AMERICAN ELOQUENCE

STUDIES IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY

Edited with Introduction by Alexander Johnston

Reedited by James Albert Woodburn

Volume IV. (of 4)

VII. --CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION

VIII. --FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION. 

IX. --FINANCE AND CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 

 CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION

 VII. --CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION

 ABRAHAM LINCOLN First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861. 

 JEFFERSON DAVIS Inaugural Address. Montgomery, Ala. , February 18, 1867. 

 ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS The "Corner-Stone" Address --Atheneum, Savannah, Ga. , March 2, 1861. 

 JOHN CALEB BRECKENRIDGE and EDWIN D. BAKER Suppression Of Insurrection --United States Senate, August 1, 1861. 

 CLEMENT L. VALLANDIGHAM On The War And Its Conduct --House Of Representatives, January 14, 1863. 

 HENRY WARD BEECHER Address At Liverpool, October 16, 1863. 

 ABRAHAM LINCOLN The Gettysburgh Address, November 19, 1863. 

 ABRAHAM LINCOLN Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865. 

 HENRY WINTER DAVIS On Reconstruction ; The First Republican Theory --House Of Representatives, March 22, 1864. 

 GEORGE H. PENDLETON On Reconstruction ; The Democratic Theory --House Of Representatives, May 4, 1864. 

 THADDEUS STEVENS On Reconstruction; Radical Republican Theory --House Of Representatives-December 18, 1865. 

 HENRY J. RAYMOND	. On Reconstruction; Administration Republican Theory --House Of Representatives, December 21, 1865. 

 THADDEUS STEVENS On The First Reconstruction Bill --House Of Representatives, January 3, 1867. 

 VIII. --FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION. 

 HENRY CLAY On The American System --In The United States Senate, February 2-6, 1832. 

 FRANK H. HURD. A Tariff For Revenue Only --House Of Representatives, February 18, 1881. 

 IX. --FINANCE AND CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 

 JUSTIN S. MORRILL On The Remonetization Of Silver --United States Senate, January 28, 1878. 

 JAMES G. BLAINE On The Remonetization Of Silver --United States Senate, February 7, 1878

 JOHN SHERMAN On Silver Coinage And Treasury Notes --United States Senate, June 5, 1890. 

 JOHN P. JONES On Silver Coinage And Treasury Notes --United States Senate, May 12, 1810. 

 GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS On The Spoils System And The Progress Of Civil Service Reform --Address Before The American Social Science Association, Saratoga, N. Y. , September 8, 1881. 

 CARL SCHURZ On The Necessity And Progress Of Civil Service Reform --Address At The Annual Meeting Of The National Civil Service Reform League, Chicago, Ills. , December 12, 1894. 

 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

 GEORGE W. CURTIS--Frontispiece From a painting by SAMUEL LAWRENCE. 

 JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE From a photograph. 

 HENRY W. BEECHER	. Wood-engraving from photograph. 

 ABRAHAM LINCOLN Wood-engraving from photograph. 

 JAMES G. BLAINE Wood-engraving from photograph. 

INTRODUCTION TO THE FOURTH VOLUME. 

The fourth and last volume of the American Eloquent e deals withfour great subjects of discussion in our history, --the Civil War andReconstruction, Free Trade and Protection, Finance, and Civil ServiceReform. In the division on the Civil War there has been substituted inthe new edition, for Mr. Schurz's speech on the Democratic WarPolicy the spirited discussion between Breckenridge and Baker on thesuppression of insurrection. The scene in which these two speeches weredelivered in the United States Senate at the opening of the Civil waris full of historic and dramatic interest, while the speeches themselvesare examples of superior oratory. Mr. Schurz appears to advantage inanother part of the volume in his address on Civil Service Reform. 

The speeches of Thaddeus Stevens and Henry J. Raymond, delivered at theopening of the Reconstruction struggle under President Johnson, arealso new material in this edition. They are fairly representative of twodistinct views in that period of the controversy. These two speeches aresubstituted for the Garfield-Blackburn discussion over a "rider" toan appropriation bill designed to forbid federal control of electionswithin the States. This discussion was only incidental to the problemof reconstruction, and may be said to have occurred at a time (1879)subsequent to the close of the Reconstruction period proper. 

The material on Free Trade and Protection has been left unchangedfor the reason that it appears to the present editor quite useless toattempt to secure better material on the tariff discussion. There mightbe added valuable similar material from later speeches on the tariff, but the two speeches of Clay and Hurd may be said to contain theessential merits of the long-standing tariff debate. 

The section of the volume devoted to Finance and Civil Service Reformis entirely new. The two speeches of Curtis and Schurz are deemedsufficient to set forth the merits of the movement for the reform ofthe Civil Service. The magnitude of our financial controversies during acentury of our history precludes the possibility of securing an adequaterepresentation of them in speeches which might come within the scope ofsuch a volume as this. It has, therefore, seemed best to the editor toconfine the selections on Finance to the period since the Civil War, andto the subject of coinage, rather than to attempt to include also thekindred subjects of banking and paper currency. The four representativespeeches on the coinage will, however, bring into view the variousprinciples of finance which have determined the differences anddivisions in party opinion on all phases of this great subject. 

J. A. W. 

VII. --CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. 

THE transformation of the original secession movement into a _de facto_nationality made war inevitable, but acts of war had already takenplace, with or without State authority. Seizures of forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, and navy yards, and captures of Federal troops, had completely extinguished the authority of the United States inthe secession area, except at Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and FortPickens and the forts at Key West in Florida; and active operations toreduce these had been begun. When an attempt was made, late in January, 1861, to provision Fort Sumter, the provision steamer, Star of theWest, was fired on by the South Carolina batteries and driven back. Nevertheless, the Buchanan administration succeeded in keeping the peaceuntil its constitutional expiration in March, 1861, although the rivaland irreconcilable administration at Montgomery was busily engaged insecuring its exclusive authority in the seceding States. 

Neither of the two incompatible administrations was anxious to strikethe first blow. Mr. Lincoln's administration began with the policyoutlined in his inaugural address, that of insisting on collection ofthe duties on imports, and avoiding all other irritating measures. Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, even talked of compensating for the loss ofthe seceding States by admissions from Canada and elsewhere. The urgentneeds of Fort Sumter, however, soon forced an attempt to provisionit; and this brought on a general attack upon it by the Confederatebatteries around it. After a bombardment of two days, and a vigorousdefence by the fort, in which no one was killed on either side, the fortsurrendered, April 14, 1861. It was now impossible for the United Statesto ignore the Confederate States any longer. President Lincoln issueda call for volunteers, and a proclamation announcing a blockade of thecoast of the seceding States. A similar call on the other side and theissue of letters of marque and reprisal against the commerce of theUnited States were followed by an act of the Confederate Congressformally recognizing the existence of war with the United States. The two powers were thus locked in a struggle for life or death, theConfederate States fighting for existence and recognition, the UnitedStates for the maintenance of recognized boundaries and jurisdiction;the Confederate States claiming to be at war with a foreign power, theUnited States to be engaged in the suppression of individual resistanceto the laws. The event was to decide between the opposing claims; and itwas certain that the event must be the absolute extinction of either theConfederate States or the United States within the area of secession. 

President Lincoln called Congress together in special session, July 4, 1861; and Congress at once undertook to limit the scope of the warin regard to two most important points, slavery and State rights. Resolutions passed both Houses, by overwhelming majorities, that slaveryin the seceding States was not to be interfered with, that the autonomyof the States themselves was to be strictly maintained, and that, whenthe Union was made secure, the war ought to cease. If the war had endedin that month, these resolutions would have been of some value; everymonth of the extension of the war made them of less value. They wererepeatedly offered afterward from the Democratic side, but were asregularly laid on the table. Their theory, however, continued to controlthe Democratic policy to the end of the war. 

For a time the original policy was to all appearance unaltered. The warwas against individuals only; and peace was to be made with individualsonly, the States remaining untouched, but the Confederate States beingblotted out in the process. The only requisite to recognition of aseceding State was to be the discovery of enough loyal or pardonedcitizens to set its machinery going again. Thus the delegates from theforty western counties of Virginia were recognized as competent togive the assent of Virginia to the erection of the new State of WestVirginia; and the Senators and Representatives of the new State actuallysat in judgment on the reconstruction of the parent State, althoughthe legality of the parent government was the evident measure of theconstitutional existence of the new State. Such inconsistencies werethe natural results of the changes forced upon the Federal policy by theevents of the war, as it grew wider and more desperate. 

The first of these changes was the inevitable attack upon slavery. The labor system of the seceding States was a mark so tempting that nobelligerent should have been seriously expected to have refrained fromaiming at it. January 1, 1863, after one hundred days' notice, PresidentLincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves withinthe enemy's lines as rapidly as the Federal arms should advance. Thisone break in the original policy involved, as possible consequences, allthe ultimate steps of reconstruction. Read-mission was no longer to be asimple restoration; abolition of slavery was to be a condition-precedentwhich the government could never abandon. If the President could imposesuch a condition, who was to put bounds to the power of Congress toimpose limitations on its part? The President had practically declared, contrary to the original policy, that the war should continue untilslavery was abolished; what was to hinder Congress from declaring thatthe war should continue until, in its judgment, the last remnants of theConfederate States were satisfactorily blotted out? This, in effect, was the basis of reconstruction, as finally carried out. The steadyopposition of the Democrats only made the final terms the harder. 

The principle urged consistently from the beginning of the war byThaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, was that serious resistance to theConstitution implied the suspension of the Constitution in the areaof resistance. No one, he insisted, could truthfully assert that theConstitution of the United States was then in force in South Carolina;why should Congress be bound by the Constitution in matters connectedwith South Carolina? If the resistance should be successful, thesuspension of the Constitution would evidently be perpetual; Congressalone could decide when the resistance had so far ceased thatthe operations of the Constitution could be resumed. The terms ofreadmission were thus to be laid down by Congress. To much the sameeffect was the different theory of Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts. While he held that the seceding States could not remove themselves fromthe national jurisdiction, except by successful war, he maintainedthat no Territory was obliged to become a State, and that no State wasobliged to remain a State; that the seceding States had repudiated theirState-hood, had committed suicide as States, and had become Territories;and that the powers of Congress to impose conditions on theirreadmission were as absolute as in the case of other Territories. Neither of these theories was finally followed out in reconstruction, but both had a strong influence on the final process. 

President Lincoln followed the plan subsequently completed by Johnson. The original (Pierpont) government of Virginia was recognized andsupported. Similar governments were established in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and an unsuccessful attempt was made to do so in Florida. The amnesty proclamation of December, 1863, offered to recognize anyState government in the seceding States formed by one tenth of theformer voters who should take the oath of loyalty and support of theemancipation measures. At the following session of Congress, the firstbill providing for congressional supervision of the readmission ofthe seceding States was passed, but the President retained it withoutsigning it until Congress had adjourned. At the time of PresidentLincoln's assassination Congress was not in session, and PresidentJohnson had six months in which to complete the work. Provisionalgovernors were appointed, conventions were called, the Stateconstitutions were amended by the abolition of slavery and therepudiation of the war debt, and the ordinances of secession were eithervoided or repealed. When Congress met in December, 1865, the work hadbeen completed, the new State governments were in operation, and theXIIIth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been ratified by aid of theirvotes. Congress, however, still refused to admit their Senators orRepresentatives. The first action of many of the new governments hadbeen to pass labor, contract, stay, and vagrant laws which looked muchlike a re-establishment of slavery, and the majority in Congress feltthat further guarantees for the security of the freedmen were necessarybefore the war could be truly said to be over. 

Early in 1866 President Johnson imprudently carried matters into an openquarrel with Congress, which united the two thirds Republican majorityin both Houses against him. The elections of the autumn of 1866 showedthat the two thirds majorities were to be continued through the nextCongress; and in March, 1867, the first Reconstruction Act was passedover the veto. It declared the existing governments in the secedingStates to be provisional only; put the States under military governorsuntil State conventions, elected with negro suffrage and excludingthe classes named in the proposed XIVth Amendment, should form a Stategovernment satisfactory to Congress, and the State government shouldratify the XIVth Amendment; and made this rule of suffrage imperativein all elections under the provisional governments until they should bereadmitted. This was a semi-voluntary reconstruction. In the samemonth the new Congress, which met immediately on the adjournment ofits predecessor, passed a supplementary act. It directed the militarygovernors to call the conventions before September 1st following, andthus enforced an involuntary reconstruction. 

Tennessee had been readmitted in 1866. North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas were reconstructed under theacts, and were readmitted in 1868. Georgia was also readmitted, but wasremanded again for expelling negro members of her Legislature, and camein under the secondary terms. Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas, which had refused or broken the first terms, were admitted in 1870, onthe additional terms of ratifying the XVth Amendment, which forbade theexclusion of the negroes from the elective franchise. 

In Georgia the white voters held control of their State from thebeginning. In the other seceding States the government passed, atvarious times and by various methods during the next six years after1871, under control of the whites, who still retain control. One of theavowed objects of reconstruction has thus failed; but, to one who doesnot presume that all things will be accomplished at a single leap, thescheme, in spite of its manifest blunders and crudities, must seem tohave had a remarkable success. Whatever the political status of thenegro may now be in the seceding States, it may be confidently affirmedthat it is far better than it would have been in the same time underan unrestricted readmission. The whites, all whose energies have beenstrained to secure control of their States, have been glad, in returnfor this success to yield a measure of other civil rights to thefreedmen, which is already fuller than ought to have been hoped for in1867. And, as the general elective franchise is firmly imbedded in theorganic law, its ultimate concession will come more easily and gentlythan if it were then an entirely new step. 

During this long period of almost continuous exertion of national powerthere were many subsidiary measures, such as the laws authorizing theappointment of supervisors for congressional elections, and the use ofFederal troops as a _posse comitatus_ by Federal supervisors, whichwere not at all in line with the earlier theory of the division betweenFederal and State powers. The Democratic party gradually abandonedits opposition to reconstruction, accepting it as a disagreeable butaccomplished fact, but kept up and increased its opposition to thesubsidiary measures. About 1876-7 a reaction became evident, and withPresident Hayes' withdrawal of troops from South Carolina, Federalcontrol of affairs in the Southern States came to an end. 

Foreign affairs are not strictly a part of our subject; but, as going toshow one of the dangerous features of the Civil War, the possibilityof the success of the secession sentiment in England in obtaining theintervention of that country, the speech of Mr. Beecher in Liver-pool, with the addenda of his audience, has been given. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, OF ILLINOIS. (BORN 1809, DIED 1865. )

FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MARCH 4, 1861. 

FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES:

In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appearbefore you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oathprescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by thePresident "before he enters on the execution of his office. "

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss thosematters of administration about which there is no special anxiety orexcitement. 

Apprehension seems to exist, among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican administration their property andtheir peace and personal security are to be endangered. There never hasbeen any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ampleevidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open totheir inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches ofhim who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speecheswhen I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, tointerfere with the institution of slavery in the States whereit exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have noinclination to do so. " Those who nominated and elected me did so withfull knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, andhad never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platformfor my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear andemphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control itsown domestic institutions according to its judgment exclusively, isessential to the balance of power on which the perfection and enduranceof our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion byarmed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under whatpretext, as among the gravest of crimes. "

I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press uponthe public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case issusceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section areto be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitutionand the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States, when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause, as cheerfully to one sectionas to another. 

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives fromservice or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in theConstitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the lawsthereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law orregulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shallbe delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor maybe due. "

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those whomade it for the re-claiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and theintention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress sweartheir support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much asany other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come withinthe terms of this clause, "shall be delivered up, " their oaths areunanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could theynot, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of whichto keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should beenforced by National or by State authority; but surely that differenceis not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can beof but little consequence to him, or to others, by what authority it isdone. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shouldgo unkept, on a mere unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall bekept?

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards ofliberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, sothat a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And mightit not be well, at the same time, to provide by law for the enforcementof that clause of the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizensof each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities ofcitizens in the several States"?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservation, and with nopurpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress asproper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by allthose acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trustingto find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. 

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a Presidentunder our National Constitution. During that period, fifteen differentand greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered theExecutive branch of the government. They have conducted it through manyperils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope forprecedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutionalterm of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption ofthe Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 

I hold that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if notexpressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It issafe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in itsorganic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all theexpress provisions of our National Government, and the Union will endureforever--it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action notprovided for in the instrument itself. 

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but anassociation of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it?One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but doesit not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the historyof the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. Itwas formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. 

It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen Statesexpressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by theArticles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of thedeclared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "toform a more perfect union. "

But if destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of theStates, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before, theConstitution having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 

It follows, from these views, that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to thateffect are legally void; and that acts of violence within any State orStates, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionaryor revolutionary, according to circumstances. 

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, theUnion is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, asthe Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of theUnion be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem tobe only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far aspracticable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shallwithhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, directthe contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only asthe declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defendand maintain itself. In doing this there need be no blood-shed orviolence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the Nationalauthority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, andpossess the property and places belonging to the government, and tocollect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary forthese objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against oramong the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, inany interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to preventcompetent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there willbe no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for thatobject. While the strict legal right may exist in the government toenforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be soirritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better toforego, for the time, the uses of such offices. 

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all partsof the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have thatsense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought andreflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless currentevents and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hopeof a peaceful solution of the National troubles, and the restoration offraternal sympathies and affections. 

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroythe Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I willneither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word tothem. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of ourNational fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain why we do it? Will you hazard sodesperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of thecertain ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while thecertain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you flyfrom, --will you risk the omission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights canbe maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in theConstitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind isso constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly writtenprovision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mereforce of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearlywritten constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities andof individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations andnegations, guaranties and prohibitions in the Constitution, thatcontroversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can everbe framed with a provision specifically applicable to every questionwhich may occur in practical administration. No foresight cananticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, expressprovisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor besurrendered by National or State authority? The Constitution does notexpressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? TheConstitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery inthe Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 

From questions of this class spring all our constitutionalcontroversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the governmentmust cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the governmentis acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such casewill secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede fromthem whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a yearor two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of thepresent Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunionsentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. 

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to composea new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. Amajority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, andalways changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions andsentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejectsit, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity isimpossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is whollyinadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy ordespotism, in some form, is all that is left. * * *

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respectivesections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. Ahusband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyondthe reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannotdo this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, eitheramicable or hostile, must continue between them. It is impossible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory afterseparation than before. Can aliens make treaties easier than friends canmake laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens thanlaws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always, and when after much loss on both sides and no gain on either you ceasefighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse areagain upon you. 

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabitit. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government theycan exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or theirrevolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorantof the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous ofhaving the National Constitution amended. * * * I understand a proposedamendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have notseen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Governmentshall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction ofwhat I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particularamendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision now tobe implied constitutional law, I have no objections to its being madeexpress and irrevocable. '

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, andthey have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of theStates. The people themselves can do this also if they choose, but theExecutive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administerthe present government as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. Why should there not be a patientconfidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any betteror equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either partywithout faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, oryours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, bythe judgment of this great tribunal of the American people. By the frameof the Government under which we live, the same people have wisely giventheir public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equalwisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at veryshort intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can veryseriously injure the government in the short space of four years. 

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this wholesubject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be anobject to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would nevertake deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but nogood object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfiedstill have the old Constitution unimpaired, and on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administrationwill have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If itwere admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in thisdispute there is still no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him whohas never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent toadjust in the best way all our present difficulty. In your hands, mydissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, are the momentousissues of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can haveno conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oathregistered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have themost solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. 

I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not beenemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, ourbonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory, stretching from everybattle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearth-stoneall over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union whenagain touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of ournature. 

JEFFERSON DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI. ' (BORN 1808, DIED 1889. )

INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MONTGOMERY, ALA. , FEBRUARY 18, 1861. 

GENTLEMEN OF THE CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, FRIENDS, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:

Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the historyof nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon theconsent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alterand abolish governments whenever they become destructive to the endsfor which they were established. The declared compact of the Unionfrom which we have withdrawn was to establish justice, ensure domestictranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the generalwelfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and ourposterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States nowcomposing this Confederacy it has been perverted from the purposes forwhich it was ordained, and ceased to answer the ends for which it wasestablished, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that, so faras they were concerned, the government created by that compact shouldcease to exist. In this they merely asserted the right which theDeclaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of thetime and occasion of this exercise they as sovereigns were the finaljudges, each for himself. The impartial, enlightened verdict of mankindwill vindicate the rectitude of our conduct; and He who knows the heartsof men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve thegovernment of our fathers in its spirit. 

The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and whichhas been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of the Statessubsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognizes inthe people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposesof government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded toform this Confederacy; and it is by the abuse of language that their acthas been denominated revolution. They formed a new alliance, butwithin each State its government has remained. The rights of personand property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom theycommunicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does notnecessarily interrupt their international relations. Sustained by theconsciousness that the transition from the former Union to the presentConfederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of our justobligations or any failure to perform every constitutional duty, movedby no interest or passion to invade the rights of others, anxious tocultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope toavoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us ofhaving needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified by the absence ofwrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, therecan be no use to doubt the courage and patriotism of the people of theConfederate States will be found equal to any measure of defence whichsoon their security may require. 

