Democratic party and its doctrines brought upon the country left a large debt, heavy taxation, a depreciated currency, and an unhealthy condition of business, which resulted two years ago in a financial panic and depression, from which the country is now slowly recovering. With this condition of things the Democratic party in its recent State convention at Columbus undertook to deal.

The most important part--in fact the only part of their platform in Ohio this year which receives or deserves much attention, is that in which is proclaimed a radical departure on the subject of money from the teachings of all of the Democratic fathers. This Ohio Democratic doctrine inculcates the abandonment of gold and silver as a standard of value. Hereafter gold and silver are to be used as money only "where respect for the obligation of contracts requires payment in coin." The only currency for the people is to be paper money, issued directly by the general government, "its volume to be made and kept equal to the wants of trade," and with no provision whatever for its redemption in coin. The Democratic candidate for lieutenant-governor, who opened the canvass for his party, states the money issue substantially as I have. General Carey, in his Barnesville speech, says:

"Gold and silver, when used as money, are redeemable in any property there is for sale in the Nation; will pay taxes for any debt, public or private. This alone gives them their money value. If you had a hundred gold eagles, and you could not exchange them for the necessaries of life, they would be trash, and you would be glad to exchange them for greenbacks or anything else that you could use to purchase what you require. With an absolute paper money, stamped by the government and made a legal tender for all purposes, and its functions as money are as perfect as gold or silver can be!"

This is the financial scheme which the Democratic party asks the people of Ohio to approve at the election in October. The Republicans accept the issue. Whether considered as a permanent policy or as an expedient to mitigate present evils we are opposed to it. It is without warrant in the constitution, and it violates all sound financial principles.

The objections to an inflated and irredeemable paper currency are so many that I do not attempt to state them all. They are so obvious and so familiar that I need not elaborately present or argue them. All of the mischief which commonly follows inflated and inconvertible paper money may be expected from this plan, and in addition it has very dangerous tendencies, which are peculiarly its own. An irredeemable and inflated paper currency promotes speculation and extravagance, and at the same time discourages legitimate business, honest labor, and economy. It dries up the true sources of individual and public prosperity. Over-trading and fast living always go with it. It stimulates the desire to incur debt; it causes high rates of interest; it increases importations from abroad; it has no fixed value; it is liable to frequent and great fluctuations, thereby rendering every pecuniary engagement precarious and disturbing all existing contracts and expectations; it is the parent of panics. Every period of inflation is followed by a loss of confidence, a shrinkage of values, depression of business, panics, lack of employment, and widespread disaster and distress. The heaviest part of the calamity falls on those least able to bear it. The wholesale dealer, the middle-man, and the retailer always endeavor to cover the risks of the fickle standard of value by raising their prices. But the men of small means and the laborer are thrown out of employment, and want and suffering are liable soon to follow.

When government enters upon the experiment of issuing irredeemable paper money there can be no fixed limit to its volume. The amount will depend on the interest of leading politicians, on their whims, and on the excitement of the hour. It affords such facility for contracting debt that extravagant and corrupt government expenditure are the sure result. Under the name of public improvements, the wildest enterprises, contrived for private gain, are undertaken. Indefinite expansion becomes the rule, and in the end bankruptcy, ruin, and repudiation.

During the last few years a great deal has been said about the centralizing tendency of recent events in our history. The increasing power of the government at Washington has been a favorite theme for Democratic declamation. But where, since the foundation of the government, has a proposition been seriously entertained which would confer such monstrous and dangerous powers on the general government as this inflation scheme of the Ohio Democracy? During the war for the Union, solely on the ground of necessity, the government issued the legal tender, or greenback currency. But they accompanied it with a solemn pledge in the following words of the act of June 30, 1864:

"Nor shall the total amount of United States notes issued or to be issued ever exceed four hundred millions, and such additional sum, not exceeding fifty millions, as may be temporarily required for redemption of temporary loans."