An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of acommodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy ispeace and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It isalike our interest and that of all those to whom we would sell andfrom whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicablerestrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be butlittle rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigatingcommunity, such as the northeastern States of the American Union. Itmust follow, therefore, that mutual interest would invite good-will andkind offices. If, however, passion or lust of dominion should cloud thejudgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare tomeet the emergency, and maintain by the final arbitrament of the swordthe position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. 

We have entered upon a career of independence, and it must be inflexiblypursued through many years of controversy with our late associates ofthe Northern States. We have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillityand obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. As anecessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation, and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our ownaffairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which we have formed. Ifa just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursueour separate political career, my most earnest desire will have beenfulfilled. But if this be denied us, and the integrity of our territoryand jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us with firmresolve to appeal to arms and invoke the blessing of Providence on ajust cause. * * *

Actuated solely by a desire to preserve our own rights, and to promoteour own welfare, the separation of the Confederate States has beenmarked by no aggression upon others, and followed by no domesticconvulsion. Our industrial pursuits have received no check, thecultivation of our fields progresses as heretofore, and even should webe involved in war, there would be no considerable diminution in theproduction of the staples which have constituted our exports, in whichthe commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own. Thiscommon interest of producer and consumer can only be intercepted byan exterior force which should obstruct its transmission to foreignmarkets, a course of conduct which would be detrimental to manufacturingand commercial interests abroad. 

Should reason guide the action of the government from which we haveseparated, a policy so detrimental to the civilized world, the NorthernStates included, could not be dictated by even a stronger desireto inflict injury upon us; but if it be otherwise, a terribleresponsibility will rest upon it, and the suffering of millions willbear testimony to the folly and wickedness of our aggressors. In themeantime there will remain to us, besides the ordinary remedies beforesuggested, the well-known resources for retaliation upon the commerce ofan enemy. * * * We have changed the constituent parts but not the systemof our government. The Constitution formed by our fathers is that ofthese Confederate States. In their exposition of it, and in the judicialconstruction it has received, we have a light which reveals itstrue meaning. Thus instructed as to the just interpretation of thatinstrument, and ever remembering that all offices are but trusts heldfor the people, and that delegated powers are to be strictly construed, I will hope by due diligence in the performance of my duties, though Imay disappoint your expectation, yet to retain, when retiring, somethingof the good-will and confidence which will welcome my entrance intooffice. 

It is joyous in the midst of perilous times to look around upon a peopleunited in heart, when one purpose of high resolve animates and actuatesthe whole, where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in thebalance, against honor, right, liberty, and equality. Obstacles mayretard, but they cannot long prevent, the progress of a movementsanctioned by its justice and sustained by a virtuous people. Reverentlylet us invoke the God of our fathers to guide and protect us in ourefforts to perpetuate the principles which by His blessing they wereable to vindicate, establish, and transmit to their posterity; andwith a continuance of His favor, ever gratefully acknowledged, we mayhopefully look forward to success, to peace, to prosperity. 

ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA. (BORN 1812, DIED 1884. )

THE "CORNER-STONE" ADDRESS;

ATHENAEUM, SAVANNAH, GA. , MARCH 21, 1861

MR. MAYOR AND GENTLEMEN:

We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. Thelast ninety days will mark one of the most interesting eras in thehistory of modern civilization. Seven States have in the last threemonths thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolutionhas been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its havingbeen accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. This newconstitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to whichyour attention will be partly invited. 

In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply securesall our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the greatprinciples of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived oflife, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under thelaws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which wasthe honor and pride of the old Constitution, is still maintained andsecured. All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endearedit to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved andperpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should prefernot to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordialapprobation. They form great improvements upon the old Constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it asmy judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. 

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The questionof building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry tothe prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, whichgave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at restforever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view ofgiving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broadprinciples of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are leftfree and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This oldthorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in theold body politic, is removed forever from the new. 

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congressto regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old Constitution, was at least adoubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. ** * Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to allnecessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a questionupon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have doneas much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion ofthe country, according to population and means. We have stretched outlines of railroad from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down thehills, and filled up the valleys, at a cost of $25, 000, 000. * * * NoState was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we didnot ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of thecommon treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and theequipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into theenterprise. Nay, more, not only the cost of the iron--no small item inthe general cost--was borne in the same way, but we were compelledto pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for theprivilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid intothe common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it tothe improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle isto subject the commerce of every locality to whatever burdens may benecessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, letthe commerce of Charleston bear the burden. * * * This, again, is thebroad principle of perfect equality and justice; and it is especiallyset forth and established in our new constitution. 

Another feature to which I will allude is that the new constitutionprovides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may havethe privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House ofRepresentatives, may have the right to participate in the debates anddiscussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should havepreferred that this provision should have gone further, and requiredthe President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senateand House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to thepractice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of thewisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only featurethat saves that government. It is that which gives it stability inits facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a greatapproximation to the right principle. * * *

Another change in the Constitution relates to the length of the tenureof the Presidential office. In the new constitution it is six yearsinstead of four, and the President is rendered ineligible for are-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It willremove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert thepowers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The onlyincentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate oneholding such high trusts in his hands will be the good of the people, the advancement, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of theConfederacy. 

But, not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for thebetter, allow me to allude to one other--though last, not least. Thenew constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questionsrelating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it existsamongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this as the "rock upon whichthe old Union would split. " He was right. What was conjecture with himis now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the greattruth upon which that rock stood and stands may be doubted. Theprevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmenat the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that theenslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; thatit was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was anevil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of themen of that day was that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though notincorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to theinstitution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justlyurged against the constitutional guaranties thus secured, because of thecommon sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentallywrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. Thiswas an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built uponit fell when "the storm came and the wind blew. "

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; itsfoundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth thatthe negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery--subordination tothe superior race--is his natural and normal condition. 

This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world basedupon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth hasbeen slow in the process of its development, like all other truths inthe various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth wasnot generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the pastgeneration still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at theNorth who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, wejustly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration ofthe mind, from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. Oneof the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, isforming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises. So withthe antislavery fanatics; their conclusions are right, if their premiseswere. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that heis entitled to equal rights and privileges with the white man. If theirpremises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but, their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect oncehearing a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power andability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled ultimately to yield upon thissubject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfullyagainst a principle in politics as it was in physics or mechanics; thatthe principle would ultimately prevail; that we, in maintaining slaveryas it exists with us, were warring against a principle, founded innature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to himwas that upon his own grounds we should ultimately succeed, and thathe and his associates in this crusade against our institutions wouldultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to warsuccessfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics andmechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those actingwith him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting tomake things equal which the Creator had made unequal. 

In the conflict, thus far, success has been on our side, completethroughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It isupon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and Icannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognitionof this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world. 

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow indevelopment, as all truths are and ever have been, in the variousbranches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo. It was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. Itwas so with Harvey and his theory of the circulation of the blood; itis stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at thetime of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Nowthey are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look withconfidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths uponwhich our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted uponthe principles in strict conformity to nature and the ordinationof Providence in furnishing the materials of human society. Manygovernments have been founded upon the principle of the subordinationand serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are inviolation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation ofnature's laws. With us, all the white race, however high or low, richor poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro;subordination is his place. He, by nature or by the curse againstCanaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundationwith the proper material--the granite; then comes the brick or themarble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted bynature for it; and by experience we know that it is best not only forthe superior race, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. Itis, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is notfor us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to questionthem. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory. " Thegreat objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity toHis laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as inall things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strictconformity with these views. This stone, which was rejected by the firstbuilders, "is become the chief of the corner, " the real "corner-stone"in our new edifice. * * *

Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contestpreceding his election, that there might be differences of opinionwithout differences of principle, and that all, to some extent, hadbeen Federalists, and all Republicans. So it may now be said of usthat, whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in havinga cooperation with our border sister slave States, if the worst cameto the worst, as we were all cooperationists, we are all now forindependence, whether they come or not. * * *

We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations;we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, andstatesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue, and patriotism on the part of the people, success to the full measureof our most sanguine hopes may be looked for. But, if unwise counselsprevail, if we become divided, if schisms arise, if dissensions springup, if factions are engendered, if party spirit, nourished by unholypersonal ambition, shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesyfor you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism onthe part of the people, no republic or representative government can bedurable or stable. 

JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE, and EDWARD D. BAKER

JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE, OF KENTUCKY, (BORN 1825, DIED 1875), EDWARD D. BAKER, OF OREGON, (BORN 1811, DIED 1861)

ON SUPPRESSION OF INSURRECTION, UNITED STATES SENATE, AUGUST I, 1861. 

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. I do not know how the Senate may vote upon thisquestion; and I have heard some remarks which have dropped from certainSenators which have struck me with so much surprise, that I desire tosay a few words in reply to them now. 

This drama, sir, is beginning to open before us, and we begin tocatch some idea of its magnitude. Appalled by the extent of it, andembarrassed by what they see before them and around them, the Senatorswho are themselves the most vehement in urging on this course of events, are beginning to quarrel among themselves as to the precise way in whichto regulate it. 

The Senator from Vermont objects to this bill because it puts alimitation on what he considers already existing powers on the part ofthe President. I wish to say a few words presently in regard to someprovisions of this bill, and then the Senate and the country may judgeof the extent of those powers of which this bill is a limitation. 

I endeavored, Mr. President, to demonstrate a short time ago, that thewhole tendency of our proceedings was to trample the Constitution underour feet, and to conduct this contest without the slightest regard toits provisions. Everything that has occurred since, demonstrates thatthe view I took of the conduct and tendency of public affairs wascorrect. Already both Houses of Congress have passed a bill virtually toconfiscate all the property in the States that have withdrawn, declaringin the bill to which I refer that all property of every descriptionemployed in any way to promote or aid in the insurrection, as it isdenominated, shall be forfeited and confiscated. I need not say toyou, sir, that all property of every kind is employed in those States, directly or indirectly, in aid of the contest they are waging, andconsequently that bill is a general confiscation of all property there. 

As if afraid, however, that this general term might not apply to slaveproperty, it adds an additional section. Although they were covered bythe first section of the bill, to make sure of that, however, it addsanother section, declaring that all persons held to service or labor;who shall be employed in any way to aid or promote the contest nowwaging, shall be discharged from such service and become free: Nothingcan be more apparent than that that is a general act of emancipation;because all the slaves in that country are employed in furnishing themeans of subsistence and life to those who are prosecuting the contest;and it is an indirect, but perfectly certain mode of carrying out thepurposes contained in the bill introduced by the Senator from Kansas(Mr. Pomeroy). It is doing under cover and by indirection, butcertainly, what he proposes shall be done by direct proclamation of thePresident. 

Again, sir: to show that all these proceedings are characterized by anutter disregard of the Federal Constitution, what is happening around usevery day? In the State of New York, some young man has been imprisonedby executive authority upon no distinct charge, and the military officerhaving him in charge refused to obey the writ of _habeas corpus_ issuedby a judge. What is the color of excuse for that action in the Stateof New York? As a Senator said, is New York in resistance to theGovernment? Is there any danger to the stability of the Governmentthere? Then, sir, what reason will any Senator rise and give on thisfloor for the refusal to give to the civil authorities the body of a mantaken by a military commander in the State of New York?

Again: the police commissioners of Baltimore were arrested by militaryauthority without any charges whatever. In vain they have asked fora specification. In vain they have sent a respectful protest to theCongress of the United States. In vain the House of Representatives, byresolution, requested the President to furnish the representatives ofthe people with the grounds of their arrest. He answers the House ofRepresentatives that, in his judgment, the public interest does notpermit him to say why they were arrested, on what charges, or what hehas done with them--and you call this liberty and law and proceedingsfor the preservation of the Constitution! They have been spirited offfrom one fortress to another, their locality unknown, and the Presidentof the United States refuses, upon the application of the most numerousbranch of the national Legislature, to furnish them with the grounds oftheir arrest, or to inform them what he has done with them. 

Sir, it was said the other day by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Browning) that I had assailed the conduct of the Executive withvehemence, if not with malignity. I am not aware that I have done so. I criticised, with the freedom that belongs to the representative of asovereign State and the people, the conduct of the Executive. I shallcontinue to do so as long as I hold a seat upon this floor, when, in myopinion, that conduct deserves criticism. Sir, I need not say that, inthe midst of such events as surround us, I could not cherish personalanimosity towards any human being. Towards that distinguished officer, Inever did cherish it. Upon the contrary, I think more highly of him, as a man and an officer, than I do of many who are around him and who, perhaps guide his counsels. I deem him to be personally an honest man, and I believe that he is trampling upon the Constitution of his countryevery day, with probably good motives, under the counsels of those whoinfluence him. But, sir, I have nothing now to say about the President. The proceedings of Congress have eclipsed the actions of the Executive;and if this bill shall become a law, the proceedings of the Presidentwill sink into absolute nothingness in the presence of the outrages uponpersonal and public liberty which have been perpetrated by the Congressof the United States. 

 * * * * *

Mr. President, gentlemen talk about the Union as if it was an endinstead of a means. They talk about it as if it was the Union of theseStates which alone had brought into life the principles of public andof personal liberty. Sir, they existed before, and they may survive it. Take care that in pursuing one idea you you do not destroy not onlythe Constitution of your country, but sever what remains of the FederalUnion. These eternal and sacred principles of public men and of personalliberty, which lived before the Union and will live forever and eversomewhere, must be respected; they cannot with impunity be overthrown;and if you force the people to the issue between any form of governmentand these priceless principles, that form of government will perish;they will tear it asunder as the irrepressible forces of nature rendwhatever opposes them. 

Mr. President, I shall not long detain the Senate. I shall not enternow upon an elaborate discussion of all the principles involved in thisbill, and all the consequences which, in my opinion, flow from it. Aword in regard to what fell from the Senator from Vermont, the substanceof which has been uttered by a great many Senators on this floor. What Itried to show some time ago has been substantially admitted. One Senatorsays that the Constitution is put aside in a struggle like this. AnotherSenator says that the condition of affairs is altogether abnormal, andthat you cannot deal with them on constitutional principles, any morethan you can deal, by any of the regular operations of the laws ofnature, with an earthquake. The Senator from Vermont says that all theseproceedings are to be conducted according to the laws of war; and headds that the laws of war require many things to be done which areabsolutely forbidden in the Constitution; which Congress is prohibitedfrom doing, and all other departments of the Government are forbiddenfrom doing by the Constitution; but that they are proper under the lawsof war, which must alone be the measure of our action now. I desire thecountry, then, to know this fact; that it is openly avowed upon thisfloor that constitutional limitations are no longer to be regarded;but that you are acting just as if there were two nations upon thiscontinent, one arrayed against the other; some eighteen or twentymillion on one side, and some ten or twelve million on the other, as towhom the Constitution is nought, and the laws of war alone apply. 

Sir, let the people, already beginning to pause and reflect upon theorigin and nature and the probable consequences of this unhappy strife, get this idea fairly lodged in their minds--and it is a true one--andI will venture to say that the brave words which we now hear everyday about crushing, subjugating, treason, and traitors, will not beso uttered the next time the Representatives of the people and Statesassemble beneath the dome of this Capitol. 

 * * * * *

Mr. President, we are on the wrong tack; we have been from thebeginning. The people begin to see it. Here we have been hurling gallantfellows on to death, and the blood of Americans has been shed--for what?They have shown their prowess, respectively--that which belongs tothe race--and shown it like men. But for what have the United Statessoldiers, according to the exposition we have heard here to-day, beenshedding their blood, and displaying their dauntless courage? It hasbeen to carry out principles that three fourths of them abhor; for theprinciples contained in this bill, and continually avowed on the floorof the Senate, are not shared, I venture to say, by one fourth of thearmy. 

I have said, sir, that we are on the wrong tack. Nothing but ruin, utterruin, to the North, to the South, to the East, to the West, will followthe prosecution of this contest. You may look forward to countlesstreasures all spent for the purpose of desolating and ravaging thiscontinent; at the end leaving us just where we are now; or if the forcesof the United States are successful in ravaging the whole South, what onearth will be done with it after that is accomplished? Are not gentlemennow perfectly satisfied that they have mistaken a people for a faction?Are they not perfectly satisfied that, to accomplish their object, itis necessary to subjugate, to conquer--aye, to exterminate--nearly tenmillions of people? Do you not know it? Does not everybody know it? Doesnot the world know it? Let us pause, and let the Congress of the UnitedStates respond to the rising feeling all over this land in favor ofpeace. War is separation; in the language of an eminent gentleman nowno more, it is disunion, eternal and final disunion. We have separationnow; it is only made worse by war, and an utter extinction of allthose sentiments of common interest and feeling which might lead toa political reunion founded upon consent and upon a conviction of itsadvantages. Let the war go on, however, and soon, in addition to themoans of widows and orphans all over this land, you will hear the cry ofdistress from those who want food and the comforts of life. The peoplewill be unable to pay the grinding taxes which a fanatical spiritwill attempt to impose upon them. Nay, more, sir; you will see furtherseparation. I hope it is not "the sunset of life gives me mysticallore, " but in my mind's eye I plainly see "coming events cast theirshadows before. " The Pacific slope now, doubtless, is devoted to theunion of States. Let this war go on till they find the burdens oftaxation greater than the burdens of a separate condition, and they willassert it. Let the war go on until they see the beautiful featuresof the old Confederacy beaten out of shape and comeliness by thebrutalizing hand of war, and they will turn aside in disgust from thesickening spectacle, and become a separate nation. Fight twelve monthslonger, and the already opening differences that you see between NewEngland and the great Northwest will develop themselves. You have twoconfederacies now. Fight twelve months, and you will have three; twelvemonths longer, and you will have four. 

I will not enlarge upon it, sir. I am quite aware that all I say isreceived with a sneer of incredulity by the gentlemen who represent thefar Northeast; but let the future determine who was right and who waswrong. We are making our record here; I, my humble one, amid thesneers and aversion of nearly all who surround me, giving my votes, and uttering my utterances according to my convictions, with but fewapproving voices, and surrounded by scowls. The time will soon come, Senators, when history will put her final seal upon these proceedings, and if my name shall be recorded there, going along with yours as anactor in these scenes, I am willing to abide, fearlessly, her finaljudgment. 

MR. BAKER. 

Mr. President, it has not been my fortune to participate in at anylength, indeed, not to hear very much of, the discussion which has beengoing on--more, I think, in the hands of the Senator from Kentucky thananybody else--upon all the propositions connected with this war; and, asI really feel as sincerely as he can an earnest desire to preserve theConstitution of the United States for everybody, South as well as North, I have listened for some little time past to what he has said withan earnest desire to apprehend the point of his objection to thisparticular bill. And now--waiving what I think is the elegant but loosedeclamation in which he chooses to indulge--I would propose, withmy habitual respect for him, (for nobody is more courteous and moregentlemanly, ) to ask him if he will be kind enough to tell me whatsingle particular provision there is in this bill which is in violationof the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn tosupport--one distinct, single proposition in the bill. 

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. I will state, in general terms, that every one of themis, in my opinion, flagrantly so, unless it may be the last. I will sendthe Senator the bill, and he may comment on the sections. 

MR. BAKER. Pick out that one which is in your judgment most clearly so. 

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. They are all, in my opinion, so equally atrocious thatI dislike to discriminate. I will send the Senator the bill, and I tellhim that every section, except the last, in my opinion, violates theConstitution of the United States; and of that last section, I expressno opinion. 

MR. BAKER. I had hoped that that respectful suggestion to the Senatorwould enable him to point out to me one, in his judgment, most clearlyso, for they are not all alike--they are not equally atrocious. 

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. Very nearly. There are ten of them. The Senator canselect which he pleases. 

MR. BAKER. Let me try then, if I must generalize as the Senator does, to see if I can get the scope and meaning of this bill. It is a billproviding that the President of the United States may declare, byproclamation, in a certain given state of fact, certain territory withinthe United States to be in a condition of insurrection and war; whichproclamation shall be extensively published within the district towhich it relates. That is the first proposition. I ask him if that isunconstitutional? That is a plain question. Is it unconstitutional togive power to the President to declare a portion of the territory of theUnited States in a state of insurrection or rebellion? He will not dareto say it is. 

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is a veryadroit debater, and he discovers, of course, the great advantage hewould have if I were to allow him, occupying the floor, to ask me aseries of questions, and then have his own criticisms made on them. When he has closed his speech, if I deem it necessary, I will make somereply. At present, however, I will answer that question. The State ofIllinois, I believe, is a military district; the State of Kentucky is amilitary district. In my judgment, the President has no authority, and, in my judgment, Congress has no right to confer upon the Presidentauthority, to declare a State in a condition of insurrection orrebellion. 

MR. BAKER. In the first place, the bill does not say a word aboutStates. That is the first answer. 

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. Does not the Senator know, in fact, that those Statescompose military districts? It might as well have said "States" as todescribe what is a State. 

MR. BAKER. I do; and that is the reason why I suggest to the honorableSenator that this criticism about States does not mean anything at all. That is the very point. The objection certainly ought not to be that hecan declare a part of a State in insurrection and not the whole ofit. In point of fact, the Constitution of the United States, and theCongress of the United States acting upon it, are not treating ofStates, but of the territory comprising the United States; and I submitonce more to his better judgment that it cannot be unconstitutional toallow the President to declare a county or a part of a county, or a townor a part of a town, or part of a State, or the whole of a State, ortwo States, or five States, in a condition of insurrection, if in hisjudgment that be the fact. That is not wrong. 

In the next place, it provides that that being so, the militarycommander in that district may make and publish such police rules andregulations as he may deem necessary to suppress the rebellion andrestore order and preserve the lives and property of citizens. I submitto him, if the President of the United States has power, or ought tohave power, to suppress insurrection and rebellion, is there any betterway to do it, or is there any other? The gentleman says, do it by thecivil power. Look at the fact. The civil power is utterly overwhelmed;the courts are closed; the judges banished. Is the President notto execute the law? Is he to do it in person, or by his militarycommanders? Are they to do it with regulation, or without it? That isthe only question. 

Mr. President, the honorable Senator says there is a state of war. TheSenator from Vermont agrees with him; or rather, he agrees with theSenator from Vermont in that. What then? There is a state of public war;none the less war because it is urged from the other side; not theless war because it is unjust; not the less war because it is a war ofinsurrection and rebellion. It is still war; and I am willing to say itis public war, --public as contra-distinguished from private war. Whatthen? Shall we carry that war on? Is it his duty as a Senator to carryit on? If so, how? By armies under command; by military organizationand authority, advancing to suppress insurrection and rebellion. Is thatwrong? Is that unconstitutional? Are we not bound to do, with whomeverlevies war against us, as we would do if he were a foreigner? Thereis no distinction as to the mode of carrying on war; we carry on waragainst an advancing army just the same, whether it be from Russia orfrom South Carolina. Will the honorable Senator tell me it is our dutyto stay here, within fifteen miles of the enemy seeking to advanceupon us every hour, and talk about nice questions of constitutionalconstruction as to whether it is war or merely insurrection? No, sir. Itis our duty to advance, if we can; to suppress insurrection; to put downrebellion; to dissipate the rising; to scatter the enemy; and when wehave done so, to preserve, in the terms of the bill, the liberty, lives, and property of the people of the country, by just and fair policeregulations. I ask the Senator from Indiana, (Mr. Lane, ) when we tookMonterey, did we not do it there?

When we took Mexico, did we not do it there? Is it not a part, anecessary, an indispensable part of war itself, that there shall bemilitary regulations over the country conquered and held? Is thatunconstitutional?

I think it was a mere play of words that the Senator indulged in when heattempted to answer the Senator from New York. I did not understand theSenator from New York to mean anything else substantially but this, thatthe Constitution deals generally with a state of peace, and thatwhen war is declared it leaves the condition of public affairs to bedetermined by the law of war, in the country where the war exists. It istrue that the Constitution of the United States does adopt the laws ofwar as a part of the instrument itself, during the continuance ofwar. The Constitution does not provide that spies shall be hung. Is itunconstitutional to hang a spy? There is no provision for it in terms inthe Constitution; but nobody denies the right, the power, the justice. Why? Because it is part of the law of war. The Constitution does notprovide for the exchange of prisoners; yet it may be done under the lawof war. Indeed the Constitution does not provide that a prisoner may betaken at all; yet his captivity is perfectly just and constitutional. It seems to me that the Senator does not, will not take that view of thesubject. 

Again, sir, when a military commander advances, as I trust, if there areno more unexpected great reverses, he will advance, through Virginiaand occupies the country, there, perhaps, as here, the civil law maybe silent; there perhaps the civil officers may flee as ours have beencompelled to flee. What then? If the civil law is silent, who shallcontrol and regulate the conquered district, who but the militarycommander? As the Senator from Illinois has well said, shall it be doneby regulation or without regulation? Shall the general, or the colonel, or the captain, be supreme, or shall he be regulated and ordered by thePresident of the United States? That is the sole question. The Senatorhas put it well. 

I agree that we ought to do all we can to limit, to restrain, to fetterthe abuse of military power. Bayonets are at best illogical arguments. Iam not willing, except as a case of sheerest necessity, ever to permita military commander to exercise authority over life, liberty, andproperty. But, sir, it is part of the law of war; you cannot carryin the rear of your army your courts; you cannot organize juries; youcannot have trials according to the forms and ceremonial of thecommon law amid the clangor of arms, and somebody must enforce policeregulations in a conquered or occupied district. I ask the Senator fromKentucky again respectfully, is that unconstitutional; or if in thenature of war it must exist, even if there be no law passed by us toallow it, is it unconstitutional to regulate it? That is the question, to which I do not think he will make a clear and distinct reply. 

Now, sir, I have shown him two sections of the bill, which I do notthink he will repeat earnestly are unconstitutional. I do not think thathe will seriously deny that it is perfectly constitutional to limit, toregulate, to control, at the same time to confer and restrain authorityin the hands of military commanders. I think it is wise and judiciousto regulate it by virtue of powers to be placed in the hands of thePresident by law. 

Now, a few words, and a few only, as to the Senator's predictions. TheSenator from Kentucky stands up here in a manly way in opposition towhat he sees is the overwhelming sentiment of the Senate, and uttersreproof, malediction, and prediction combined. Well, sir, it is not everyprediction that is prophecy. It is the easiest thing in the world to do;there is nothing easier, except to be mistaken when we have predicted. Iconfess, Mr. President, that I would not have predicted three weeks agothe disasters which have overtaken our arms; and I do not think (if Iwere to predict now) that six months hence the Senator will indulge inthe same tone of prediction which is his favorite key now. I would askhim what would you have us do now--a confederate army within twentymiles of us, advancing, or threatening to advance, to overwhelm yourGovernment; to shake the pillars of the Union; to bring it around yourhead, if you stay here, in ruins? Are we to stop and talk about anuprising sentiment in the North against the war? Are we to predict evil, and retire from what we predict? Is it not the manly part to go on aswe have begun, to raise money, and levy armies, to organize them, toprepare to advance; when we do advance, to regulate that advance by allthe laws and regulations that civilization and humanity will allow intime of battle? Can we do anything more? To talk to us about stopping, is idle; we will never stop. Will the Senator yield to rebellion? Willhe shrink from armed insurrection? Will his State justify it? Will itsbetter public opinion allow it? Shall we send a flag of truce? Whatwould he have? Or would he conduct this war so feebly, that the wholeworld would smile at us in derision? What would he have? These speechesof his, sown broadcast over the land, what clear distinct meaning havethey? Are they not intended for disorganization in our very midst? Arethey not intended to dull our weapons? Are they not intended to destroyour zeal? Are they not intended to animate our enemies? Sir, are theynot words of brilliant, polished treason, even in the very Capitol ofthe Confederacy? (Manifestations of applause in the galleries. )

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair). Order!

MR. BAKER. What would have been thought if, in another Capitol, inanother Republic, in a yet more martial age, a senator as grave, notmore eloquent or dignified than the Senator from Kentucky, yet withthe Roman purple flowing over his shoulders, had risen in his place, surrounded by all the illustrations of Roman glory, and declared thatadvancing Hannibal was just, and that Carthage ought to be dealt within terms of peace? What would have been thought if, after the battle ofCanne, a senator there had risen in his place and denounced every levyof the Roman people, every expenditure of its treasure, and every appealto the old recollections and the old glories? Sir, a Senator, himselflearned far more than myself in such lore (Mr. Fessenden), tells me, ina voice that I am glad is audible, that he would have been hurledfrom the Tarpeian rock. It is a grand commentary upon the AmericanConstitution that we permit these words to be uttered. I ask the Senatorto recollect, too, what, save to send aid and comfort to the enemy, dothese predictions of his amount to? Every word thus uttered falls as anote of inspiration upon every confederate ear. Every sound thus utteredis a word (and falling from his lips, a mighty word) of kindling andtriumph to a foe that determines to advance. For me, I have no suchword as a Senator to utter. For me, amid temporary defeat, disaster, disgrace, it seems that my duty calls me to utter another word, and thatword is, bold, sudden, forward, determined war, according to the lawsof war, by armies, by military commanders clothed with full power, advancing with all the past glories of the Republic urging them toconquest. 

I do not stop to consider whether it is subjugation or not. It iscompulsory obedience, not to my will; not to yours, sir; not to thewill of any one man; not to the will of any one State; but compulsoryobedience to the Constitution of the whole country. The Senator chosethe other day again and again to animadvert on a single expression ina little speech which I delivered before the Senate, in which I tookoccasion to say that if the people of the rebellious States would notgovern themselves as States, they ought to be governed as Territories. The Senator knew full well then, for I explained it twice--he knows fullwell now--that on this side of the Chamber; nay, in this whole Chamber;nay, in this whole North and West; nay, in all the loyal States in alltheir breadth, there is not a man among us all who dreams of causing anyman in the South to submit to any rule, either as to life, liberty, orproperty, that we ourselves do not willingly agree to yield to. Didhe ever think of that? Subjugation for what? When we subjugate SouthCarolina, what shall we do? We shall compel its obedience to theConstitution of the United States; that is all. Why play upon words?We do not mean, we have never said, any more. If it be slavery that menshould obey the Constitution their fathers fought for, let it be so. Ifit be freedom, it is freedom equally for them and for us. We propose tosubjugate rebellion into loyalty; we propose to subjugate insurrectioninto peace; we propose to subjugate confederate anarchy intoconstitutional Union liberty. The Senator well knows that we proposeno more. I ask him, I appeal to his better judgment now, what does heimagine we intend to do, if fortunately we conquer Tennessee or SouthCarolina--call it "conquer, " if you will, sir--what do we propose todo? They will have their courts still; they will have their ballot-boxesstill; they will have their elections still; they will have theirrepresentatives upon this floor still; they will have taxation andrepresentation still; they will have the writ of _habeas corpus_ still;they will have every privilege they ever had and all we desire. When theconfederate armies are scattered; when their leaders are banished frompower; when the people return to a late repentant sense of the wrongthey have done to a Government they never felt but in benignancy andblessing, then the Constitution made for all will be felt by all, like the descending rains from heaven which bless all alike. Is thatsubjugation? To restore what was, as it was, for the benefit of thewhole country and of the whole human race, is all we desire and all wecan have. 

 * * * * *

I tell the Senator that his predictions, sometimes for the South, sometimes for the Middle States, sometimes for the Northeast, and thenwandering away in airy visions out to the far Pacific, about the dreadof our people, as for loss of blood and treasure, provoking them todisloyalty, are false in sentiment, false in fact, and false in loyalty. The Senator from Kentucky is mistaken in them all. Five hundred milliondollars! What then? Great Britain gave more than two thousand millionin the great battle for constitutional liberty which she led at one timealmost single-handed against the world. Five hundred thousand men! Whatthen? We have them; they are ours; they are the children of the country. They belong to the whole country; they are our sons; our kinsmen; andthere are many of us who will give them all up before we will abate oneword of our just demand, or will retreat one inch from the line whichdivides right from wrong. 

Sir, it is not a question of men or of money in that sense. All themoney, all the men, are, in our judgment, well bestowed in such a cause. When we give them, we know their value. Knowing their value well, wegive them with the more pride and the more joy. Sir, how can we retreat?Sir, how can we make peace? Who shall treat? What commissioners? Whowould go? Upon what terms? Where is to be your boundary line? Wherethe end of the principles we shall have to give up? What will become ofconstitutional government? What will become of public liberty? Whatof past glories? What of future hopes? Shall we sink into theinsignificance of the grave--a degraded, defeated, emasculated people, frightened by the results of one battle, and scared at the visionsraised by the imagination of the Senator from Kentucky upon this floor?No, sir; a thousand times, no, sir! We will rally--if, indeed, our wordsbe necessary--we will rally the people, the loyal people, of the wholecountry. They will pour forth their treasure, their money, their men, without stint, without measure. The most peaceable man in this body maystamp his foot upon this Senate-Chamber floor, as of old a warrior anda senator did, and from that single stamp there will spring forth armedlegions. Shall one battle determine the fate of an empire? or, the lossof one thousand men or twenty thousand, or $100, 000, 000 or $500, 000, 000?In a year's peace, in ten years, at most, of peaceful progress, we canrestore them all. There will be some graves reeking with blood, wateredby the tears of affection. There will be some privation; there willbe some loss of luxury; there will be somewhat more need for labor toprocure the necessaries of life. When that is said, all is said. If wehave the country, the whole country, the Union, the Constitution, free government--with these there will return all the blessings ofwell-ordered civilization; the path of the country will be a career ofgreatness and of glory such as, in the olden time, our fathers saw inthe dim visions of years yet to come, and such as would have been oursnow, to-day, if it had not been for the treason for which the Senatortoo often seeks to apologize. 

MR. BRECKENRIDGE. Mr. President, I have tried on more than one occasionin the Senate, in parliamentary and respectful language, to express myopinions in regard to the character of our Federal system, the relationsof the States to the Federal Government, to the Constitution, thebond of the Federal political system. They differ utterly from thoseentertained by the Senator from Oregon. Evidently, by his line ofargument, he regards this as an original, not a delegated Government, and he regards it as clothed with all those powers which belong to anoriginal nation, not only with those powers which are delegated by thedifferent political communities that compose it, and limited by thewritten Constitution that forms the bond of Union. I have tried toshow that, in the view that I take of our Government, this war isan unconstitutional war. I do not think the Senator from Oregon hasanswered my argument. He asks, what must we do? As we progress southwardand invade the country, must we not, said he, carry with us all the lawsof war? I would not progress southward and invade the country. 

The President of the United States, as I again repeat, in my judgmentonly has the power to call out the military to assist the civilauthority in executing the laws; and when the question assumes themagnitude and takes the form of a great political severance, and nearlyhalf the members of the Confederacy withdraw themselves from it, whatthen? I have never held that one State or a number of States have aright without cause to break the compact of the Constitution. But what Imean to say is that you cannot then undertake to make war in the name ofthe Constitution. In my opinion they are out. You may conquer them; butdo not attempt to do it under what I consider false political pretenses. However, sir, I will not enlarge upon that. I have developed these ideasagain and again, and I do not care to re-argue them. Hence the Senatorand I start from entirely different stand-points, and his pretendedreplies are no replies at all. 

The Senator asks me, "What would you have us do?" I have alreadyintimated what I would have us do. I would have us stop the war. Wecan do it. I have tried to show that there is none of that inexorablenecessity to continue this war which the Senator seems to suppose. I donot hold that constitutional liberty on this continent is bound up inthis fratricidal, devastating, horrible contest. Upon the contrary, Ifear it will find its grave in it. The Senator is mistaken in supposingthat we can reunite these States by war. He is mistaken in supposingthat eighteen or twenty million upon the one side can subjugate ten ortwelve million upon the other; or, if they do subjugate them, that youcan restore constitutional government as our fathers made it. You willhave to govern them as Territories, as suggested by the Senator, ifever they are reduced to the dominion of the United States, or, as theSenator from Vermont called them, "those rebellious provinces of thisUnion, " in his speech to-day. Sir, I would prefer to see these Statesall reunited upon true constitutional principles to any other objectthat could be offered me in life; and to restore, upon the principlesof of our fathers, the Union of these States, to me the sacrifice of oneunimportant life would be nothing; nothing, sir. But I infinitely preferto see a peaceful separation of these States, than to see endless, aimless, devastating war, at the end of which I see the grave of publicliberty and of personal freedom. '

CLEMENT L. VALLANDIGHAM, OF OHIO. (BORN 1820, DIED 1871. )

ON THE WAR AND ITS CONDUCT;

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 14, 1863. 

SIR, I am one of that number who have opposed abolitionism, or thepolitical development of the antislavery sentiment of the North andWest, from the beginning. In school, at college, at the bar, in publicassemblies, in the Legislature, in Congress, boy and man, in time ofpeace and in time of war, at all times and at every sacrifice, I havefought against it. It cost me ten years' exclusion from office and honorat that period of life when honors are sweetest. No matter; I learnedearly to do right and to wait. Sir, it is but the development of thespirit of intermeddling, whose children are strife and murder. Caintroubled himself about the sacrifices of Abel, and slew his brother. Most of the wars, contentions, litigation, and bloodshed, from thebeginning of time, have been its fruits. The spirit of non-interventionis the very spirit of peace and concord. * * *

The spirit of intervention assumed the form of abolitionism becauseslavery was odious in name and by association to the Northern mind, and because it was that which most obviously marks the differentcivilizations of the two sections. The South herself, in her early andlater efforts to rid herself of it, had exposed the weak and offensiveparts of slavery to the world. Abolition intermeddling taught herat last to search for and defend the assumed social, economic, andpolitical merit and values of the institution. But there never was anhour from the beginning when it did not seem to me as clear as the sunat broad noon that the agitation in any form in the North and West ofthe slavery question must sooner or later end in disunion and civil war. This was the opinion and prediction for years of Whig and Democraticstatesmen alike; and, after the unfortunate dissolution of the Whigparty in 1854, and the organization of the present Republican party uponthe exclusive antislavery and sectional basis, the event was inevitable, because, in the then existing temper of the public mind, and afterthe education through the press and the pulpit, the lecture and thepolitical canvass, for twenty years, of a generation taught to hateslavery and the South, the success of that party, possessed as it wasof every engine of political, business, social, and religious influence, was certain. It was only a question of time, and short time. Suchwas its strength, indeed, that I do not believe that the union of theDemocratic party in 1860 on any candidate, even though he had beensupported also by the entire so-called conservative or anti-Lincoln voteof the country, would have availed to defeat it; and, if it had, thesuccess of the Abolition party would only have been postponed four yearslonger. The disease had fastened too strongly upon the system to behealed until it had run its course. The doctrine of "the irrepressibleconflict" had been taught too long, and accepted too widely andearnestly, to die out until it should culminate in secession anddisunion, and, if coercion were resorted to, then in civil war. Ibelieved from the first that it was the purpose of some of the apostlesof that doctrine to force a collision between the North and the South, either to bring about a separation or to find a vain but bloody pretextfor abolishing slavery in the States. In any event, I knew, or thought Iknew, that the end was certain collision and death to the Union. 

Believing thus, I have for years past denounced those who taught thatdoctrine, with all the vehemence, the bitterness, if you choose--Ithought it a righteous, a patriotic bitterness--of an earnest andimpassioned nature. * * * But the people did not believe me, nor thoseolder and wiser and greater than I. They rejected the prophecy, andstoned the prophets. The candidate of the Republican party was chosenPresident. Secession began. Civil war was imminent. It was no pettyinsurrection, no temporary combination to obstruct the execution ofthe laws in certain States, but a revolution, systematic, deliberate, determined, and with the consent of a majority of the people of eachState which seceded. Causeless it may have been, wicked it may havebeen, but there it was--not to be railed at, still less to be laughedat, but to be dealt with by statesmen as a fact. No display of vigor orforce alone, however sudden or great, could have arrested it even at theoutset. It was disunion at last. The wolf had come, but civil war hadnot yet followed. In my deliberate and solemn judgment there was butone wise and masterly mode of dealing with it. Non-coercion would avertcivil war, and compromise crush out both abolitionism and secession. Theparent and the child would thus both perish. But a resort to force wouldat once precipitate war, hasten secession, extend disunion, and while itlasted utterly cut off all hope of compromise. I believed that war, iflong enough continued, would be final, eternal disunion. I said it; Imeant it; and accordingly, to the utmost of my ability and influence, Iexerted myself in behalf of the policy of non-coercion. It was adoptedby Mr. Buchanan's administration, with the almost unanimous consent ofthe Democratic and Constitutional Union parties in and out of Congress;and in February, with the consent of a majority of the Republican partyin the Senate and the House. But that party most disastrously for thecountry refused all compromise. How, indeed, could they accept any? Thatwhich the South demanded, and the Democratic and Conservative parties ofthe North and West were willing to grant, and which alone could avail tokeep the peace and save the Union, implied a surrender of the sole vitalelement of the party and its platform, of the very principle, in fact, upon which it had just won the contest for the Presidency, not, indeed, by a majority of the popular vote--the majority was nearly a millionagainst it, --but under the forms of the Constitution. Sir, the crime, the "high crime, " of the Republican party was not so much its refusalto compromise, as its original organization upon a basis and doctrinewholly inconsistent with the stability of the Constitution and the peaceof the Union. 

The President-elect was inaugurated; and now, if only the policy ofnon-coercion could be maintained, and war thus averted, time would doits work in the North and the South, and final peaceable adjustmentand reunion be secured. Some time in March it was announced that thePresident had resolved to continue the policy of his predecessor, andeven go a step farther, and evacuate Sumter and the other Federal fortsand arsenals in the seceded States. His own party acquiesced; the wholecountry rejoiced. The policy of non-coercion had triumphed, and foronce, sir, in my life, I found myself in an immense majority. No manthen pretended that a Union founded in consent could be cemented byforce. Nay, more, the President and the Secretary of State went farther. Said Mr. Seward, in an official diplomatic letter to Mr. Adams: "Forthese reasons, he (the President) would not be disposed to reject acardinal dogma of theirs (the secessionists), namely, that the FederalGovernment could not reduce the seceding States to obedience byconquest, although he were disposed to question that proposition. Butin fact the President willingly accepts it as true. Only an imperialor despotic government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected andinsurrectionary members of the State. " * * * This Federal republicansystem of ours is, of all forms of government, the very one which ismost unfitted for such a labor. This, sir, was on the 10th of April, andyet on that very day the fleet was under sail for Charleston. Thepolicy of peace had been abandoned. Collision followed; the militia wereordered out; civil war began. 