But the Ohio inflationists, in a time of peace, on grounds of mere expediency, propose an inconvertible paper currency, with its volume limited only by the discretion or caprice of its issuers, or their judgment as to the wants of trade. The most distinguished gentleman whose name is associated with the subject once said "the process must be conducted with skill and caution, ... by men whose position will enable them to guard against any evil," and using a favorite illustration he said, "The secretary of the treasury ought to be able to judge. His hand is upon the pulse of the country. He can feel all the throbbings of the blood in the arteries. He can tell when the blood flows too fast and strong, and when the expansion should cease." This brings us face to face with the fundamental error of this dangerous policy. The trouble is the pulse of the patient will not so often decide the question as the interest of the doctor. No man, no government, no Congress is wise enough and pure enough to be trusted with this tremendous power over the business, and property, and labor of the country. That which concerns so intimately all business should be decided, if possible, on business principles, and not be left to depend on the exigencies of politics, the interests of party, or the ambition of public men. It will not do for property, for business, or for labor to be at the mercy of a few political leaders at Washington, either in or out of Congress. The best way to prevent it is to apply to paper money the old test sanctioned by the experience of all Nations--let it be convertible into coin. If it can respond to this test, it will, as nearly as possible, be sound, safe, and stable.

The Republicans of Ohio are in favor of no sudden or harsh measures. They do not propose to force resumption by a contraction of the currency. They see that the ship is headed in the right direction, and they do not wish to lose what has already been gained. They are satisfied to leave to the influences of time and the inherent energy and resources of the country the work that yet remains to be done to place our currency at par. We believe that what our country now needs to revive business and to give employment to labor, is a restoration of confidence. We need confidence in the stability and soundness of the financial policy of the government. That confidence has for many months past been slowly but steadily increasing. The Columbus Democratic platform comes in as a disturbing element, and gives a severe shock to reviving confidence. The country believed, and rejoiced to believe, that Senator Thurman expressed the sober judgment of Ohio, when he spoke last year in the Senate on this subject. The senator said, March 24, 1874:

"Never have I spoken in favor of that inflation of the currency, which, I think I see full well, means that there shall never be any resumption at all. That is the difference. It is one thing to contract the currency, with a view to the resumption of specie payment; it is another thing neither to contract nor enlarge it, but let resumption, come naturally and as soon as the business and production of the country will bring it about. But it is a very different thing indeed to inflate the currency with a view never in all time to redeem it at all. And that is precisely what this inflation means. It means demonetizing gold and silver in perpetuity, and substituting a currency of irredeemable paper, based wholly and entirely upon government credit, and depending upon the opinion and the interests of the members of Congress and their hopes of popularity, whether the volume of it shall be large or small. That is what this inflation means. Sir, I have never said anything in favor of that. I am too old-fashioned a Democrat for that. I can not give up the convictions of a life-time, whether they be popular or unpopular."

April 6th, when the Senate inflation bill was debated, he said:

"It simply means that no man of my age shall ever again see in this country that kind of currency which the framers of the constitution intended should be the currency of the Union; which every sound writer on political economy the world over says is the only currency that defrauds no man. It means that so long as I live, and possibly long after I shall be laid in the grave, this people shall have nothing but an irredeemable currency with which to transact their business--that currency which has been well described as the most effective invention that ever the wit of man devised to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow. I will have nothing to do with it."

How great the shock which was given to returning confidence by the Democratic action at Columbus abundantly appears by the manner in which the platform is received by the Liberal and the English and the German Democratic press throughout the United States. The Liberal press and the German press, so far as I have observed, in the strongest terms condemn the platform. They speak of it as disturbing confidence, shaking credit, and threatening repudiation. A large part of the Democratic press of other States is hardly less emphatic. It would be strange, indeed, if this were otherwise. In Ohio, less than two years ago, the convention which nominated Governor Allen resolved, speaking of the Democratic party, that "it recognizes the evils of an irredeemable paper currency, but insists that in the return to specie payment care should be taken not to seriously disturb the business of the country or unjustly injure the debtor class." There was no inflation then. Now come the soft-money leaders of the Democratic party, and try to persuade the people that the promises of the United States should only be redeemed by other promises, and that it is sound policy to increase them.