Now, sir, on the 14th of April, I believed that coercion would bring onwar, and war disunion. More than that, I believed what you all believein your hearts to-day, that the South could never be conquered--never. And not that only, but I was satisfied--and you of the Abolition partyhave now proved it to the world--that the secret but real purposeof the war was to abolish slavery in the State. * * * These were myconvictions on the 14th of April. Had I changed them on the 15th, when Iread the President's proclamation, * * *

I would have changed my public conduct also. But my convictions did notchange. I thought that, if war was disunion on the 14th of April, it wasequally disunion on the 15th, and at all times. Believing this, Icould not, as an honest man, a Union man, and a patriot, lend an activesupport to the war; and I did not. I had rather my right arm wereplucked from its socket and cast into eternal burnings, than, withmy convictions, to have thus defiled my soul with the guilt of moralperjury. Sir, I was not taught in that school which proclaims that "allis fair in politics. " I loathe, abhor, and detest the execrable maxim. * * * Perish office, perish honors, perish life itself; but do the thingthat is right, and do it like a man. 

Certainly, sir; I could not doubt what he must suffer who dare defy theopinions and the passions, not to say the madness, of twenty millions ofpeople. * * * I did not support the war; and to-day I bless God that notthe smell of so much as one drop of its blood is upon my garments. Sir, I censure no brave man who rushed patriotically into this war; neitherwill I quarrel with any one, here or elsewhere, who gave to it an honestsupport. Had their convictions been mine, I, too, would doubtlesshave done as they did. With my convictions I could not. But I was aRepresentative. War existed--by whose act no matter--not by mine. ThePresident, the Senate, the House, and the country all said that thereshould be war. * * * I belonged to that school of politics which teachesthat, when we are at war, the government--I do not mean the Executivealone, but the government--is entitled to demand and have, withoutresistance, such number of men, and such amount of money and suppliesgenerally, as may be necessary for the war, until an appeal can be hadto the people. Before that tribunal alone, in the first instance, must the question of the continuance of the war be tried. This was Mr. Calhoun's opinion * * * in the Mexican war. Speaking of that war in1847, he said: "Every Senator knows that I was opposed to the war; butnone but myself knows the depth of that opposition. With my conceptionof its character and consequences, it was impossible for me to vote forit. * * * But, after war was declared, by authority of the government, I acquiesced in what I could not prevent, and what it was impossible forme to arrest; and I then felt it to be my duty to limit my efforts togive such direction to the war as would, as far as possible, preventthe evils and dangers with which it threatened the country and itsinstitutions. "

Sir, I adopt all this as my position and my defence, though, perhaps, ina civil war, I might fairly go farther in opposition. I could not, withmy convictions, vote men and money for this war, and I would not, as aRepresentative, vote against them. I meant that, without opposition, thePresident might take all the men and all the money he should demand, andthen to hold him to a strict responsibility before the people for theresults. Not believing the soldiers responsible for the war or itspurposes or its consequences, I have never withheld my vote wheretheir separate interests were concerned. But I have denounced from thebeginning the usurpations and the infractions, one and all, of law andconstitution, by the President and those under him; their repeated andpersistent arbitrary arrests, the suspension of _habeas corpus_, theviolation of freedom of the mails, of the private house, of the press, and of speech, and all the other multiplied wrongs and outrages uponpublic liberty and private right, which have made this country one ofthe worst despotisms on earth for the past twenty months, and I willcontinue to rebuke and denounce them to the end; and the people, thankGod, have at last heard and heeded, and rebuked them too. To the recordand to time I appeal again for my justification. 

HENRY WARD BEECHER, OF NEW YORK. (BORN 1813, DIED 1887. )

ADDRESS AT LIVERPOOL, OCTOBER 16, 1863

For more than twenty-five years I have been made perfectly familiar withpopular assemblies in all parts of my country except the extreme South. There has not for the whole of that time been a single day of my lifewhen it would have been safe for me to go South of Mason's and Dixon'sline in my own country, and all for one reason: my solemn, earnest, persistent testimony against that which I consider to be the mostatrocious thing under the sun--the system of American slavery in a greatfree republic. [Cheers. ] I have passed through that early period whenright of free speech was denied to me. Again and again I have attemptedto address audiences that, for no other crime than that of free speech, visited me with all manner of contumelious epithets; and now since Ihave been in England, although I have met with greater kindness andcourtesy on the part of most than I deserved, yet, on the other hand, Iperceive that the Southern influence prevails to some extent in England. [Applause and uproar. ] It is my old acquaintance; I understand itperfectly--[laughter]--and I have always held it to be an unfailingtruth that where a man had a cause that would bear examination he wasperfectly willing to have it spoken about. [Applause. ] And whenin Manchester I saw those huge placards: "Who is Henry WardBeecher?"--[laughter, cries of "Quite right, " and applause. ]--andwhen in Liverpool I was told that there were those blood-red placards, purporting to say what Henry Ward Beecher had said, and calling uponEnglishmen to suppress free speech--I tell you what I thought. I thoughtsimply this: "I am glad of it. " [Laughter. ] Why? Because if they had feltperfectly secure, that you are the minions of the South and the slavesof slavery, they would have been perfectly still. [Applause and uproar. ]And, therefore, when I saw so much nervous apprehension that, if I werepermitted to speak--[hisses and applause]--when I found they were afraidto have me speak [hisses, laughter, and "No, no!"]--when I found thatthey considered my speaking damaging to their cause--[applause]--when Ifound that they appealed from facts and reasonings to mob law--[applauseand uproar]--I said, no man need tell me what the heart and secretcounsel of these men are. They tremble and are afraid. [Applause, laughter, hisses, "No, no!" and a voice: "New York mob. "] Now, personally, it is a matter of very little consequence to me whether Ispeak here to-night or not. [Laughter and cheers. ] But, one thing isvery certain, if you do permit me to speak here to-night you willhear very plain talking. [Applause and hisses. ] You will not find aman--[interruption]--you will not find me to be a man that dared tospeak about Great Britain 3, 000 miles off, and then is afraid to speakto Great Britain when he stands on her shores. [Immense applause andhisses. ] And if I do not mistake the tone and temper of Englishmen, theyhad rather have a man who opposes them in a manly way--[applause fromall parts of the hall]--than a sneak that agrees with them in an unmanlyway. [Applause and "Bravo!"] Now, if I can carry you with me by soundconvictions, I shall be immensely glad--[applause]; but if I cannotcarry you with me by facts and sound arguments, I do not wish you to gowith me at all; and all that I ask is simply FAIR PLAY. [Applause, and avoice: "You shall have it too. "]

Those of you who are kind enough to wish to favor my speaking--and youwill observe that my voice is slightly husky, from having spoken almostevery night in succession for some time past, --those who wish to hearme will do me the kindness simply to sit still, and to keep still; and Iand my friends the Secessionists will make all the noise. [Laughter. ]

There are two dominant races in modern history--the Germanic and theRomanic races. The Germanic races tend to personal liberty, to a sturdyindividualism, to civil and to political liberty. The Romanic race tendsto absolutism in government; it is clannish; it loves chieftains; itdevelops a people that crave strong and showy governments to support andplan for them. The Anglo-Saxon race belongs to the great German family, and is a fair exponent of its peculiarities. The Anglo-Saxon carriesself-government and self-development with him wherever he goes. He haspopular GOVERNMENT and popular INDUSTRY; for the effects of a generouscivil liberty are not seen a whit more plain in the good order, in theintelligence, and in the virtue of a self-governing people, than intheir amazing enterprise and the scope and power of their creativeindustry. The power to create riches is just as much a part of theAnglo-Saxon virtues as the power to create good order and social safety. The things required for prosperous labor, prosperous manufactures, andprosperous commerce are three. First, liberty; second, liberty; third, liberty. [Hear, hear!] Though these are not merely the same liberty, asI shall show you. First, there must be liberty to follow those laws ofbusiness which experience has developed, without imposts or restrictionsor governmental intrusions. Business simply wants to be let alone. [Hear, hear!] Then, secondly, there must be liberty to distribute andexchange products of industry in any market without burdensome tariffs, without imposts, and with-out vexatious regulations. There must be thesetwo liberties--liberty to create wealth, as the makers of it think best, according to the light and experience which business has given them; andthen liberty to distribute what they have created without unnecessaryvexatious burdens. 

The comprehensive law of the ideal industrial condition of the wordis free manufacture and free trade. [Hear, hear! A voice: "The Morrilltariff. " Another voice: "Monroe. "] I have said there were three elementsof liberty. The third is the necessity of an intelligent and free raceof customers. There must be freedom among producers; there mustbe freedom among the distributors; there must be freedom among thecustomers. It may not have occurred to you that it makes any differencewhat one's customers are, but it does in all regular and prolongedbusiness. The condition of the customer determines how much he will buy, determines of what sort he will buy. Poor and ignorant people buy littleand that of the poorest kind. The richest and the intelligent, havingthe more means to buy, buy the most, and always buy the best. Here, then, are the three liberties: liberty of the producer, liberty ofthe distributor, and liberty of the consumer. The first two need nodiscussion; they have been long thoroughly and brilliantly illustratedby the political economists of Great Britain and by her eminentstatesmen; but it seems to me that enough attention has not beendirected to the third; and, with your patience, I will dwell upon thatfor a moment, before proceeding to other topics. 

It is a necessity of every manufacturing and commercial people thattheir customers should be very wealthy and intelligent. Let us put thesubject before you in the familiar light of your own local experience. To whom do the tradesmen of Liverpool sell the most goods at the highestprofit? To the ignorant and poor, or to the educated and prosperous? [Avoice: "To the Southerners. " Laughter. ] The poor man buys simply for hisbody; he buys food, he buys clothing, he buys fuel, he buys lodging. Hisrule is to buy the least and the cheapest that he can. He goes to thestore as seldom as he can; he brings away as little as he can; and hebuys for the least he can. [Much laughter. ] Poverty is not a misfortuneto the poor only who suffer it, but it is more or less a misfortune toall with whom he deals. On the other hand, a man well off--how is itwith him? He buys in far greater quantity. He can afford to do it; hehas the money to pay for it. He buys in far greater variety, because heseeks to gratify not merely physical wants, but also mental wants. Hebuys for the satisfaction of sentiment and taste, as well as of sense. He buys silk, wool, flax, cotton; he buys all metals--iron, silver, gold, platinum; in short he buys for all necessities and all substances. But that is not all. He buys a better quality of goods. He buys richersilks, finer cottons, higher grained wools. Now a rich silk means somuch skill and care of somebody's that has been expended upon it to makeit finer and richer; and so of cotton and so of wool. That is, the priceof the finer goods runs back to the very beginning, and remunerates theworkman as well as the merchant. Now, the whole laboring community isas much interested and profited as the mere merchant, in this buying andselling of the higher grades in the greater varieties and quantities. The law of price is the skill; and the amount of skill expended in thework is as much for the market as are the goods. A man comes to marketand says: "I have a pair of hands, " and he obtains the lowest wages. Another man comes and says: "I have something more than a pair of hands;I have truth and fidelity. " He gets a higher price. Another man comesand says: "I have something more; I have hands, and strength, andfidelity, and skill. " He gets more than either of the others. 

The next man comes and says: "I have got hands, and strength, and skill, and fidelity; but my hands work more than that. They know how to createthings for the fancy, for the affections, for the moral sentiments"; andhe gets more than either of the others. The last man comes and says: "Ihave all these qualities, and have them so highly that it is a peculiargenius"; and genius carries the whole market and gets the highest price. [Loud applause. ] So that both the workman and the merchant are profitedby having purchasers that demand quality, variety, and quantity. Now, if this be so in the town or the city, it can only be so because it is alaw. This is the specific development of a general or universal law, andtherefore we should expect to find it as true of a nation as of a citylike Liverpool. I know that it is so, and you know that it is true ofall the world; and it is just as important to have customers educated, Intelligent, moral, and rich out of Liverpool as it is in Liverpool. [Applause. ] They are able to buy; they want variety, they want the verybest; and those are the customers you want. That nation is the bestcustomer that is freest, because freedom works prosperity, industry, and wealth. Great Britain, then, aside from moral considerations, has adirect commercial and pecuniary interest in the liberty, civilization, and wealth of every nation on the globe. [Loud applause. ] You also havean interest in this, because you are a moral and religious people. ["Oh, oh!" laughter and applause. ] You desire it from the highest motives; andgodliness is profitable in all things, having the promise of the lifethat now is, as well as of that which is to come; but if there were nohereafter, and if man had no progress in this life, and if there were noquestion of civilization at all, it would be worth your while toprotect civilization and liberty, merely as a commercial speculation. Toevangelize has more than a moral and religious import--it comes back totemporal relations. Wherever a nation that is crushed, cramped, degradedunder despotism is struggling to be free, you, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Paisley, all have an interest that that nation should befree. When depressed and backward people demand that they may have achance to rise--Hungary, Italy, Poland--it is a duty for humanity'ssake, it is a duty for the highest moral motives, to sympathize withthem; but besides all these there is a material and an interestedreason why you should sympathize with them. Pounds and pence join withconscience and with honor in this design. Now, Great Britain's chiefwant is--what?

They have said that your chief want is cotton. I deny it. Your chiefwant is consumers. [Applause and hisses. ] You have got skill, you havegot capital, and you have got machinery enough to manufacture goods forthe whole population of the globe. You could turn out fourfold as muchas you do, if you only had the market to sell in. It is not so much thewant, therefore, of fabric, though there may be a temporary obstructionof it; but the principal and increasing want--increasing from year toyear--is, where shall we find men to buy what we can manufacture sofast? [Interruption, and a voice, "The Morrill tariff, " and applause. ]Before the American war broke out, your warehouses were loadedwith goods that you could not sell. [Applause and hisses. ] You hadover-manufactured; what is the meaning of over-manufacturing but this:that you had skill, capital, machinery, to create faster than you hadcustomers to take goods off your hands? And you know that rich as GreatBritain is, vast as are her manufactures, if she could have fourfoldthe present demand, she could make fourfold riches to-morrow; andevery political economist will tell you that your want is not cottonprimarily, but customers. Therefore, the doctrine, how to makecustomers, is a great deal more important to Great Britain than thedoctrine how to raise cotton. It is to that doctrine I ask from you, business men, practical men, men of fact, sagacious Englishmen--tothat point I ask a moment's attention. [Shouts of "Oh, oh!" hisses, andapplause. ] There are no more continents to be discovered. [Hear, hear!]The market of the future must be found--how? There is very little hopeof any more demand being created by new fields. If you are to have abetter market there must be some kind of process invented to make theold fields better. [A voice, "Tell us something new, " shouts of order, and interruption. ] Let us look at it, then. You must civilize the worldin order to make a better class of purchasers. [Interruption. ] If youwere to press Italy down again under the feet of despotism, Italy, discouraged, could draw but very few supplies from you. But give herliberty, kindle schools throughout her valleys, spur her industry, maketreaties with her by which she can exchange her wine, and her oil, andher silk for your manufactured goods; and for every effort that youmake in that direction there will come back profit to you by increasedtraffic with her. [Loud applause. ] If Hungary asks to be an unshacklednation--if by freedom she will rise in virtue and intelligence, then byfreedom she will acquire a more multifarious industry, which she willbe willing to exchange for your manufactures. Her liberty is to befound--where? You will find it in the Word of God, you will find itin the code of history; but you will also find it in the Price Current[Hear, hear!]; and every free nation, every civilized people--everypeople that rises from barbarism to industry and intelligence, becomes abetter customer. 

A savage is a man of one story, and that one story a cellar. When a manbegins to be civilized, he raises another story. When you Christianizeand civilize the man, you put story upon story, for you develop facultyafter faculty; and you have to supply every story with your productions. The savage is a man one story deep; the civilized man is thirty storiesdeep. [Applause. ] Now, if you go to a lodging-house, where there arethree or four men, your sales to them may, no doubt, be worth something;but if you go to a lodging-house like some of those which I saw inEdinburgh, which seemed to contain about twenty stories ["Oh, oh!" andinterruption], every story of which is full, and all who occupy buy ofyou--which is the better customer, the man who is drawn out, or the manwho is pinched up? [Laughter. ] Now, there is in this a great and soundprinciple of economy. ["Yah, yah!" from the passage outside the hall, andloud laughter. ] If the South should be rendered independent--[at thisjuncture mingled cheering and hissing became immense; half the audiencerose to their feet, waving hats and hand-kerchiefs, and in every part ofthe hall there was the greatest commotion and uproar. ] You have had yourturn now; now let me have mine again. [Loud applause and laughter. ] Itis a little inconvenient to talk against the wind; but after all, if youwill just keep good-natured--I am not going to lose my temper; will youwatch yours? [Applause. ] Besides all that, it rests me, and gives me achance, you know, to get my breath. [Applause and hisses. ] And I thinkthat the bark of those men is worse than their bite. They do not meanany harm--they don't know any better. [Loud laughter, applause, hisses, and continued up-roar. ] I was saying, when these responses broke in, that it was worth our while to consider both alternatives. What will bethe result if this present struggle shall eventuate in the separationof America, and making the South--[loud applause, hisses, hooting, and cries of "Bravo!"]--a slave territory exclusively, --[cries of "No, no!" and laughter]--and the North a free territory, --what will bethe final result? You will lay the foundation for carrying the slavepopulation clear through to the Pacific Ocean. This is the first step. There is not a man that has been a leader of the South any time withinthese twenty years, that has not had this for a plan. It was for thisthat Texas was invaded, first by colonists, next by marauders, untilit was wrested from Mexico. It was for this that they engaged in theMexican War itself, by which the vast territory reaching to the Pacificwas added to the Union. Never for a moment have they given up the planof spreading the American institutions, as they call them, straightthrough toward the West, until the slave, who has washed his feet inthe Atlantic, shall be carried to wash them in the Pacific. [Cries of"Question, " and up-roar. ] There! I have got that statement out, and youcannot put it back. [Laughter and applause. ] Now, let us consider theprospect. If the South becomes a slave empire, what relation will ithave to you as a customer? [A voice: "Or any other man. " Laughter. ] Itwould be an empire of 12, 000, 000 of people. Now, of these, 8, 000, 000 arewhite, and 4, 000, 000 black. [A voice: "How many have you got?" Applauseand laughter. Another voice: "Free your own slaves. "] Consider that onethird of the whole are the miserably poor, unbuying blacks. [Cries of"No, no!" "Yes, yes!" and interruption. ] You do not manufacture much forthem. [Hisses, "Oh!" "No. "] You have not got machinery coarse enough. [Laughter, and "No. "] Your labor is too skilled by far to manufacturebagging and linsey-woolsey. [A Southerner: "We are going to free them, every one. "] Then you and I agree exactly. [Laughter. ] One other thirdconsists of a poor, unskilled, degraded white population; andthe remaining one third, which is a large allowance, we will say, intelligent and rich. 

Now here are twelve million of people, and only one third of them arecustomers that can afford to buy the kind of goods that you bring tomarket. [Interruption and uproar. ] My friends, I saw a man once, who wasa little late at a railway station, chase an express train. He did notcatch it. [Laughter. ] If you are going to stop this meeting, you havegot to stop it before I speak; for after I have got the things out, youmay chase as long as you please--you would not catch them. [Laughter andinterruption. ] But there is luck in leisure; I 'm going to take it easy. [Laughter. ] Two thirds of the population of the Southern States to-dayare non-purchasers of English goods. [A voice: "No, they are not"; "No, no!" and uproar. ] Now you must recollect another fact--namely, that thisis going on clear through to the Pacific Ocean; and if by sympathy orhelp you establish a slave empire, you sagacious Britons--["Oh, oh!"and hooting]--if you like it better, then, I will leave the adjectiveout--[laughter, Hear! and applause]--are busy in favoring theestablishment of an empire from ocean to ocean that should have fewestcustomers and the largest non-buying population. [Applause, "No, no!"A voice: "I thought it was the happy people that populated fastest. "] `

Now, what can England make for the poor white population of such afuture empire, and for her slave population? What carpets, what linens, what cottons can you sell them? What machines, what looking-glasses, what combs, what leather, what books, what pictures, what engravings? [Avoice: "We 'll sell them ships. "] You may sell ships to a few, but whatships can you sell to two thirds of the population of poor whites andblacks? [Applause. ] A little bagging and a little linsey-woolsey, afew whips and manacles, are all that you can sell for the slave. [Greatapplause and uproar. ] This very day, in the slave States of Americathere are eight millions out of twelve millions that are not, and cannotbe your customers from the very laws of trade. [A voice: "Then how arethey clothed?" and interruption. ] * * *

But I know that you say, you cannot help sympathizing with a gallantpeople. [Hear, hear!] They are the weaker people, the minority; and youcannot help going with the minority who are struggling for their rightsagainst the majority. Nothing could be more generous, when a weak partystands for its own legitimate rights against imperious pride and power, than to sympathize with the weak. But who ever sympathized with a weakthief, because three constables had got hold of him? [Hear, hear!] Andyet the one thief in three policemen's hands is the weaker party. I suppose you would sympathize with him. [Hear, hear! laughter, andapplause. ] Why, when that infamous king of Naples--Bomba, was driveninto Gaeta by Garibaldi with his immortal band of patriots, and Cavoursent against him the army of Northern Italy, who was the weaker partythen? The tyrant and his minions; and the majority was with the nobleItalian patriots, struggling for liberty. I never heard that Old Englandsent deputations to King Bomba, and yet his troops resisted bravelythere. [Laugh-ter and interruption. ] To-day the majority of the peopleof Rome is with Italy. Nothing but French bayonets keeps her from goingback to the kingdom of Italy, to which she belongs. Do you sympathizewith the minority in Rome or the majority in Italy? [A voice: "WithItaly. "] To-day the South is the minority in America, and they arefighting for independence! For what? [Uproar. A voice: "Three cheersfor independence!" and hisses. ] I could wish so much bravery had a bettercause, and that so much self-denial had been less deluded; that thepoisonous and venomous doctrine of State rights might have been keptaloof; that so many gallant spirits, such as Jackson, might still havelived. [Great applause and loud cheers, again and again renewed. ] Theforce of these facts, historical and incontrovertible, cannot be broken, except by diverting attention by an attack upon the North. It is saidthat the North is fighting for Union, and not for emancipation. TheNorth is fighting for Union, for that ensures emancipation. [Loudcheers, "Oh, oh!" "No, no!" and cheers. ] A great many men say toministers of the Gospel: "You pretend to be preaching and working forthe love of the people. Why, you are all the time preaching for thesake of the Church. " What does the minister say? "It is by means of theChurch that we help the people, " and when men say that we are fightingfor the Union, I too say we are fighting for the Union. [Hear, hear! anda voice: "That 's right. "] But the motive determines the value; andwhy are we fighting for the Union? Because we never shall forget thetestimony of our enemies. They have gone off declaring that the Union inthe hands of the North was fatal to slavery. [Loud applause. ] There istestimony in court for you. [A voice: "See that, " and laughter. ] * * *

In the first place I am ashamed to confess that such was thethoughtlessness--[interruption]--such was the stupor of theNorth--[renewed interruption]--you will get a word at a time; to-morrowwill let folks see what it is you don't want to hear--that for a periodof twenty-five years she went to sleep, and permitted herself to bedrugged and poisoned with the Southern prejudice against black men. [Applause and uproar. ] The evil was made worse, because, when anyobject whatever has caused anger between political parties, a politicalanimosity arises against that object, no matter how innocent in itself;no matter what were the original influences which excited the quarrel. Thus the colored man has been the football between the two parties inthe North, and has suffered accordingly. I confess it to my shame. ButI am speaking now on my own ground, for I began twenty-five years ago, with a small party, to combat the unjust dislike of the colored man. [Loud applause, dissension, and uproar. The interruption at this pointbecame so violent that the friends of Mr. Beecher throughout the hallrose to their feet, waving hats and handkerchiefs, and renewing theirshouts of applause. The interruption lasted some minutes. ] Well, I havelived to see a total revolution in the Northern feeling--I stand here tobear solemn witness of that. It is not my opinion; it is my knowledge. [Great uproar. ] Those men who undertook to stand up for the rights ofall men--black as well as white--have increased in number; and now whatparty in the North represents those men that resist the evil prejudicesof past years? The Republicans are that party. [Loud applause. ] And whoare those men in the North that have oppressed the negro? They arethe Peace Democrats; and the prejudice for which in England you areattempting to punish me, is a prejudice raised by the men who haveopposed me all my life. These pro-slavery Democrats abuse the negro. I defended him, and they mobbed me for doing it. Oh, justice! [Loudlaughter, applause, and hisses. ] This is as if a man should commit anassault, maim and wound a neighbor, and a surgeon being called in shouldbegin to dress his wounds, and by and by a policeman should come andcollar the surgeon and haul him off to prison on account of the woundswhich he was healing. 

Now, I told you I would not flinch from any thing. I am going to readyou some questions that were sent after me from Glasgow, purportingto be from a workingman. [Great interruption. ] If those pro-slaveryinterrupters think they will tire me out, they will do more than eightmillions in America could. [Applause and renewed interruption. ] I wasreading a question on your side too. "Is it not a fact that in most ofthe Northern States laws exist precluding negroes from equal civil andpolitical rights with the whites? That in the State of New York thenegro has to be the possessor of at least two hundred and fifty dollars'worth of property to entitle him to the privileges of a white citizen?That in some of the Northern States the colored man, whether bond orfree, is by law excluded altogether, and not suffered to enter the Statelimits, under severe penalties? and is not Mr. Lincoln's own State oneof them? and in view of the fact that the $20, 000, 000 compensation whichwas promised to Missouri in aid of emancipation was defeated in the lastCongress (the strongest Republican Congress that ever assembled), whathas the North done toward emancipation?" Now, then, there 's a dose foryou. [A voice: "Answer it. "] And I will address myself to the answeringof it. And first, the bill for emancipation in Missouri, to whichthis money was denied, was a bill which was drawn by what we call"log-rollers, " who inserted in it an enormously disproportioned pricefor the slaves. The Republicans offered to give them $10, 000, 000 forthe slaves in Missouri, and they outvoted it because they could notget $12, 000, 000. Already half the slave population had been "run" downSouth, and yet they came up to Congress to get $12, 000, 000 for what wasnot worth ten millions, nor even eight millions. Now as to those Statesthat had passed "black" laws, as we call them; they are filled withSouthern emigrants. The southern parts of Ohio, the southern part ofIndiana, where I myself lived for years, and which I knew like abook, the southern part of Illinois, where Mr. Lincoln lives--[greatuproar]--these parts are largely settled by emigrants from Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina, and it was their vote, or the Northern votes pandering for political reasons to theirs, thatpassed in those States the infamous "black" laws; and the Republicansin these States have a record, clean and white, as having opposed theselaws in every instance as "infamous. " Now as to the State of New York;it is asked whether a negro is not obliged to have a certain freeholdproperty, or a certain amount of property, before he can vote. It is sostill in North Carolina and Rhode Island for white folks--it is so inNew York State. [Mr. Beecher's voice slightly failed him here, andhe was interrupted by a person who tried to imitate him. Cries of"Shame!" and "Turn him out!"] I am not undertaking to say that thesefaults of the North, which were brought upon them by the bad exampleand influence of the South, are all cured; but I do say that they arein process of cure which promises, if unimpeded by foreign influence, tomake all such odious distinctions vanish. 

There is another fact that I wish to allude to--not for the sakeof reproach or blame, but by way of claiming your more lenientconsideration--and that is, that slavery was entailed upon us by youraction. [Hear, hear!] Against the earnest protests of the colonists thethen government of Great Britain--I will concede not knowing what werethe mischiefs--ignorantly, but in point of fact, forced slave trafficon the unwilling colonists. [Great uproar, in the midst of which oneindividual was lifted up and carried out of the room amidst cheers andhisses. ]

The CHAIRMAN: If you would only sit down no disturbance would takeplace. 

The disturbance having subsided, MR. BEECHER said: I was going to ask you, suppose a child is born withhereditary disease; suppose this disease was entailed upon him byparents who had contracted it by their own misconduct, would it be fairthat those parents that had brought into the world the diseased child, should rail at that child because it was diseased. ["No, no!"] Would notthe child have a right to turn round and say: "Father, it was yourfault that I had it, and you ought to be pleased to be patient withmy deficiencies. " [Applause and hisses, and cries of "Order!" Greatinterruption and great disturbance here took place on the right ofthe platform; and the chairman said that if the persons around theunfortunate individual who had caused the disturbance would allow him tospeak alone, but not assist him in making the disturbance, it might soonbe put an end to. The interruption continued until another person wascarried out of the hall. ] Mr. Beecher continued: I do not ask that youshould justify slavery in us, because it was wrong in you two hundredyears ago; but having ignorantly been the means of fixing it upon us, now that we are struggling with mortal struggles to free ourselves fromit, we have a right to your tolerance, your patience, and charitableconstructions. 

No man can unveil the future; no man can tell what revolutions are aboutto break upon the world; no man can tell what destiny belongs to France, nor to any of the European powers; but one thing is certain, that in theexigencies of the future there will be combinations and recombinations, and that those nations that are of the same faith, the same blood, andthe same substantial interests, ought not to be alienated from eachother, but ought to stand together. [Immense cheering and hisses. ] Ido not say that you ought not to be in the most friendly alliancewith France or with Germany; but I do say that your own children, theoffspring of England, ought to be nearer to you than any people ofstrange tongue. [A voice: "Degenerate sons, " applause and hisses;another voice: "What about the Trent?"] If there had been any feelingsof bitterness in America, let me tell you that they had been excited, rightly or wrongly, under the impression that Great Britain was goingto intervene between us and our own lawful struggle. [A voice: "No!" andapplause. ] With the evidence that there is no such intention all bitterfeelings will pass away. [Applause. ] We do not agree with the recentdoctrine of neutrality as a question of law. But it is past, and we arenot disposed to raise that question. We accept it now as a fact, andwe say that the utterance of Lord Russell at Blairgowrie--[Applause, hisses, and a voice: "What about Lord Brougham?"]--together with thedeclaration of the government in stopping war-steamers here--[greatuproar, and applause]--has gone far toward quieting every fear andremoving every apprehension from our minds. [Uproar and shouts ofapplause. ] And now in the future it is the work of every good man andpatriot not to create divisions, but to do the things that will make forpeace. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter. ] On our part it shall be done. [Applauseand hisses, and "No, no!"] On your part it ought to be done; and whenin any of the convulsions that come upon the world, Great Britain findsherself struggling single-handed against the gigantic powers that spreadoppression and darkness--[applause, hisses, and uproar]--there ought tobe such cordiality that she can turn and say to her first-born and mostillustrious child, "Come!" [Hear, hear! applause, tremendous cheers, and uproar. ] I will not say that England cannot again, as hitherto, single-handed manage any power--[applause and uproar]--but I will saythat England and America together for religion and liberty--[A voice:"Soap, soap, " uproar, and great applause]--are a match for the world. [Applause; a voice: "They don't want any more soft soap. "] Now, gentlemen and ladies--[A voice: "Sam Slick"; and another voice: "Ladiesand gentlemen, if you please, "]--when I came I was asked whether I wouldanswer questions, and I very readily consented to do so, as I had inother places; but I will tell you it was because I expected to have theopportunity of speaking with some sort of ease and quiet. [A voice: "Soyou have. "] I have for an hour and a half spoken against a storm--[Hear, hear!]--and you yourselves are witnesses that, by the interruption, Ihave been obliged to strive with my voice, so that I no longer have thepower to control this assembly. [Applause. ] And although I am in spiritperfectly willing to answer any question, and more than glad ofthe chance, yet I am by this very unnecessary opposition to-nightincapacitated physically from doing it. Ladies and gentlemen, I bid yougood-evening. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

THE GETTYSBURGH ADDRESS, NOVEMBER 19, 1863. 

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon thiscontinent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to theproposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in agreat civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceivedand so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield ofthat war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a finalresting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation mightlive. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. Butin a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannothallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The worldwill little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it cannever forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to bededicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here havethus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated tothe great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead wetake increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last fullmeasure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shallnot have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a newbirth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, andfor the people, shall not perish from the earth. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MARCH 4, 1865. 

FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued seemedvery fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, duringwhich public declarations have been constantly called forth on everypoint and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attentionand engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could bepresented. 

The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is aswell known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonablysatisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, noprediction in regard to it is ventured. 

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts wereanxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all soughtto avoid it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from thisplace, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgentagents were in the city seeking to destroy it with war--seeking todissolve the Union and divide the effects by negotiation. Both partiesdeprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let thenation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let itperish, and the war came. One eighth of the whole population werecolored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localizedin the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar andpowerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the causeof the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was theobject for which the insurgents would rend the Union by war, while thegovernment claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorialenlargement of it. 

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration whichit has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of theconflict might cease when, or even before the conflict itself shouldcease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamentaland astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, andeach invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any menshould dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread fromthe sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be notjudged. The prayer of both could not be answered. That of neither hasbeen answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto theworld because of offences, for it must needs be that offences come, butwoe to that man by whom the offence cometh. If we shall suppose thatAmerican slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence ofGod, must needs come, but which having continued through His appointedtime, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and Souththis terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern there any departure from those Divine attributes whichthe believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily passaway. Yet if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled bythe bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall besunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid byanother drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, that the judgments of the Lord are true andrighteous altogether. 

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in theright as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we arein, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall haveborne the battle, and for his widow and his orphans, to do all which mayachieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and withall nations. 

HENRY WINTER DAVIS, OF MARYLAND. (BORN 1817, DIED 1865. )

ON RECONSTRUCTION; THE FIRST REPUBLICAN THEORY;

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 22, 1864. 

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill which I am directed by the committee on the rebellious Statesto report is one which provides for the restoration of civil governmentin States whose governments have been overthrown. It prescribes suchconditions as will secure not only civil government to the people ofthe rebellious States, but will also secure to the people of the UnitedStates permanent peace after the suppression of the rebellion. The billchallenges the support of all who consider slavery the cause of therebellion, and that in it the embers of rebellion will always smoulder;of those who think that freedom and permanent peace are inseparable, andwho are determined, so far as their constitutional authority willallow them, to secure these fruits by adequate legislation. * * * It isentitled to the support of all gentlemen upon this side of the House, whatever their views may be of the nature of the rebellion, and therelation in which it has placed the people and States in rebelliontoward the United States; not less of those who think that the rebellionhas placed the citizens of the rebel States beyond the protection of theConstitution, and that Congress, therefore, has supreme power over themas conquered enemies, than of that other class who think that theyhave not ceased to be citizens and States of the United States, thoughincapable of exercising political privileges under the Constitution, butthat Congress is charged with a high political power by the Constitutionto guarantee republican governments in the States, and that this is theproper time and the proper mode of exercising it. It is also entitledto the favorable consideration of gentlemen upon the other side of theHouse who honestly and deliberately express their judgment that slaveryis dead. To them it puts the question whether it is not advisable tobury it out of sight, that its ghost may no longer stalk abroad tofrighten us from our propriety. * * *

What is the nature of this case with which we have to deal, the evilwe must remedy, the danger we must avert? In other words, what is thatmonster of political wrong which is called secession? It is not, Mr. Speaker, domestic violence, within the meaning of that clause of theConstitution, for the violence was the act of the people of those Statesthrough their governments, and was the offspring of their free andunforced will. It is not invasion, in the meaning of the Constitution, for no State has been invaded against the will of the government of theState by any power except the United States marching to overthrow theusurpers of its territory. It is, therefore, the act of the people ofthe States, carrying with it all the consequences of such an act. And therefore it must be either a legal revolution, which makes themindependent, and makes of the United States a foreign country, or it isa usurpation against the authority of the United States, the erectionof governments which do not recognize the Constitution of the UnitedStates, which the Constitution does not recognize, and, therefore, notrepublican governments of the States in rebellion. The latter isthe view which all parties take of it. I do not understand that anygentleman on the other side of the House says that any rebel governmentwhich does not recognize the Constitution of the United States, andwhich is not recognized by Congress, is a State government within themeaning of the Constitution. Still less can it be said that there is aState government, republican or unrepublican, in the State of Tennessee, where there is no government of any kind, no civil authority, noorganized form of administration except that represented by the flag ofthe United States, obeying the will and under the orders of the militaryofficer in command. * * *

Those that are here represented are the only governments existing withinthe limits of the United States. Those that are not here represented arenot governments of the States, republican under the Constitution. Andif they be not, then they are military usurpations, inaugurated as thepermanent governments of the States, contrary to the supreme law of theland, arrayed in arms against the Government of the United States;and it is the duty, the first and highest duty, of the government tosuppress and expel them. Congress must either expel or recognize andsupport them. If it do not guarantee them, it is bound to expel them;and they who are not ready to suppress are bound to recognize them. 

We are now engaged in suppressing a military usurpation of the authorityof the State governments. When that shall have been accomplished, therewill be no form of State authority in existence which Congress canrecognize. Our success will be the overthrow of all sent balance ofgovernment in the rebel States. The Government of the United States isthen in fact the only government existing in those States, and it isthere charged to guarantee them republican governments. 

What jurisdiction does the duty of guaranteeing a republican governmentconfer under such circumstances upon Congress? What right does it give?What laws may it pass? What objects may it accomplish? What conditionsmay it insist upon, and what judgment may it exercise in determiningwhat it will do? The duty of guaranteeing carries with it the rightto pass all laws necessary and proper to guarantee. The duty ofguaranteeing means the duty to accomplish the result. It means that therepublican government shall exist. It means that every opposition torepublican government shall be put down. It means that every thinginconsistent with the permanent continuance of republican governmentshall be weeded out. It places in the hands of Congress to say what isand what is not, with all the light of experience and all the lessons ofthe past, inconsistent, in its judgment, with the permanent continuanceof republican government; and if, in its judgment, any form of policyis radically and inherently inconsistent with the permanent and enduringpeace of the country, with the permanent supremacy of republicangovernment, and it have the manliness to say so, there is no power, judicial or executive, in the United States that can even questionthis judgment but the people; and they can do it only by sendingother Representatives here to undo our work. The very language ofthe Constitution, and the necessary logic of the case, involve thatconsequence. The denial of the right of secession means that all theterritory of the United States shall remain under the jurisdiction ofthe Constitution. If there can be no State government which does notrecognize the Constitution, and which the authorities of the UnitedStates do not recognize, then there are these alternatives, and theseonly: the rebel States must be governed by Congress till they submitand form a State government under the Constitution; or Congress mustrecognize State governments which do not recognize either Congressor the Constitution of the United States; or there must be an entireabsence of all government in the rebel States--and that is anarchy. To recognize a government which does not recognize the Constitution isabsurd, for a government is not a constitution; and the recognition ofa State government means the acknowledgment of men as governors andlegislators and judges, actually invested with power to make laws, tojudge of crimes, to convict the citizens of other States, to demand thesurrender of fugitives from justice, to arm and command the militia, torequire the United States to repress all opposition to its authority, and to protect it against invasion--against our own armies; whoseSenators and Representatives are entitled to seats in Congress, andwhose electoral votes must be counted in the election of the Presidentof a government which they disown and defy. To accept the alternativeof anarchy as the constitutional condition of a State is to assert thefailure of the Constitution and the end of republican government. Until, therefore, Congress recognize a State government, organized underits auspices, there is no government in the rebel States except theauthority of Congress. * * * When military opposition shall have beensuppressed, not merely paralyzed, driven into a corner, pushed back, butgone, the horrid vision of civil war vanished from the South, thencall upon the people to reorganize in their own way, subject to theconditions that we think essential to our permanent peace, and toprevent the revival hereafter of the rebellion--a republican governmentin the form that the people of the United States can agree to. 

Now, for that purpose there are three modes indicated. One is to removethe cause of the war by an alteration of the Constitution of the UnitedStates, prohibiting slavery everywhere within its limits. That, sir, goes to the root of the matter, and should consecrate the nation'striumph. But there are thirty-four States; three fourths of them wouldbe twenty-six. I believe there are twenty-five States represented inthis Congress; so that we on that basis can-not change the Constitution. It is, therefore, a condition precedent in that view of the case thatmore States shall have governments organized within them. If it beassumed that the basis of calculation shall be three fourths of theStates now represented in Congress, I agree to that construction of theConstitution. * * *

But, under any circumstances, even upon that basis it will be difficultto find three fourths of the States, with New Jersey, or Kentucky, orMaryland, or Delaware, or other States that might be mentioned, opposed to it, under existing auspices, to adopt such a clause of theConstitution after we shall have agreed to it. If adopted it stillleaves all laws necessary to the ascertainment of the will of thepeople, and all restrictions on the return to power of the leaders ofthe rebellion, wholly unprovided for. The amendment of the Constitutionmeets my hearty approval, but it is not a remedy for the evils we mustdeal with. 

The next plan is that inaugurated by the President of the United States, in the proclamation of the 8th December (1863), called the amnestyproclamation. That proposes no guardianship of the United States overthe reorganization of the governments, no law to prescribe who shallvote, no civil functionaries to see that the law is faithfully executed, no supervising authority to control and judge of the election. But ifin any manner by the toleration of martial law, lately proclaimed thefundamental law, under the dictation of any military authority, orunder the prescription of a provost marshal, something in the form of agovernment shall be presented, represented to rest on the votes of onetenth of the population, the President will recognize that, providedit does not contravene the proclamation of freedom and the laws ofCongress; and to secure that an oath is exacted. There is no guarantyof law to watch over the organization of that government. It may berecognized by the military power, and not recognized by the civilpower, so that it would have a doubtful existence, half civil and halfmilitary, neither a temporary government by law of Congress nor aState government, something as unknown to the Constitution as the rebelgovernment that refuses to recognize it. The only prescription is thatit shall not contravene the provisions of the proclamation. Sir, if thatproclamation be valid, then we are relieved from all trouble on thatscore. But if that proclamation be not valid, then the oath to supportit is without legal sanction, for the President can ask no man tobind himself by an oath to support an unfounded proclamation or anunconstitutional law even for a moment, still less after it shall havebeen declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States. * * *

By the bill we propose to preclude the judicial question by the solutionof a political question. How so? By the paramount power of Congress toreorganize governments in those States, to impose such conditions as itthinks necessary to secure the permanence of republican government, torefuse to recognize any governments there which do not prohibit slaveryforever. Ay, gentlemen, take the responsibility to say in the face ofthose who clamor for the speedy recognition of governments toleratingslavery, that the safety of the people of the United States is thesupreme law; that their will is the supreme rule of law, and that weare authorized to pronounce their will on this subject. Take theresponsibility to say that we will revise the judgments of ourancestors; that we have experience written in blood which they hadnot; that we find now what they darkly doubted, that slavery is really, radically inconsistent with the permanence of republican governments;and that being charged by the supreme law of the land on our conscienceand judgment to guarantee, that is to continue, maintain and enforce, if it exist, to institute and restore, when overthrown, republicangovernment throughout the broad limits of the republic, we will weedout every element of their policy which we think incompatible with itspermanence and endurance. The purpose of the bill is to precludethe judicial question of the validity and effect of the President'sproclamation by the decision of the political authority in reorganizingthe State governments. It makes the rule of decision the provisionsof the State constitution, which, when recognized by Congress, can bequestioned in no court; and it adds to the authority of the proclamationthe sanction of Congress. If gentlemen say that the Constitution doesnot bear that construction, we will go before the people of the UnitedStates on that question, and by their judgment we will abide. 