The credit of the Nation depends on its ability and disposition to keep its promises. If it fails to keep them, and suffers them to depreciate, its credit is tainted, and it must pay high rates of interest on all of its loans. For many years we must be a borrower in the markets of the world. The interest-bearing debt is over seventeen hundred millions of dollars. If we could borrow money at the same rate with some of the great Nations of Europe, we could save perhaps two per cent per annum on this sum. Thirty or forty millions a year we are paying on account of tainted credit. The more promises to pay an individual issues, without redeeming them, the worse becomes his credit. It is the same with Nations. The legal tender note for five dollars is the promise of the United States to pay that sum in the money of the world, in coin. No time is fixed for its payment. It is therefore payable on presentation--on demand. It is not paid; it is past due; and it is depreciated to the extent of twelve per cent. The country recognizes the necessities of the situation, and waits, and is willing to wait, until the productive business of the country enables the government to redeem. But the Columbus financiers are not satisfied. They demand the issue of more promises. This is inflation. No man can doubt the result. The credit of the Nation will inevitably suffer. There will be further depreciation. A depreciation of ten per cent diminishes the value of the present paper currency from fifty to one hundred millions of dollars. Its effect on business would be disastrous in the extreme. The present legal tenders have a certain steadiness, because there is a limit fixed to their amount. Public opinion confides in that limit. But let that limit be broken down, and all is uncertainty. The authors of this scheme believe inflation is a good thing. When this subject was under discussion, a few years ago, the Cincinnati Enquirer said "the issue of two millions dollars of currency would only put it in the power of each voter to secure $400 for himself and family to spend in the course of a life-time. Is there any voter thinks that is too much--more than he will want?" This shows what the platform means. It means inflation without limit; and inflation is the downward path to repudiation. It means ruin to the Nation's credit, and to all individual credit. All the rest of the world have the same standard of value. Our promises are worthless as currency the moment you pass our boundary line. Even in this country, very extensive sections still use the money of the world. Texas, the most promising and flourishing State of the South, uses coin. California and the other Pacific States and Territories do the same. Look at their condition. Texas and California are not the least prosperous part of the United States. This scheme can not be adopted. The opinion of the civilized world is against it. The vast majority of the ablest newspapers of the country is against it. The best minds of the Democratic party are against it. The last three Democratic candidates for the presidency were against it. The German citizens of the United States, so distinguished for industry, for thrift, and for soundness of judgment in all practical money affairs, are a unit against it. The Republican party is against it. The people of Ohio will, I am confident, decide in October to have nothing to do with it.

Since the adoption of the inflation platform at Columbus, a great change has taken place in the feelings and views of its friends. Then they were confident--perhaps it is not too much to say that they were dictatorial and overbearing toward their hard money party associates. There was no doubt as to the intent and meaning of the platform. Its friends asserted that the country needed more money, and more money now. That the way to get it was to issue government legal tender notes liberally. But the storm of criticism and condemnation which burst upon the platform from the soundest Democrats in all quarters has alarmed its supporters. Many of them have been seized with a panic, and are now utterly stampeded and in full retreat. They say that they are not for inflation, not for inconvertible paper money, and that they never have been. That they are hard money men, and always have been. That they look forward to a return of specie payment, and that it must always be kept in view. Why what did they mean by their platform? Did they expect to make money plenty by an issue of more coin? Certainly not. By an issue of more paper redeemable in coin? Certainly not. They expected to issue more legal tender notes--notes irredeemable and depreciated. But public opinion as shown by the press is so decidedly against them, that Ohio inflationists now begin to desert their own platform. Even Mr. Pendleton is solicitous not to be held responsible for the Columbus scheme. He says, "I speak for myself alone. I do not assume to speak for the Democratic party. Its convention has spoken for it," and proceeds to interpret the platform as if it was for hard money. Senator Thurman did not so understand it. He thought the hard money men were beaten and felt disappointed. It now looks as if General Carey might be left almost alone before the canvass ends. If Judge Thurman could get that convention together again, it is evident that he could now in the same body rout the inflationists, horse, foot, and artillery. Nothing but a victory in Ohio can put inflation again on its legs. Let it be defeated in October, and the friends of a sound and honest currency will have a clear field for at least the life of the present generation.