GEORGE H. PENDLETON, OF OHIO. (BORN 1825, DIED 1889. )

ON RECONSTRUCTION; THE DEMOCRATIC THEORY;

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 4, 1864. 

The gentleman [Mr. H. W. Davis] maintains two propositions, which lieat the very basis of his views on this subject. He has explained them tothe House, and enforced them on other occasions. He maintains that, byreason of their secession, the seceded States and their citizens "havenot ceased to be citizens and States of the United States, thoughincapable of exercising political privileges under the Constitution, butthat Congress is charged with a high political power by the Constitutionto guarantee republican government in the States, and that this isthe proper time and the proper mode of exercising it. " This act ofrevolution on the part of the seceding States has evoked the mostextraordinary theories upon the relations of the States to the FederalGovernment. This theory of the gentleman is one of them. 

The ratification of the Constitution by Virginia established therelation between herself and the Federal Government; it created thelink between her and all the States; it announced her assumption ofthe duties, her title to the rights, of the confederating States; itproclaimed her interest in, her power over, her obedience to, thecommon agent of all the States. If Virginia had never ordained thatratification, she would have been an independent State; the Constitutionwould have been as perfect and the union between the ratifying Stateswould have been as complete as they now are. Virginia repeals thatordinance, annuls that bond of union, breaks that link of confederation. She repeals but a single law, repeals it by the action of a sovereignconvention, leaves her constitution, her laws, her political and socialpolity untouched. And the gentleman from Maryland tells us that theeffect of this repeal is not to destroy the vigor of that law, but tosubvert the State government, and to render the citizens "incapable ofexercising political privileges"; that the Union remains, but that oneparty to it has thereby lost its corporate existence, and the other hasadvanced to the control and government of it. 

Sir, this cannot be. Gentlemen must not palter in a double sense. Theseacts of secession are either valid or invalid. If they are valid, theyseparated the State from the Union. If they are invalid, they are void;they have no effect; the State officers who act upon them are rebelsto the Federal Government; the States are not destroyed; theirconstitutions are not abrogated; their officers are committing illegalacts, for which they are liable to punishment; the States have neverleft the Union, but, as soon as their officers shall perform theirduties or other officers shall assume their places, will again performthe duties imposed, and enjoy the privileges conferred, by theFederal compact, and this not by virtue of a new ratification of theConstitution, nor a new admission by the Federal Government, but byvirtue of the original ratification, and the constant, uninterruptedmaintenance of position in the Federal Union since that date. 

Acts of secession are not invalid to destroy the Union, and valid todestroy the State governments and the political privileges of theircitizens. We have heard much of the twofold relations which citizens ofthe seceded States may hold to the Federal Government--that they may beat once belligerents and rebellious citizens. I believe there are somejudicial decisions to that effect. Sir, it is impossible. The FederalGovernment may possibly have the right to elect in which relationit will deal with them; it cannot deal at one and the same time ininconsistent relations. Belligerents, being captured, are entitled tobe treated as prisoners of war; rebellious citizens are liable to behanged. The private property of belligerents, according to the rulesof modern war, shall not be taken without compensation; the propertyof rebellious citizens is liable to confiscation. Belligerents arenot amenable to the local criminal law, nor to the jurisdiction of thecourts which administer it; rebellious citizens are, and the officersare bound to enforce the law and exact the penalty of its infraction. The seceded States are either in the Union or out of it. If in theUnion, their constitutions are untouched, their State governments aremaintained, their citizens are entitled to all political rights, exceptso far as they may be deprived of them by the criminal law which theyhave infracted. 

This seems incomprehensible to the gentleman from Maryland. In his view, the whole State government centres in the men who administer it, sothat, when they administer it unwisely, or put it in antagonism tothe Federal Government, the State government is dissolved, the Stateconstitution is abrogated, and the State is left, in fact and in form, _de jure_ and _de facto_, in anarchy, except so far as the FederalGovernment may rightfully intervene. * * * I submit that these gentlemendo not see with their usual clearness of vision. If, by a plague orother visitation of God, every officer of a State government should atthe same moment die, so that not a single person clothed with officialpower should remain, would the State government be destroyed? Notat all. For the moment it would not be administered; but as soon asofficers were elected, and assumed their respective duties, it would beinstantly in full force and vigor. 

If these States are out of the Union, their State governments are stillin force, unless otherwise changed; their citizens are to the FederalGovernment as foreigners, and it has in relation to them the samerights, and none other, as it had in relation to British subjects inthe war of 1812, or to the Mexicans in 1846. Whatever may be the truerelation of the seceding States, the Federal Government derives nopower in relation to them or their citizens from the provision of theConstitution now under consideration, but, in the one case, derives allits power from the duty of enforcing the "supreme law of the land, " andin the other, from the power "to declare war. "

The second proposition of the gentleman from Maryland is this--I usehis language: "That clause vests in the Congress of the United Statesa plenary, supreme, unlimited political jurisdiction, paramount overcourts, subject only to the judgment of the people of the United States, embracing within its scope every legislative measure necessary andproper to make it effectual; and what is necessary and proper theConstitution refers in the first place to our judgment, subject to norevision but that of the people. "

The gentleman states his case too strongly. The duty imposed on Congressis doubtless important, but Congress has no right to use a means ofperforming it forbidden by the Constitution, no matter how necessary orproper it might be thought to be. But, sir, this doctrine is monstrous. It has no foundation in the Constitution. It subjects all the Statesto the will of Congress; it places their institutions at the feet ofCongress. It creates in Congress an absolute, unqualified despotism. Itasserts the power of Congress in changing the State governments to be"plenary, supreme, unlimited, " "subject only to revision by the peopleof the United States. " The rights of the people of the State arenothing; their will is nothing. Congress first decides; the people ofthe whole Union revise. My own State of Ohio is liable at any moment tobe called in question for her constitution. She does not permit negroesto vote. If this doctrine be true, Congress may decide that thisexclusion is anti-republican, and by force of arms abrogate thatconstitution and set up another, permitting negroes to vote. From thatdecision of Congress there is no appeal to the people of Ohio, butonly to the people of New York and Massachusetts and Wisconsin, at theelection of representatives, and, if a majority cannot be elected toreverse the decision, the people of Ohio must submit. Woe be to theday when that doctrine shall be established, for from its centralizeddespotism we will appeal to the sword!

Sir, the rights of the States were the foundation corners of theconfederation. The Constitution recognized them, maintained them, provided for their perpetuation. Our fathers thought them the safeguardof our liberties. They have proved so. They have reconciled libertywith empire; they have reconciled the freedom of the individual with theincrease of our magnificent domain. They are the test, the touchstone, the security of our liberties. This bill, and the avowed doctrine of itssupporters, sweeps them all instantly away. It substitutes despotism forself-government--despotism the more severe because vested in a numerousCongress elected by a people who may not feel the exercise of its power. It subverts the government, destroys the confederation, and erects atyranny on the ruins of republican governments. It creates unity--itdestroys liberty; it maintains integrity of territory, but destroys therights of the citizen. 

THADDEUS STEVENS, OF PENNSYLVANIA. (BORN 1792, DIED 1868. )

ON RECONSTRUCTION; THE RADICAL REPUBLICAN THEORY;

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 18, 1865. 

A candid examination of the power and proper principles ofreconstruction can be offensive to no one, and may possibly beprofitable by exciting inquiry. One of the suggestions of the messagewhich we are now considering has special reference to this. Perhapsit is the principle most interesting to the people at this time. ThePresident assumes, what no one doubts, that the late rebel States havelost their constitutional relations to the Union, and are incapable ofrepresentation in Congress, except by permission of the Government. Itmatters but little, with this admission, whether you call them Statesout of the Union, and now conquered territories, or assert that becausethe Constitution forbids them to do what they did do, that they aretherefore only dead as to all national and political action, and willremain so until the Government shall breathe into them the breath oflife anew and permit them to occupy their former position. In otherwords, that they are not out of the Union, but are only dead carcasseslying within the Union. In either case, it is very plain that itrequires the action of Congress to enable them to form a Stategovernment and send representatives to Congress. Nobody, I believe, pretends that with their old constitutions and frames of government theycan be permitted to claim their old rights under the Constitution. Theyhave torn their constitutional States into atoms, and built on theirfoundations fabrics of a totally different character. Dead men cannotraise themselves. Dead States cannot restore their own existence "as itwas. " Whose especial duty is it to do it? In whom does the Constitutionplace the power? Not in the judicial branch of Government, for it onlyadjudicates and does not prescribe laws. Not in the Executive, for heonly executes and cannot make laws. Not in the Commander-in-Chief ofthe armies, for he can only hold them under military rule until thesovereign legislative power of the conqueror shall give them law. 

There is fortunately no difficulty in solving the question. There aretwo provisions in the Constitution, under one of which the case mustfall. The fourth article says:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union. "

In my judgment this is the controlling provision in this case. Unless the law of nations is a dead letter, the late war between twoacknowledged belligerents severed their original compacts, and broke allthe ties that bound them together. The future condition of the conqueredpower depends on the will of the conqueror. They must come in as newStates or remain as conquered provinces. Congress--the Senate and Houseof Representatives, with the concurrence of the President--is theonly power that can act in the matter. But suppose, as some dreamingtheorists imagine, that these States have never been out of the Union, but have only destroyed their State governments so as to be incapable ofpolitical action; then the fourth section of the fourth article applies, which says:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union arepublican form of government. "

Who is the United States? Not the judiciary; not the President; but thesovereign power of the people, exercised through their representativesin Congress, with the concurrence of the Executive. It means thepolitical Government--the concurrent action of both branches of Congressand the Executive. The separate action of each amounts to nothing, either in admitting new States or guaranteeing republican governmentsto lapsed or outlawed States. Whence springs the preposterous idea thateither the President, or the Senate, or the House of Representatives, acting separately, can determine the right of States to send members orSenators to the Congress of the Union?

To prove that they are and for four years have been out of the Union forall legal purposes, and, being now conquered, subject to the absolutedisposal of Congress, I will suggest a few ideas and adduce a fewauthorities. If the so-called "confederate States of America" were anindependent belligerent, and were so acknowledged by the United Statesand by Europe, or had assumed and maintained an attitude which entitledthem to be considered and treated as a belligerent, then, during suchtime, they were precisely in the condition of a foreign nation with whomwe were at war; nor need their independence as a nation be acknowledgedby us to produce that effect. 

After such clear and repeated decisions it is something worse thanridiculous to hear men of respectable standing attempting to nullify thelaw of nations, and declare the Supreme Court of the United States inerror, because, as the Constitution forbids it, the States could not goout of the Union in fact. A respectable gentleman was lately recitingthis argument, when he suddenly stopped and said, "Did you hear of thatatrocious murder committed in our town? A rebel deliberately murdereda Government official. " The person addressed said, "I think you aremistaken. " "How so? I saw it myself. " "You are wrong, no murder was orcould be committed, for the law forbids it. "

The theory that the rebel States, for four years a separate power andwithout representation in Congress, were all the time here in the Union, is a good deal less ingenious and respectable than the metaphysics ofBerkeley, which proved that neither the world nor any human being was inexistence. If this theory were simply ridiculous it could be forgiven;but its effect is deeply injurious to the stability of the nation. Icannot doubt that the late confederate States are out of the Unionto all intents and purposes for which the conqueror may choose so toconsider them. 

 * * * * *

But suppose these powerful but now subdued belligerents, instead ofbeing out of the Union, are merely destroyed, and are now lying about, a dead corpse, or with animation so suspended as to be incapable ofaction, and wholly unable to heal themselves by any unaided movements oftheir own. Then they may fall under the provision of the Constitution, which says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in theUnion a republican form of government. " Under that power, can thejudiciary, or the President, or the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, orthe Senate or House of Representatives, acting separately, restore themto life and readmit them into the Union? I insist that if each actedseparately, though the action of each was identical with all the others, it would amount to nothing. Nothing but the joint action of the twoHouses of Congress and the concurrence of the President could do it. If the Senate admitted their Senators, and the House their members, it would have no effect on the future action of Congress. The FortiethCongress might reject both. Such is the ragged record of Congress forthe last four years. 

 * * * * *

Congress alone can do it. But Congress does not mean the Senate, or theHouse of Representatives, and President, all acting severally. Theirjoint action constitutes Congress. Hence a law of Congress must bepassed before any new State can be admitted, or any dead ones revived. Until then no member can be lawfully admitted into either House. Henceit appears with how little knowledge of constitutional law each branchis urged to admit members separately from these destroyed States. Theprovision that "each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, " has not the most distant bearingon this question. Congress must create States and declare when theyare entitled to be represented. Then each House must judge whetherthe members presenting themselves from a recognized State possess therequisite qualifications of age, residence, and citizenship; and whetherthe elections and returns are according to law. The Houses, separately, can judge of nothing else. It seems amazing that any man of legaleducation could give it any larger meaning. 

It is obvious from all this that the first duty of Congress is to passa law declaring the condition of these outside or defunct States, andproviding proper civil governments for them. Since the conquestthey have been governed by martial law. Military rule is necessarilydespotic, and ought not to exist longer than is absolutely necessary. As there are no symptoms that the people of these provinces will beprepared to participate in constitutional government for some years, Iknow of no arrangement so proper for them as territorial governments. There they can learn the principles of freedom and eat the fruit offoul rebellion. Under such governments, while electing members to theterritorial Legislatures, they will necessarily mingle with thoseto whom Congress shall extend the right of suffrage. In Territories, Congress fixes the qualifications of electors; and I know of no betterplace nor better occasion for the conquered rebels and the conqueror topractise justice to all men, and accustom themselves to make and to obeyequal laws. 

And these fallen rebels cannot at their option reenter the heaven whichthey have disturbed, the garden of Eden which they have deserted;as flaming swords are set at the gates to secure their exclusion, itbecomes important to the welfare of the nation to inquire when the doorsshall be reopened for their admission. 

According to my judgment they ought never to be recognized as capableof acting in the Union, or of being counted as valid States, until theConstitution shall have been so amended as to make it what its framersintended, and so as to secure perpetual ascendency to the party of theUnion; and so as to render our republican Government firm and stableforever. The first of those amendments is to change the basis ofrepresentation among the States from Federal members to actual voters. 

Now all the colored freemen in the slave States, and three fifths of theslaves, are represented, though none of them have votes. The States havenineteen representatives of colored slaves. If the slaves are now freethen they can add, for the other two fifths, thirteen more, making theslaves represented thirty-two. I suppose the free blacks in those Stateswill give at least five more, making the representation of non-votingpeople of color about thirty-seven. The whole number of representativesnow from the slave States is seventy. Add the other two fifths and itwill be eighty-three. 

If the amendment prevails, and those States withhold the right ofsuffrage from persons of color, it will deduct about thirty-seven, leaving them but forty-six. With the basis unchanged, the eighty-threeSouthern members, with the Democrats that will in the best times beelected from the North, will always give them a majority in Congressand in the Electoral College. They will at the very first election takepossession of the White House and the halls of Congress. I need notdepict the ruin that would follow. Assumption of the rebel debt orrepudiation of the Federal debt would be sure to follow. The oppressionof the freedmen, there--amendment of their State constitutions, and thereestablishment of slavery would be the inevitable result. That theywould scorn and disregard their present constitutions, forced upon themin the midst of martial law, would be both natural and just. No one whohas any regard for freedom of elections can look upon those governments, forced upon them in duress, with any favor. If they should grant theright of suffrage to persons of color, I think there would always beUnion white men enough in the South, aided by the blacks, to divide therepresentation, and thus continue the Republican ascendency. If theyshould refuse to thus alter their election laws it would reduce therepresentatives of the late slave States to about forty-five and renderthem powerless for evil. 

It is plain that this amendment must be consummated before the defunctStates are admitted to be capable of State action, or it never can be. 

The proposed amendment to allow Congress to lay a duty on exportsis precisely in the same situation. Its importance cannot well beoverstated. It is very obvious that for many years the South will notpay much under our internal revenue laws. The only article on which wecan raise any considerable amount is cotton. It will be grown largely atonce. With ten cents a pound export duty it would be furnished cheaperto foreign markets than they could obtain it from any other part of theworld. The late war has shown that. Two million bales exported, at fivehundred pounds to the bale, would yield $100, 000, 000. This seems to methe chief revenue we shall ever derive from the South. Besides, itwould be a protection to that amount to our domestic manufactures. Other proposed amendments--to make all laws uniform; to prohibit theassumption of the rebel debt--are of vital importance, and theonly thing that can prevent the combined forces of copperheads andsecessionists from legislating against the interests of the Unionwhenever they may obtain an accidental majority. 

But this is not all that we ought to do before these inveterate rebelsare invited to participate in our legislation. We have turned, or areabout to turn, loose four million of slaves without a hut to shelterthem, or a cent in their pockets. The infernal laws of slavery haveprevented them from acquiring an education, understanding the commonestlaws of contract, or of managing the ordinary business of life. ThisCongress is bound to provide for them until they can take care ofthemselves. If we do not furnish them with homesteads, and hedge themaround with protective laws; if we leave them to the legislation oftheir late masters, we had better have left them in bondage. Theircondition would be worse than that of our prisoners at Andersonville. Ifwe fail in this great duty now, when we have the power, we shall deserveand receive the execration of history and of all future ages. 

Two things are of vital importance. 

1. So to establish a principle that none of the rebel States shall becounted in any of the amendments of the Constitution until they areduly admitted into the family of States by the law-making power of theirconqueror. For more than six months the amendment of the Constitutionabolishing slavery has been ratified by the Legislatures of threefourths of the States that acted on its passage by Congress, and whichhad Legislatures, or which were States capable of acting, or required toact, on the question. 

I take no account of the aggregation of whitewashed rebels, who withoutany legal authority have assembled in the capitals of the late rebelStates and simulated legislative bodies. Nor do I regard with anyrespect the cunning by-play into which they deluded the Secretary ofState by frequent telegraphic announcements that "South Carolina hadadopted the amendment, " "Alabama has adopted the amendment, being thetwenty-seventh State, " etc. This was intended to delude the people, andaccustom Congress to hear repeated the names of these extinct States asif they were alive; when, in truth, they have no more existence than therevolted cities of Latium, two thirds of whose people were colonized andtheir property confiscated, and their right of citizenship withdrawn byconquering and avenging Rome. 

2. It is equally important to the stability of this Republic that itshould now be solemnly decided what power can revive, recreate, andreinstate these provinces into the family of States, and invest themwith the rights of American citizens. It is time that Congress shouldassert its sovereignty, and assume something of the dignity of a Romansenate. It is fortunate that the President invites Congress to take thismanly attitude. After stating with great frankness in his able messagehis theory, which, however, is found to be impracticable, and which Ibelieve very few now consider tenable, he refers the whole matter tothe judgment of Congress. If Congress should fail firmly and wisely todischarge that high duty it is not the fault of the President. 

This Congress owes it to its own character to set the seal ofreprobation upon a doctrine which is becoming too fashionable, andunless rebuked will be the recognized principle of our Government. Governor Perry and other provisional governors and orators proclaimthat "this is the white man's Government. " The whole copperhead party, pandering to the lowest prejudices of the ignorant, repeat the cuckoocry, "This is the white man's Government. " Demagogues of all parties, even some high in authority, gravely shout, "This is the white man'sGovernment. " What is implied by this? That one race of men are to havethe exclusive right forever to rule this nation, and to exercise allacts of sovereignty, while all other races and nations and colors are tobe their subjects, and have no voice in making the laws and choosing therulers by whom they are to be governed. Wherein does this differ fromslavery except in degree? Does not this contradict all the distinctiveprinciples of the Declaration of Independence? When the great and goodmen promulgated that instrument, and pledged their lives and sacredhonors to defend it, it was supposed to form an epoch in civilgovernment. Before that time it was held that the right to rule wasvested in families, dynasties, or races, not because of superiorintelligence of virtue, but because of a divine right to enjoy exclusiveprivileges. 