Two years ago, the Democratic party came fully into power in Ohio, in the State legislature, and for the first time in twenty years, elected the executive of the State. They were also entrusted with the affairs of the leading cities, and a majority of the wealthiest and most populous counties in the State. It would be profitable in us to inquire how this came about, and what are the results. In the course of the canvass it is my purpose to show in detail how unfortunate their management of State affairs has been. It will appear, on investigation, that the interests of the State in the benevolent, penal, and reformatory institutions have been sacrificed to the spoils doctrine: how the cities, and especially the chief city of the State, has suffered by the corruption of its rulers; how public expenditures have been increased, until the aggregate of taxation in Ohio, in this time of money depression, is vastly larger than ever before; how the number of salaried officers was increased; how the members of the legislature were corrupted by bribery, notorious, and shameless; and how the dominant party utterly failed to deal with this corruption as duty and the good name of the State demanded. Fallacious and deceptive statements have been made as to the reduction of the levy for State taxes, and as to the appropriations. It is enough now to say that the aggregate taxation in Ohio in 1874, was over $27,000,000, a larger sum than was ever before collected by tax-gatherers in Ohio.

Altogether the most interesting questions in our State affairs are those which relate to the passage, by the last legislature, of the Geghan bill and the war which the sectarian wing of the Democratic party is now waging against the public schools. In the admirable speech made by Judge Taft at the Republican State Convention, he sounded the key-note to the canvass on this subject. He said "our motto must be universal liberty and universal suffrage, secured by universal education." Before we discuss these questions, it may be well, in order that there may be no excuse for further misrepresentation, to show by whom this subject was introduced into politics, and to state explicitly that we attack no sect and no man, either Protestant or Jew, Catholic or Unbeliever, on account of his conscientious convictions in regard to religion. Who began the agitation of this subject? Why is it agitated? All parties have taken hold of it. The Democratic party in their State convention make it the topic of their longest resolution. In their platform they gave it more space than to any other subject except the currency. Many of the Democratic county conventions also took action upon it.

The Republican State Convention passed resolutions on the question. It is stated that it was considered in about forty Republican county conventions. The State Teachers' Association, at their last meeting, passed unanimously the following resolution. Mr. Tappan, from the Committee on Resolutions, reported the following:

"Resolved, That we are in favor of a free, impartial, and unsectarian education to every child in the State, and that any division of the school fund or appropriation of any part thereof to any religious or private school would be injurious to education and the best interests of the church."

An able address by the Rev. Dr. Jeffers, of Cleveland, showing the "perils which threaten our public schools," was emphatically applauded by that intelligent body of citizens.

The assemblies of the different religious denominations in the State, which have recently been held, have generally, and I think without exception, passed similar resolutions. If blame is to attach to all who consider and discuss this question before the public, we have had a very large body of offenders. But I have not named all who are engaged in it. I have not named those who began it; those who for years have kept it up; those who in the press, on the platform, in the pulpit, in legislative bodies, in city councils, and in school boards, now unceasingly agitate the question. Everybody knows who they are; everybody knows that the sectarian wing of the Democratic party began this agitation, and that it is bent on the destruction of our free schools. If Republicans acting on the defensive discuss the subject, and express the opinion that the Democratic party can't safely be trusted, they are denounced in unmeasured terms. General Carey calls them "political knaves" and "fools" and "bigots." But it is very significant that no Democratic speaker denounces those who began the agitation. All their epithets are leveled at the men who are on the right side of the question. Agitation on the wrong side--agitation against the schools may go on. It meets no condemnation from leading Democratic candidates and speakers. The reason is plain. Those who mean to destroy the school system constitute a formidable part of the Democratic party, without whose support that party, as the legislature was told last Spring, can not carry the county, the city, nor the State.