Our fathers repudiated the whole doctrine of the legal superiority offamilies or races, and proclaimed the equality of men before the law. Upon that they created a revolution and built the Republic. They wereprevented by slavery from perfecting the superstructure whose foundationthey had thus broadly laid. For the sake of the Union they consented towait, but never relinquished the idea of its final completion. The timeto which they looked forward with anxiety has come. It is our duty tocomplete their work. If this Republic is not now made to stand on theirgreat principles, it has no honest foundation, and the Father of all menwill still shake it to its centre. If we have not yet been sufficientlyscourged for our national sin to teach us to do justice to all God'screatures, without distinction of race or color, we must expect thestill more heavy vengeance of an offended Father, still increasing hisinflictions as he increased the severity of the plagues of Egypt untilthe tyrant consented to do justice. And when that tyrant repented ofhis reluctant consent, and attempted to re-enslave the people, as oursouthern tyrants are attempting to do now, he filled the Red Sea withbroken chariots and drowned horses, and strewed the shores with deadcarcasses. 

Mr. Chairman, I trust the Republican party will not be alarmed at what Iam saying. I do not profess to speak their sentiments, nor must theybe held responsible for them. I speak for myself, and take theresponsibility, and will settle with my intelligent constituents. 

This is not a "white man's Government, " in the exclusive sense inwhich it is used. To say so is political blasphemy, for it violatesthe fundamental principles of our gospel of liberty. This is man'sGovernment; the Government of all men alike; not that all men will haveequal power and sway within it. Accidental circumstances, natural andacquired endowment and ability, will vary their fortunes. But equalrights to all the privileges of the Government is innate in everyimmortal being, no matter what the shape or color of the tabernaclewhich it inhabits. 

If equal privileges were granted to all, I should not expect any butwhite men to be elected to office for long ages to come. The prejudiceengendered by slavery would not soon permit merit to be preferredto color. But it would still be beneficial to the weaker races. In acountry where political divisions will always exist, their power, joined with just white men, would greatly modify, if it did not entirelyprevent, the injustice of majorities. Without the right of suffrage inthe late slave States (I do not speak of the free States), I believe theslaves had far better been left in bondage. I see it stated that verydistinguished advocates of the right of suffrage lately declared in thiscity that they do not expect to obtain it by congressional legislation, but only by administrative action, because, as one gallant gentlemansaid, the States had not been out of the Union. Then they will never getit. The President is far sounder than they. He sees that administrativeaction has nothing to do with it. If it ever is to come, it must be byconstitutional amendments or congressional action in the Territories, and in enabling acts. 

How shameful that men of influence should mislead and miseducate thepublic mind! They proclaim, "This is the white man's Government, " andthe whole coil of copperheads echo the same sentiment, and upstart, jealous Republicans join the cry. Is it any wonder ignorant foreignersand illiterate natives should learn this doctrine, and be led to despiseand maltreat a whole race of their fellow-men?

Sir, this doctrine of a white man's Government is as atrocious as theinfamous sentiment that damned the late Chief-Justice to everlastingfame; and, I fear, to everlasting fire. 

HENRY J. RAYMOND, OF NEW YORK. (BORN 1820, DIED 1869. )

ON RECONSTRUCTION; CONSERVATIVE, OR ADMINISTRATION, REPUBLICAN OPINION;

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 21, 1865. 

I need not say that I have been gratified to hear many things which havefallen from the lips of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Finck), who hasjust taken his seat. I have no party feeling, nor any other feeling, which would prevent me from rejoicing in the indications apparent onthat side of the House of a purpose to concur with the loyal people ofthe country, and with the loyal administration of the Government, andwith the loyal majorities in both Houses of Congress, in restoring peaceand order to our common country. I cannot, perhaps, help wishing, sir, that these indications of an interest in the preservation of ourGovernment had come somewhat sooner. I cannot help feeling that suchexpressions cannot now be of as much service to the country as theymight once have been. If we could have had from that side of the Housesuch indications of an interest in the preservation of the Union, such heartfelt sympathy with the efforts of the Government for thepreservation of that Union, such hearty denunciation of those who wereseeking its destruction, while the war was raging, I am sure we mighthave been spared some years of war, some millions of money, and riversof blood and tears. 

But, sir, I am not disposed to fight over again battles now happilyended. I feel, and I am rejoiced to find that members on the other sideof the House feel, that the great problem now before us is to restorethe Union to its old integrity, purified from everything that interferedwith the full development of the spirit of liberty which it was madeto enshrine. I trust that we shall have a general concurrence of themembers of this House and of this Congress in such measures as may bedeemed most fit and proper for the accomplishment of that result. I amglad to assume and to believe that there is not a member of this House, nor a man in this country, who does not wish, from the bottom of hisheart, to see the day speedily come when we shall have this nation--thegreat American Republic--again united, more harmonious in its actionthan it ever has been, and forever one and indivisible. We in thisCongress are to devise the means to restore its union and its harmony, to perfect its institutions, and to make it in all its parts and in allits action, through all time to come, too strong, too wise, and toofree ever to invite or ever to permit the hand of rebellion again to beraised against it. 

Now, sir, in devising those ways and means to accomplish that greatresult, the first thing we have to do is to know the point from whichwe start, to understand the nature of the material with which we haveto work--the condition of the territory and the States with which we areconcerned. I had supposed at the outset of this session that it was thepurpose of this House to proceed to that work without discussion, andto commit it almost exclusively, if not entirely, to the joint committeeraised by the two Houses for the consideration of that subject. But, sir, I must say that I was glad when I perceived the distinguishedgentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens), himself the chairman on thepart of this House of that great committee on reconstruction, lead offin a discussion of this general subject, and thus invite all the rest ofus who choose to follow him in the debate. In the remarks which he madein this body a few days since, he laid down, with the clearness andthe force which characterize everything he says and does, his point ofdeparture in commencing this great work. I had hoped that the ground hewould lay down would be such that we could all of us stand upon it andco-operate with him in our common object. I feel constrained to say, sir--and do it without the slightest disposition to create or toexaggerate differences--that there were features in his exposition ofthe condition of the country with which I cannot concur. I cannot formyself start from precisely the point which he assumes. 

In his remarks on that occasion he assumed that the States lately inrebellion were and are out of the Union. Throughout his speech--I willnot trouble you with reading passages from it--I find him speaking ofthose States as "outside of the Union, " as "dead States, " as havingforfeited all their rights and terminated their State existence. I findexpressions still more definite and distinct; I find him stating thatthey "are and for four years have been out of the Union for all legalpurposes"; as having been for four years a "separate power, " and "aseparate nation. "

His position therefore is that these States, having been in rebellion, are now out of the Union, and are simply within the jurisdiction of theConstitution of the United States as so much territory to be dealt withprecisely as the will of the conqueror, to use his own language, maydictate. Now, sir, if that position is correct, it prescribes for us oneline of policy to be pursued very different from the one that will beproper if it is not correct. His belief is that what we have to do is tocreate new States out of this territory at the proper time--manyyears distant--retaining them meantime in a territorial condition, andsubjecting them to precisely such a state of discipline and tutelageas Congress or the Government of the United States may see fit toprescribe. If I believed in the premises which he assumes, possibly, though I do not think probably, I might agree with the conclusion he hasreached. 

But, sir, I cannot believe that this is our condition. I cannot believethat these States have ever been out of the Union, or that they are nowout of the Union. I cannot believe that they ever have been, or are now, in any sense a separate Power. If they were, sir, how and when did theybecome so? They were once States of this Union--that every one concedes;bound to the Union and made members of the Union by the Constitutionof the United States. If they ever went out of the Union it was at somespecific time and by some specific act. I regret that the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) is not now in his seat. I should have beenglad to ask him by what specific act, and at what precise time, any oneof those States took itself out of the American Union. Was it by theordinance of secession? I think we all agree that an ordinance ofsecession passed by any State of this Union is simply a nullity, becauseit encounters in its practical operation the Constitution of the UnitedStates, which is the supreme law of the land. It could have no legal, actual force or validity. It could not operate to effect any actualchange in the relations of the State adopting it to the nationalGovernment, still less to accomplish the removal of that State from thesovereign jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States. 

Well, sir, did the resolutions of the States, the declarations oftheir officials, the speeches of members of their Legislatures, or theutterances of their press accomplish the result? Certainly not. Theycould not possibly work any change whatever in the relations of theseStates to the General Government. All their ordinances and all theirresolutions were simply declarations of a purpose to secede. Theirsecession, if it ever took place, certainly could not date from the timewhen their intention to secede was first announced. After declaringthat intention, they proceeded to carry it into effect. How? By war. By sustaining their purpose by arms against the force which the UnitedStates brought to bear against it. Did they sustain it? Were their armsvictorious? If they were, then their secession was an accomplishedfact. If not, it was nothing more than an abortive attempt--a purposeunfulfilled. This, then, is simply a question of fact, and we all knowwhat the fact is. They did not succeed. They failed to maintain theirground by force of arms--in other words, they failed to secede. 

But the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) insists that they didsecede, and that this fact is not in the least affected by the otherfact that the Constitution forbids secession. He says that the lawforbids murder, but that murders are nevertheless committed. But thereis no analogy between the two cases. If secession had been accomplished, if these States had gone out, and overcome the armies that tried toprevent their going out, then the prohibition of the Constitution couldnot have altered the fact. In the case of murder the man is killed, andmurder is thus committed in spite of the law. The fact of killing isessential to the committal of the crime; and the fact of going out isessential to secession. But in this case there was no such fact. I thinkI need not argue any further the position that the rebel Stateshave never for one moment, by any ordinances of secession, or by anysuccessful war, carried themselves beyond the rightful jurisdiction ofthe Constitution of the United States. They have interrupted for atime the practical enforcement and exercise of that jurisdiction;they rendered it impossible for a time for this Government to enforceobedience to its laws; but there has never been an hour when thisGovernment, or this Congress, or this House, or the gentleman fromPennsylvania himself, ever conceded that those States were beyond thejurisdiction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

During all these four years of war Congress has been making laws for thegovernment of those very States, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania hasvoted for them, and voted to raise armies to enforce them. Why was thisdone if they were a separate nation? Why, if they were not part of theUnited States? Those laws were made for them as States. Members havevoted for laws imposing upon them direct taxes, which are apportioned, according to the Constitution, only "among the several States" accordingto their population. In a variety of ways--to some of which thegentleman' who preceded me has referred--this Congress has, by itsaction, assumed and asserted that they were still States in the Union, though in rebellion, and that it was with the rebellion that we weremaking war, and not with the States themselves as States, and still lessas a separate, as a foreign Power. 

 * * * * *

Why, sir, if there be no constitution of any sort in a State, nolaw, nothing but chaos, then that State would no longer exist as anorganization. But that has not been the case, it never is the casein great communities, for they always have constitutions and forms ofgovernment. It may not be a constitution or form of government adaptedto its relation to the Government of the United States; and that wouldbe an evil to be remedied by the Government of the United States. Thatis what we have been trying to do for the last four years. The practicalrelations of the governments of those States with the Government ofthe United States were all wrong--were hostile to that Government. Theydenied our jurisdiction, and they denied that they were States of theUnion, but their denial did not change the fact; and there was never anytime when their organizations as States were destroyed. A dead State isa solecism, a contradiction in terms, an impossibility. 

These are, I confess, rather metaphysical distinctions, but I did notraise them. Those who assert that a State is destroyed whenever itsconstitution is changed, or whenever its practical relations withthis Government are changed, must be held responsible for whatevermetaphysical niceties may be necessarily involved in the discussion. 

I do not know, sir, that I have made my views on this point clear to thegentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelley), who has questioned me upon it, and I am still more doubtful whether, even if they are intelligible, hewill concur with me as to their justice. But I regard these States asjust as truly within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and thereforejust as really and truly States of the American Union now as they werebefore the war. Their practical relations to the Constitution of theUnited States have been disturbed, and we have been endeavoring, throughfour years of war, to restore them and make them what they were beforethe war. The victory in the field has given us the means of doing this;we can now re-establish the practical relations of those States tothe Government. Our actual jurisdiction over them, which they vainlyattempted to throw off, is already restored. The conquest we haveachieved is a conquest over the rebellion, not a conquest over theStates whose authority the rebellion had for a time subverted. 

For these reasons I think the views submitted by the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) upon this point are unsound. Let me nextcite some of the consequences which, it seems to me, must follow theacceptance of his position. If, as he asserts, we have been waging warwith an independent Power, with a separate nation, I cannot see how wecan talk of treason in connection with our recent conflict, or demandthe execution of Davis or anybody else as a traitor. Certainly if wewere at war with any other foreign Power we should not talk of thetreason of those who were opposed to us in the field. If we were engagedin a war with France and should take as prisoner the Emperor Napoleon, certainly we would not talk of him as a traitor or as liable toexecution. I think that by adopting any such assumption as that of thehonorable gentleman, we surrender the whole idea of treason and thepunishment of traitors. I think, moreover, that we accept, virtually andpractically, the doctrine of State sovereignty, the right of a State towithdraw from the Union, and to break up the Union at its own willand pleasure. I do not see how upon those premises we can escape thatconclusion. If the States that engaged in the late rebellion constitutedthemselves, by their ordinances of secession or by any of the acts withwhich they followed those ordinances, a separate and independent Power, I do not see how we can deny the principles on which they professedto act, or refuse assent to their practical results. I have heard noclearer, no stronger statement of the doctrine of State sovereignty asparamount to the sovereignty of the nation than would be involved insuch a concession. Whether he intended it or not, the gentleman fromPennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) actually assents to the extreme doctrines ofthe advocates of secession. 

THADDEUS STEVENS, OF PENNSYLVANIA. (BORN 1792, DIED 1868. )

ON THE FIRST RECONSTRUCTION BILL;

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 3, 1867

MR. SPEAKER:

What are the great questions which now divide the nation? In the midstof the political Babel which has been produced by the interminglingof secessionists, rebels, pardoned traitors, hissing Copperheads, andapostate Republicans, such a confusion of tongues is heard that itis difficult to understand either the questions that are asked or theanswers that are given. Ask what is the "President's policy, " and it isdifficult to define it. Ask what is the "policy of Congress, " and theanswer is not always at hand. A few moments may be profitably spent inseeking the meaning of each of these terms. 

In this country the whole sovereignty rests with the people, and isexercised through their Representatives in Congress assembled. Thelegislative power is the sole guardian of that sovereignty. No otherbranch of the government, no other department, no other officer of thegovernment, possesses one single particle of the sovereignty of thenation. No government official, from the President and Chief-Justicedown, can do any one act which is not prescribed and directed by thelegislative power. Suppose the government were now to be organizedfor the first time under the Constitution, and the President hadbeen elected, and the judiciary appointed; what could either do untilCongress passed laws to regulate their proceedings? What power wouldthe President have over any one subject of government until Congress hadlegislated on that subject? * * * The President could not even createbureaus or departments to facilitate his executive operations. He mustask leave of Congress. Since, then, the President cannot enact, alter, or modify a single law; cannot even create a petty office within hisown sphere of operations; if, in short, he is the mere servant of thepeople, who issue their commands to him through Congress, whence doeshe derive the constitutional power to create new States, to remodel oldones, to dictate organic laws, to fix the qualifications of voters, todeclare that States are republican and entitled to command Congress, toadmit their Representatives? To my mind it is either the most ignorantand shallow mistake of his duties, or the most brazen and impudentusurpation of power. It is claimed for him by some as commander-in-chiefof the army and navy. How absurd that a mere executive officer shouldclaim creative powers. Though commander-in-chief by the Constitution, he would have nothing to command, either by land or water until Congressraised both army and navy. Congress also prescribes the rulesand regulations to govern the army; even that is not left to theCommander-in-chief. 

Though the President is commander-in-chief, Congress is his commander;and, God willing, he shall obey. He and his minions shall learn thatthis is not a government of kings and satraps, but a government ofthe people, and that Congress is the people. * * * To reconstruct thenation, to admit new States, to guarantee republican governments toold States, are all legislative acts. The President claims the right toexercise them. Congress denies it, and asserts the right to belong tothe legislative branch. They have determined to defend these rightsagainst all usurpers. They have determined that, while in their keeping, the Constitution shall not be violated with impunity. This I take tobe the great question between the President and Congress. He claims theright to reconstruct by his own power. Congress denies him all power inthe matter except that of advice, and has determined to maintain suchdenial. "My policy" asserts full power in the Executive. The policy ofCongress forbids him to exercise any power therein. 

Beyond this I do not agree that the "policy" of the parties is defined. To be sure, many subordinate items of the policy of each may be easilysketched. The President * * * desires that the traitors (having sternlyexecuted that most important leader Rickety Wirz, as a high example)should be exempt from further fine, imprisonment, forfeiture, exile, orcapital punishment, and be declared entitled to all the rights ofloyal citizens. He desires that the States created by him shall beacknowledged as valid States, while at the same time he inconsistentlydeclares that the old rebel States are in full existence, and alwayshave been, and have equal rights with the loyal States. He opposes theamendment to the Constitution which changes the basis of representation, and desires the old slave States to have the benefit of their increaseof freemen without increasing the number of votes; in short, he desiresto make the vote of one rebel in South Carolina equal to the votes ofthree freemen in Pennsylvania or New York. He is determined to forcea solid rebel delegation into Congress from the South, which, togetherwith Northern Copperheads, could at once control Congress and elect allfuture Presidents. 

Congress refuses to treat the States created by him as of any validity, and denies that the old rebel States have any existence which givesthem any rights under the Constitution. Congress insists on changing thebasis of representation so as to put white voters on an equality in bothsections, and that such change shall precede the admission of anyState. * * * Congress denies that any State lately in rebellion hasany government or constitution known to the Constitution of the UnitedStates, or which can be recognized as a part of the Union. How, then, can such a State adopt the (XIIIth) amendment? To allow it would beyielding the whole question, and admitting the unimpaired rights of theseceded States. I know of no Republican who does not ridicule whatMr. Seward thought a cunning movement, in counting Virginia and otheroutlawed States among those which had adopted the constitutionalamendment abolishing slavery. 

It is to be regretted that inconsiderate and incautious Republicansshould ever have supposed that the slight amendments already proposedto the Constitution, even when incorporated into that instrument, wouldsatisfy the reforms necessary for the security of the government. Unlessthe rebel States, before admission, should be made republican in spirit, and placed under the guardianship of loyal men, all our blood andtreasure will have been spent in vain. * * *

The law of last session with regard to Territories settled theprinciples of such acts. Impartial suffrage, both in electing thedelegates and in ratifying their proceedings, is now the fixed rule. There is more reason why colored voters should be admitted in the rebelStates than in the Territories. In the States they form the great massof the loyal men. Possibly, with their aid, loyal governments may beestablished in most of those States. Without it all are sure to be ruledby traitors; and loyal men, black or white, will be oppressed, exiled, or murdered. 

There are several good reasons for the passage of this bill. In thefirst place, it is just. I am now confining my argument to negrosuffrage in the rebel States. Have not loyal blacks quite as good aright to choose rulers and make laws as rebel whites? In the secondplace, it is a necessity in order to protect the loyal white men inthe seceded States. With them the blacks would act in a body; and it isbelieved then, in each of said States, except one, the two united wouldform a majority, control the States, and protect themselves. Now theyare the victims of daily murder. They must suffer constant persecutionor be exiled. 

Another good reason is that it would insure the ascendency of the Unionparty. "Do you avow the party purpose?" exclaims some horror-strickendemagogue. I do. For I believe, on my conscience, that on the continuedascendency of that party depends the safety of this great nation. Ifimpartial suffrage is excluded in the rebel States, then every one ofthem is sure to send a solid rebel representation to Congress, and casta solid rebel electoral vote. They, with their kindred Copperheads ofthe North, would always elect the President and control Congress. Whileslavery sat upon her defiant throne, and insulted and intimidated thetrembling North, the South frequently divided on questions of policybetween Whigs and Democrats, and gave victory alternately to thesections. Now, you must divide them between loyalists, without regardto color, and disloyalists, or you will be the perpetual vassals of thefree-trade, irritated, revengeful South. For these, among other reasons, I am for negro suffrage in every rebel State. If it be just, it shouldnot be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be apunishment to traitors, they deserve it. 

VIII. --FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION. 

THE periods into which this series has been divided will furnish, perhaps, some key to the brief summary of tariff discussion in theUnited States which follows. For it is not at all true that tariffdiscussion or decision has been isolated; on the contrary, it hasinfluenced, and been influenced by, every other phase of the nationaldevelopment of the country. 

Bancroft has laid none too great stress on the influence of the Englishmercantile system in forcing the American Revolution, and on theattitude of the Revolution as an organized revolt against the Englishsystem. One of the first steps by which the Continental Congressasserted its claim to independent national action was the throwingopen of American ports to the commerce of all nations--that is, to freetrade. It should, however, be added that the extreme breadth of thisliberality was due to the inability of Congress to impose any duties onimports; it had a choice only between absolute prohibition and absolutefree trade, and it chose the latter. The States were not so limited. Both under the revolutionary Congress and under the Confederation theyretained the entire duty power, and they showed no fondness for freetrade. Commerce in general was light, and tariff receipts, even in thecommercial States, were of no great importance; but, wherever itwas possible, commercial regulations were framed in disregard of thefree-trade principle. In order to retain the trade in firewood andvegetables within her own borders, New York, in 1787, even laidprohibitory duties on Connecticut and New Jersey boats; and retaliatorymeasures were begun by the two States attacked. 