The sectarian agitation against the public schools was begun many years ago. During the last few years, it has steadily and rapidly increased, and has been encouraged by various indications of possible success. It extends to all of the States where schools at the common expense have been long established. Its triumphs are mainly in the large towns and cities. It has already divided the schools, and in a considerable degree impaired and limited their usefulness. The glory of the American system of education has been that it was so cheap that the humblest citizen could afford to give his children its advantages, and so good that the man of wealth could nowhere provide for his children anything better. This gave the system its most conspicuous merit. It made it a Republican system. The young of all conditions of life are brought together and educated on terms of perfect equality. The tendency of this is to assimilate and to fuse together the various elements of our population, to promote unity, harmony, and general good will in our American society. But the enemies of the American system have begun the work of destroying it. They have forced away from the public schools, in many towns and cities, one-third or one-fourth of their pupils and sent them to schools which it is safe to say are no whit superior to those they have left. These youth are thus deprived of the associations and the education in practical Republicanism and American sentiments which they peculiarly need. Nobody questions their constitutional and legal right to do this, and to do it by denouncing the public schools. Sectarians have a lawful right to say that these schools are "a relict of paganism--that they are Godless," and that "the secular school system is a social cancer." But when having thus succeeded in dividing the schools, they make that a ground for abolishing school taxation, dividing the school fund, or otherwise destroying the system, it is time that its friends should rise up in its defense.

We all agree that neither the government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion both suffer by all such interference. But if Sectarians make demands for legislation of political parties, and threaten that party with opposition at the elections in case the required enactments are not passed, and if the political party yields to such threats, then those threats, those demands, and that action of the political party become a legitimate subject of political discussion, and the sectarians who thus interfere with the legislation of the State are alone responsible for the agitation which follows.

And now a few words as to the action of the last legislature on this subject. After an examination of the Geghan bill, we shall perhaps come to the conclusion that in itself it is not of great importance. I would not undervalue the conscientious scruples on the subject of religion of a convict in the penitentiary, or of any unfortunate person in any State institution. But the provision of the constitution of the State covers the whole ground. It needs no awkwardly framed statute of doubtful meaning, like the Geghan bill, to accomplish the object of the organic law. The old constitution of 1802, and the constitution now in force, of 1851, are substantially alike. Both declare (I quote section 7, article 1, constitution of 1851):

"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship against his consent; and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the right of conscience be permitted."

If the Geghan bill is merely a reenactment of this part of the bill of rights, it is a work of supererogation, and it is not strange that the legislature did not, when it was introduced, favor its passage. The author of the bill wrote, "the members claim that such a bill is not needed." The same opinion prevails in New Jersey, where a similar bill is said to have been defeated by a vote of three to one. But the sectarians of Ohio were resolved on the passage of this bill. Mr. Geghan, its author, wrote to Mr. Murphy, of Cincinnati:

"We have a prior claim upon the Democratic party. The elements composing the Democratic party in Ohio to-day are made up of Irish and German catholics, and they have always been loyal and faithful to the interests of the party. Hence the party is under obligations to us, and we have a perfect right to demand of them, as a party, inasmuch as they are in control of the State legislature and State government, and were by both our means and votes placed where they are to-day, that they should, as a party, redress our grievances."

The organ of the friends of the bill published this letter, and among other things said:

"The political party with which nine-tenths of the Catholic voters affiliate on account of past services that they will never forget, now controls the State. Withdraw the support which Catholics have given to it and it will fall in this city, county, and State, as speedily as it has risen to its long lost position and power. That party is now on trial. Mr. Geghan's bill will test the sincerity of its professions."

That threat was effectual. The bill was passed, and the sectarian organ therefore said:

"The unbroken solid vote of the Catholic citizens of the State will be given to the Democracy at the fall election."

In regard to those who voted against the bill, it said: "They have dug their political grave; it will not be our fault if they do not fill it. When any of them appear again in the political arena, we will put upon them a brand that every Catholic citizen will understand." No defense of this conduct of the last legislature has yet been attempted. The facts are beyond dispute. This is the first example of open and successful sectarian interference with legislation in Ohio. If the people are wise, they will give it such a rebuke in October that for many years, at least, it will be the last.

But it is claimed that the schools are in no danger. Now that public attention is aroused to the importance of the subject, it is probable that in Ohio they are safe. But their safety depends on the rebuke which the people shall give to the party which yielded last spring at Columbus to the threats of their enemies. It is said that no political party "desires the destruction of the schools." I reply, no political party "desired" the passage of the Geghan bill; but the power which hates the schools passed the bill. The sectarian wing of the Democratic party rules that party to-day in the great commercial metropolis of the Nation. It holds the balance of power in many of the large cities of the country. Without its votes, the Democratic party would lose every large city and county in Ohio and every Northern State. In the presidential canvass of 1864, it was claimed that General McClellan was as good a Union man as Abraham Lincoln, and that he was as much opposed to the rebellion. An eminent citizen of this State replied: "I learn from my adversaries. Who do the enemies of the Union want elected? The man they are for, I am against." So I would say to the friends of the public schools: "How do the enemies of universal education vote?" If the enemies of the free schools give their "unbroken, solid vote" to the Democratic ticket, the friends of the schools will make no mistake if they vote the Republican ticket.

The Republicans enter upon this important canvass with many advantages. Their adversaries are loaded down with the record of the last legislature. Democratic legislatures have not been fortunate in Ohio. Since the present division of parties, twenty years ago, no Democratic legislature has ever failed to bring defeat to its party. The people of Ohio have never been willing to venture on the experiment of two Democratic legislatures in succession. The Democratic inflation platform offends German Democrats, has driven off the Liberal Republicans, and is accepted by very few old-fashioned Democrats in its true intent and meaning. The Republicans are out of power in the cities and in the State, and are everywhere taking the offensive. If Democrats assail them on account of some affair of years ago, or in a distant Southern State, or at Washington, Republicans reply by pointing to what Democrats are now doing in their own cities, or have just done in the last legislature. The materials for such retort are abundant and ready at hand. The Republicans are embarrassed by no entangling alliance with the sectarian enemies of the public schools, and they have yielded to no sectarian demands or dictation in public affairs. We rejoice to see indications of an active canvass and a large vote at the election. Such a canvass and such a vote in Ohio never yet resulted in a Democratic victory. Our motto is honest money for all and free schools for all. There should be no inflation which will destroy the one, and no sectarian interference which will destroy the other.

Speech of GOVERNOR HAYES to his neighbors at Fremont, delivered June 25, 1876.

Mr. Mayor, Fellow-Citizens, Friends, and Neighbors:

I need not attempt to express the emotions I feel at the reception which the people of Fremont and this county have given me to-night. Under any circumstances, an assemblage of this sort at my home to welcome me would touch me, would excite the warmest emotions of gratitude; but what gives to this its distinctive character is the fact that those who are prominent in welcoming me home, I know, in the past, have not voted with me or for me, and they do not intend in the future to vote with me or for me. It is simply that, coming to my home, they rejoice that Ohio, that Sandusky county, that the town of Fremont has received at that National Convention high honor, and I thank you, Democrats, fellow-citizens, Independents, and Republicans, for this spontaneous and enthusiastic reception.

I trust that in the course of events the time will never come that you will have cause to regret what you do to-night. It is a very great responsibility that has been placed upon me--to be a representative of a party embracing twenty millions of people--a responsibility which I know I am not equal to. I understand very well that it was not by reason of ability or talents that I was chosen. But that which does rejoice me is that here, where I have been known from my childhood, there are those that come and rejoice at the result.

I trust, my friends, that as I run along in this desultory way--for you well know that since I learned that I was to be here to-night, the multitude of letters, and visits, and telegrams requiring attention have given me no time to prepare for a reception like this--you must, therefore, put up with hastily-formed sentences, very unfitly representing the sentiments appropriate to the occasion. Let me, if I may do it without too much egotism, recur to the history of my connection with Fremont. Forty-two years ago my uncle, Sardis Birchard, brought me to this place, and I rejoice, my friends, in the good taste and good feeling which have placed his portrait here to-night. He, having adopted me as his child, brought me to Fremont. I recollect well the appearance of the then Lower Sandusky, consisting of a few wooden buildings scattered along the river, with little paint on them, and these trees none of them grown, the old fort still having some of its earthworks remaining, so that it could be easily traced. A pleasant village this was for a boy to enjoy himself in. There was the fishing on the river, shooting water-fowls above the dam, at the islands and the lake. Perhaps no boy ever enjoyed his departure from home better than I did when I first came to Fremont.

But now see what this town is,--how it has grown. It has not increased to a first-class city, but it has become a pleasant home, so pleasant, so thriving that I rejoice to think that whatever may be the result next fall it will be pleasant to return to it when the contest is over. If defeated, I shall return to you oftener than if I go to the White House. If I go there I shall look forward with pleasure to the time when I shall be permitted to return to you, to be a neighbor with you again. And really we have cause to be satisfied with our home and the interests which the future has in store for us here. Larger cities always have strife and rivalry, from which we are free, and yet we are well situated between two commercial centers, the Eastern and Western, between which is the great highway of the world, and we can not but partake of their prosperity. Over the railroad passing through this place, or near it, will pass for all time to come the travel and trade of New York and San Francisco, of London and Pekin. Every town along this route partakes of the prosperity of this highway. Upper Sandusky, on the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, and Tiffin, that thriving and beautiful city through which passes the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, south of us, while along the lake shore passes the great northern division of the Lake Shore Road, making this route, as it were, the great artery of the world's travel, and we can abide with the prosperity that is to come in the future. Those of our friends who travel in Europe return sometimes dissatisfied, because there is a rawness in this country not seen in England and the older countries of Europe. But then the greatest happiness, as all of us know, in preparing a garden or a home is to see the improvements growing up under our hands. This is what we enjoy; and the change in Fremont from the time I first knew it till to-day gives me very great pleasure.

There is another change which gives rise to mournful reflections. When I came here in the year 1834, I became acquainted with honored citizens who are no longer living. There was, Mr. Mayor, your father, Rudolphus Dickinson, Thomas I. Hawkins, Judge Olmsted, Judge Howland, and, among others, that marvel of business energy, George Grant; and I might go on giving name after name. But it is true that of all those I remember seeing on that first visit, not one is with us to-night. All who came with me, my uncle, my mother, and my sister, are gone. But this is the order of Providence. Events follow upon one another as wave follows wave upon the ocean. It is for each man to do what he can to make others happy. This is the prayer and this is the duty of life. Let us, my friends, in every position, undertake to perform this duty. For one, I have no reliance except that which Abraham Lincoln had when, on leaving Springfield, he said to his friends: "I go to Washington to assume a responsibility greater than that which has been devolved upon any one since the first president, and I beg you, my friends and neighbors, to pray that I may have that Divine assistance, without which I can not succeed, and with which I can not fail." In that spirit I ask you to deal with me. If it shall be the will of the people that this nomination shall be ratified, I know I shall have your good wishes and your prayers. If, on the other hand, it shall be the will of the people that another shall assume these great responsibilities, let us see to it that we who shall oppose him give him a fair trial.

My friends, I thank you for the interest you have taken in this reception, and that you have laid aside partisan feeling. There has been too much bitterness on such occasions in our land. Let us see to it that abuse and vituperation of the candidate that shall be named at St. Louis do not proceed from our lips. Let us, in this centennial year, as we enter upon this second century of our existence, set an example of what a free and intelligent people can do. There is gathered at Philadelphia an assemblage representing nearly all the Nations of the world, with their arts and manufactures. We have invited competition, and they have come to compete with us, and with each other. We find that America stands well with the works of the world, as there exhibited. Let us show, in electing a chief magistrate of the Nation--the officer that is to be the first of forty or forty-five millions--let us show all those who visit us how the American people can conduct themselves through a canvass of this kind. If it shall be in the spirit in which we have met to-night, if it shall be that justness and fairness shall be in all the discussions, it will commend free institutions to the world in a way which they have never been commended before.

Well, friends, I am detaining you too long. Therefore I close what I have to say by expressing the feelings of gratitude entertained by myself and family for the kindness and regard shown us by the people of Fremont.

About the middle of the war, General Sherman lost a boy, named after himself, aged about thirteen years. He supposed that he belonged to the Thirteenth Infantry, and when they went out to drill and dress parade, he dressed in the dress of a sergeant and marched with them. But he sickened and died. The regiment gathered about him, for he was to them a comrade--dear as the child is loved by men who are torn away from the associations of home. General Sherman, the great soldier, was touched by it. He said it would be idle for him to try to express the gratitude which he felt; but he said they held the key to the affections of himself and family, and if any of them should ever be in need, if they would mention that they belonged to the Thirteenth Infantry at the time his boy died, they would divide with him the last blanket, and last morsel of food. It is in this spirit that I wish to express my thanks to the people of Fremont for the welcome they have given me. I bid you, my friends, good night.