The Constitution gave to Congress, and forbade to the States, the powerto regulate commerce. As soon as the Constitution came to be put intooperation, the manner and objects of the regulation of commerce byCongress became a public question. Many other considerations werecomplicated with it. It was necessary for the United States to obtaina revenue, and this could most easily be done by a tariff of duties onimports. It was necessary for the Federalist majority to consider theparty interests both in the agricultural States, which would objectto protective duties, and in the States which demanded them. But thehighest consideration in the mind of Hamilton and the most influentialleaders of the party seems to have been the maintenance of theUnion. The repulsive force of the States toward one another was stillsufficiently strong to be an element of constant and recognized dangerto the Union. One method of overcoming it, as a part of the wholeHamiltonian policy, was to foster the growth of manufactures as aninterest entirely independent of State lines and dependent on thenational government, which would throw its whole influence for themaintenance of the Union. This feeling runs through the speeches even ofMadison, who prefaced his remarks by a declaration in favor of "a tradeas free as the policy of nations would allow. " Protection, therefore, began in the United States as an instrument of national unity, withoutregard to national profit; and the argument in its favor would have beenquite as strong as ever to the mind of a legislator who accepted everydeduction as to the economic disadvantages of protection. Arguments forits economic advantages are not wanting; but they have no such form andconsistency as those of subsequent periods. The result of the discussionwas the tariff act of July 4, 1789, whose preamble stated one of itsobjects to be "the encouragement and protection of manufactures. " Itsaverage duty, however, was but about 8. 5 per cent. It was followed byother acts, each increasing the rate of general duties, until, at theoutbreak of the War of 1812, the general rate was about 21 per cent. Thewar added about 6 per cent, to this rate. 

Growth toward democracy very commonly brings a curious bias towardprotection, contrasted with the fundamental free-trade argument that aprotective system and a system of slave labor have identical bases. Thebias toward a pronounced protective system in the United States makesits appearance with the rise of democracy; and, after the War of 1812, is complicated with party interests. New England was still the citadelof Federalism. The war and its blockade had fostered manufactures in NewEngland; and the manufacturing interest, looking to the Democraticparty for protection, was a possible force to sap the foundations of thecitadel. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, Secretary of the Treasury, prepared, and Calhoun carried through Congress, the tariff of 1816. It introducedseveral protective features, the "minimum" feature, by which theimported article was assumed to have cost at least a certain amount incalculating duties, and positive protection for cottons and woollens. The duties paid under this tariff were about 30 per cent. On allimports, or 33 per cent. On dutiable goods. In 1824 and 1828, under thelead of Clay, tariffs were adopted which made the tariff of duties stillhigher and more systematically protective; they touched high-watermark in 1830, being 40 per cent. On all imports, or 48. 8 per cent. Ondutiable goods. The influence of nullification in forcing through thecompromise tariff of 1833, with its regular decrease of duties for tenyears, has been stated in the first volume. 

Under the workings of the compromise tariff there was a steady decreasein the rate on all imports, but not in the rate on dutiable goods, thecomparison being 22 per cent. On total to 32 per cent. On dutiable for1833, and 16 per cent. On total to 32 per cent. On dutiable for 1841. The conjunction of the increase in non-dutiable imports and the approachof free trade, with general financial distress, gave the Whigssuccess in the elections of 1840; and in 1841 they set about revivingprotection. Unluckily for them, their chosen President, Harrison, wasdead, and his successor, Tyler, a Democrat by nature, taken up forpolitical reasons by the Whigs, was deaf to Whig eloquence on thesubject of the tariff. After an unsuccessful effort to secure ahigh tariff and a distribution of the surplus among the States, thesemi-protective tariff of 1842 became law. Its result for the next fouryears was that the rate on dutiable goods was altered very little, whilethe rate on total imports rose from 16 per cent. To 26 per cent. Thereturn of the Democrats to power was marked by the passage of therevenue tariff of 1846, which lasted, with a slight further reductionof duties in 1857, until 1861. Under its operation the rates steadilydecreased until, in 1861, they were 18. 14 per cent, on dutiable goods, and 11. 79 per cent. On total imports. 

The platform of the Republican party in the election of 1856 made nodeclaration for or against free trade or protection. The results of theelection showed that the electoral votes of Pennsylvania and Illinoiswould have been sufficient to give the party a victory in 1856. Bothparty policy and a natural regard to its strong Whig membership dictateda return to the protective feature of the Whig policy. In March, 1860, Mr. Morrill introduced a protective tariff bill in the House ofRepresentatives, and it passed that body; and, in June, the RepublicanNational Convention adopted, as one of its resolutions, a declarationin favor of a protective system. The Democratic Senate postponed theMorrill bill until the following session. When it came up againfor consideration, in February, 1861, conditions had changed veryconsiderably. Seven States had seceded, taking off fourteen Senatorsopposed to the bill; and it was passed. It was signed by PresidentBuchanan, March 2, 1861, and went into operation April 1, raising therates to about 20 per cent. In August and in December, two other actswere passed, raising the rates still higher. These were followed byother increases, which ran the maximum up, in 1868, to 48 per cent. Ondutiable goods, the highest rate from 1860 to date. It may be noted, however, that the rate of 1830--48. 8 per cent. On dutiable goods--stillretains its rank as the highest in our history. 

The controlling necessity for ready money, to prevent the over-issue ofbonds and green-backs, undoubtedly gained votes in Congress sufficientto sustain the policy of protection, as a means of putting the capitalof the country into positions where it could be easily reached byinternal-revenue taxation. This conjunction of internal revenue andprotection proved a mutual support until the payment of the war debthad gone so far as to provoke the reaction. The Democratic NationalConvention of 1876 attacked the tariff system as a masterpiece ofiniquity, but no distinct issue was made between the parties on thisquestion. In 1880 and 1884, the Republican party was the one to forcethe issue of protection or free trade upon its opponent, but itsopponent evaded it. 

In 1884, both parties admit the necessity of a reduction in the ratesof duties, if for no other reason, in order to reduce the surplus ofGovernment receipts over expenditures, which is a constant stimulusto congressional extravagance. The Republican policy is in generalto retain the principle of protection in the reduction; while theDemocratic policy, so far as it is defined, is to deal as tenderly aspossible with interests which have become vested under a protectivesystem. What influence will be exerted by the present over-productionand depression in business cannot, of course, be foretold; but thereport of Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury, in December, 1884, indicates an attempt to induce manufacturers to submit to an abandonmentof protection, as a means of securing a decrease in cost of production, and a consequent foreign market for surplus product. 

In taking Clay's speech in 1832 as the representative statement of theargument for protection, the editor has consulted Professor Thompson, of the University of Pennsylvania, and has been guided by his advice. Onthe other side, the statement of Representative Hurd, in 1881, has beentaken as, on the whole, the best summary of the free-trade argument. Inboth cases, the difficulty has been in the necessary exclusion of merelywritten arguments. 

HENRY CLAY, OF KENTUCKY. (BORN 1777, DIED 1852. )

ON THE AMERICAN SYSTEM;

IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 2-6, 1832. 

THE question which we are now called upon to determine, is not, whetherwe shall establish a new and doubtful system of policy, just proposed, and for the first time presented to our consideration, but whether weshall break down and destroy a long-established system, carefully andpatiently built up and sanctioned, during a series of years, again andagain, by the nation and its highest and most revered authorities. Andare we not bound deliberately to consider whether we can proceed to thiswork of destruction without a violation of the public faith? The peopleof the United States have justly supposed that the policy of protectingtheir industry against foreign legislation and foreign industry wasfully settled, not by a single act, but by repeated and deliberate actsof government, performed at distant and frequent intervals. In fullconfidence that the policy was firmly and unchangeably fixed, thousandsupon thousands have invested their capital, purchased a vast amount ofreal and other estate, made permanent establishments, and accommodatedtheir industry. Can we expose to utter and irretrievable ruin thiscountless multitude, without justly incurring the reproach of violatingthe national faith? * * *

When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradualdestruction of the American system, what is their substitute? Freetrade! The call for free trade is as unavailing, as the cry of a spoiledchild in its nurse's arms, for the moon, or the stars that glitter inthe firmament of heaven. It never has existed, it never will exist. Trade implies at least two parties. To be free, it should be fair, equal, and reciprocal. But if we throw our ports wide open to theadmission of foreign productions, free of all duty, what ports of anyother foreign nation shall we find open to the free admission of oursurplus produce? We may break down all barriers to free trade on ourpart, but the work will not be complete until foreign powers shall haveremoved theirs. There would be freedom on one side, and restrictions, prohibitions, and exclusions on the other. The bolts and the bars andthe chains of all other nations will remain undisturbed. It is, indeed, possible, that our industry and commerce would accommodate themselves tothis unequal and unjust state of things; for, such is the flexibilityof our nature, that it bends itself to all circumstances. The wretchedprisoner incarcerated in a jail, after a long time, becomes reconciledto his solitude, and regularly notches down the passing days of hisconfinement. 

Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they arerecommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonialsystem that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevails, itwill lead substantially to the recolonization of these States, under thecommercial dominion of Great Britain. * * *

I dislike this resort to authority, and especially foreign andinterested authority, for the support of principles of public policy. Iwould greatly prefer to meet gentlemen upon the broad ground of fact, ofexperience, and of reason; but, since they will appeal to British namesand authority, I feel myself compelled to imitate their bad example. Allow me to quote from the speech of a member of the British Parliament, bearing the same family name with my Lord Goderich, but whether or nota relation of his, I do not know. The member alluded to was arguingagainst the violation of the treaty of Methuen--that treaty not lessfatal to the interests of Portugal than would be the system of gentlemento the best interests of America, --and he went on to say:

"It was idle for us to endeavor to persuade other nations to join withus in adopting the principles of what was called 'free trade. ' Othernations knew, as well as the noble lord opposite, and those who actedwith him, what we meant by 'free trade' was nothing more nor less than, by means of the great advantages we enjoyed, to get a monopoly of alltheir markets for our manufactures, and to prevent them, one and all, from ever becoming manufacturing nations. When the system of reciprocityand free trade had been proposed to a French ambassador, his remark was, that the plan was excellent in theory, but, to make it fair in practice, it would be necessary to defer the attempt to put it in execution forhalf a century, until France should be on the same footing with GreatBritain, in marine, in manufactures, in capital, and the many otherpeculiar advantages which it now enjoyed. The policy that France actedon was that of encouraging its native manufactures, and it was a wisepolicy; because, if it were freely to admit our manufactures, it wouldspeedily be reduced to the rank of an agricultural nation, and thereforea poor nation, as all must be that depend exclusively upon agriculture. America acted, too, upon the same principle with France. Americalegislated for futurity--legislated for an increasing population. America, too, was prospering under this system. In twenty years, Americawould be independent of England for manufactures altogether. * * * Butsince the peace, France, Germany, America, and all the other countriesof the world, had proceeded upon the principle of encouraging andprotecting native manufacturers. " * * *

I regret, Mr. President, that one topic has, I think, unnecessarily beenintroduced into this, debate. I allude to the charge brought against themanufacturing system, as favoring the growth of aristocracy. If it weretrue, would gentlemen prefer supporting foreign accumulations of wealthby that description of industry, rather than in their own country? Butis it correct? The joint-stock companies of the North, as I understandthem, are nothing more than associations, sometimes of hundreds, bymeans of which the small earnings of many are brought into a commonstock, and the associates, obtaining corporate privileges, are enabledto prosecute, under one superintending head, their business to betteradvantage. Nothing can be more essentially democratic or better devisedto counterpoise the influence of individual wealth. In Kentucky, almostevery manufactory known to me is in the hands of enterprising andself-made men, who have acquired whatever wealth they possess by patientand diligent labor. Comparisons are odious, and but in defence wouldnot be made by me. But is there more tendency to aristocracy in amanufactory, supporting hundreds of freemen, or in a cotton plantation, with its not less numerous slaves, sustaining perhaps only two whitefamilies--that of the master and the overseer?

I pass, with pleasure, from this disagreeable topic, to two generalpropositions which cover the entire ground of debate. The first is, that, under the operation of the American system, the objects which itprotects and fosters are brought to the consumer at cheaper prices thanthey commanded prior to its introduction, or, than they would command ifit did not exist. If that be true, ought not the country to be contentedand satisfied with the system, unless the second proposition, which Imean presently also to consider, is unfounded? And that is, that thetendency of the system is to sustain, and that it has upheld, the pricesof all our agricultural and other produce, including cotton. 

And is the fact not indisputable that all essential objects ofconsumption affected by the tariff are cheaper and better since the actof 1824 than they were for several years prior to that law? I appeal forits truth to common observation, and to all practical men. I appeal tothe farmer of the country whether he does not purchase on betterterms his iron, salt, brown sugar, cotton goods, and woollens, for hislaboring people? And I ask the cotton-planter if he has not been betterand more cheaply supplied with his cotton-bagging? In regard to thislatter article, the gentleman from South Carolina was mistaken insupposing that I complained that, under the existing duty, the Kentuckymanufacturer could not compete with the Scotch. The Kentuckian furnishesa more substantial and a cheaper article, and at a more uniform andregular price. But it was the frauds, the violations of law, of which Idid complain; not smuggling, in the common sense of that practice, whichhas something bold, daring, and enterprising in it, but mean, barefacedcheating, by fraudulent invoices and false denominations. 

I plant myself upon this fact, of cheapness and superiority, as uponimpregnable ground. Gentlemen may tax their ingenuity, and produce athousand speculative solutions of the fact, but the fact itself willremain undisturbed. Let us look into some particulars. The totalconsumption of bar-iron in the United States is supposed to be about146, 000 tons, of which 112, 866 tons are made within the country, andthe residue imported. The number of men employed in the manufacture isestimated at 29, 254, and the total number of persons subsisted by it at146, 273. The measure of protection extended to this necessary articlewas never fully adequate until the passage of the act of 1828; and whathas been the consequence? The annual increase of quantity since thatperiod has been in a ratio of near twenty-five per centum, and thewholesale price of bar-iron in the Northern cities was, in 1828, $105 per ton; in 1829, $100; in 1830, $90; and in 1831, from $85 to$75--constantly diminishing. We import very little English iron, andthat which we do is very inferior, and only adapted to a few purposes. In instituting a comparison between that inferior article and oursuperior iron, subjects entirely different are compared. They are madeby different processes. The English cannot make iron of equal quality toours at a less price than we do. They have three classes, best-best, and best, and ordinary. It is the latter which is imported. Of the wholeamount imported there is only about 4, 000 tons of foreign iron thatpays the high duty, the residue paying only a duty of about thirty percentum, estimated on the prices of the importation of 1829. Our ironore is superior to that of Great Britain, yielding often from sixty toeighty per centum, while theirs produces only about twenty-five. Thisfact is so well known that I have heard of recent exportations of ironore to England. 

It has been alleged that bar-iron, being a raw material, ought to beadmitted free, or with low duties, for the sake of the manufacturersthemselves. But I take this to be the true principle: that if ourcountry is producing a raw material of prime necessity, and withreasonable protection can produce it in sufficient quantity to supplyour wants, that raw material ought to be protected, although it may beproper to protect the article also out of which it is manufactured. The tailor will ask protection for himself, but wishes it denied to thegrower of wool and the manufacturer of broadcloth. The cotton-planterenjoys protection for the raw material, but does not desire it tobe extended to the cotton manufacturer. The ship-builder will askprotection for navigation, but does not wish it extended to theessential articles which enter into the construction of his ship. Eachin his proper vocation solicits protection, but would have it denied toall other interests which are supposed to come into collision with his. 

Now, the duty of the statesman is to elevate himself above these pettyconflicts; calmly to survey all the various interests, and deliberatelyto proportion the measures of protection to each according to its natureand the general wants of society. It is quite possible that, in thedegree of protection which has been afforded to the various workers iniron, there may be some error committed, although I have lately read anargument of much ability, proving that no injustice has really been doneto them. If there be, it ought to be remedied. 

The next article to which I would call the attention of the Senate, isthat of cotton fabrics. The success of our manufacture of coarse cottonsis generally admitted. It is demonstrated by the fact that they meetthe cotton fabrics of other countries in foreign markets, and maintaina successful competition with them. There has been a gradual increaseof the exports of this article, which is sent to Mexico and the SouthAmerican republics, to the Mediterranean, and even to Asia. * * *

I hold in my hand a statement, derived from the most authentic source, showing that the identical description of cotton cloth, which soldin 1817 at twenty-nine cents per yard, was sold in 1819 at twenty-onecents, in 1821 at nine-teen and a half cents, in 1823 at seventeencents, in 1825 at fourteen and a half cents, in 1827 at thirteen cents, in 1829 at nine cents, in 1830 at nine and a half cents, and in 1831at from ten and a half to eleven. Such is the wonderful effect ofprotection, competition, and improvement in skill, combined. The year1829 was one of some suffering to this branch of industry, probablyowing to the principle of competition being pushed too far. Hencewe observe a small rise of the article of the next two years. Theintroduction of calico-printing into the United States, constitutes animportant era in our manufacturing industry. It commenced about theyear 1825, and has since made such astonishing advances, that the wholequantity now annually printed is but little short of forty millions ofyards--about two thirds of our whole consumption. * * *

In respect to woollens, every gentleman's own observation and experiencewill enable him to judge of the great reduction of price which has takenplace in most of these articles since the tariff of 1824. It would havebeen still greater, but for the high duty on raw material, imposed forthe particular benefit of the farming interest. But, without going intoparticular details, I shall limit myself to inviting the attentionof the Senate to a single article of general and necessary use. Theprotection given to flannels in 1828 was fully adequate. It has enabledthe American manufacturer to obtain complete possession of the Americanmarket; and now, let us look at the effect. I have before me a statementfrom a highly respectable mercantile house, showing the price of fourdescriptions of flannels during six years. The average price of them, in1826, was thirty-eight and three quarter cents; in 1827, thirty-eight;in 1828 (the year of the tariff), forty-six; in 1829, thirty-six; in1830, (notwithstanding the advance in the price of wool), thirty-two;and in 1831, thirty-two and one quarter. These facts require nocomments. I have before me another statement of a practical andrespectable man, well versed in the flannel manufacture in America andEngland, demonstrating that the cost of manufacture is precisely thesame in both countries: and that, although a yard of flannel which wouldsell in England at fifteen cents would command here twenty-two, thedifference of seven cents is the exact difference between the costin the two countries of the six ounces of wool contained in a yard offlannel. 

Brown sugar, during ten years, from 1792 to 1802, with a duty of oneand a half cents per pound, averaged fourteen cents per pound. Thesame article, during ten years, from 1820 to 1830, with a duty of threecents, has averaged only eight cents per pound. Nails, with a duty offive cents per pound, are selling at six cents. Window-glass, eight byten, prior to the tariff of 1824, sold at twelve or thirteen dollars perhundred feet; it now sells for three dollars and seventy-five cents. * * *

This brings me to consider what I apprehend to have been the mostefficient of all the causes in the reduction of the prices ofmanufactured articles, and that is COMPETITION. By competition thetotal amount of the supply is increased, and by increase of the supply acompetition in the sale ensues, and this enables the consumer to buy atlower rates. Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than that of competition. It is action and reaction. Itoperates between individuals of the same nation, and between differentnations. It resembles the meeting of the mountain torrent, grooving, byits precipitous motion, its own channel, and ocean's tide. Unopposed, it sweeps every thing before it; but, counterpoised, the waters becomecalm, safe, and regular. It is like the segments of a circle or an arch:taken separately, each is nothing; but in their combination they produceefficiency, symmetry, and perfection. By the American system this vastpower has been excited in America, and brought into being to act incooperation or collision with European industry. Europe acts withinitself, and with America; and America acts within itself, and withEurope. The consequence is the reduction of prices in both hemispheres. Nor is it fair to argue from the reduction of prices in Europe to herown presumed skill and labor exclusively. We affect her prices, and sheaffects ours. This must always be the case, at least in reference to anyarticles as to which there is not a total non-intercourse; and if ourindustry, by diminishing the demand for her supplies, should produce adiminution in the price of those supplies, it would be very unfair toascribe that reduction to her ingenuity, instead of placing it to thecredit of our own skill and excited industry. 

Practical men understand very well this state of the case, whetherthey do or do not comprehend the causes which produce it. I have in mypossession a letter from a respectable merchant, well known to me, inwhich he says, after complaining of the operation of the tariff of 1828, on the articles to which it applies, some of which he had imported, andthat his purchases having been made in England before the passage ofthat tariff was known, it produced such an effect upon the Englishmarket that the articles could not be resold without loss, and he adds:"For it really appears that, when additional duties are laid uponan article, it then becomes lower instead of higher!" This would notprobably happen where the supply of the foreign article did not exceedthe home demand, unless upon the supposition of the increased dutyhaving excited or stimulated the measure of the home production. 

The great law of price is determined by supply and demand. What affectseither affects the price. If the supply is increased, the demandremaining the same, the price declines; if the demand is increased, thesupply remaining the same, the price advances; if both supply and demandare undiminished, the price is stationary, and the price is influencedexactly in proportion to the degree of disturbance to the demand orsupply. It is, therefore, a great error to suppose that an existing ornew duty necessarily becomes a component element to its exact amount ofprice. If the proportions of demand and supply are varied by the duty, either in augmenting the supply or diminishing the demand, or viceversa, the price is affected to the extent of that variation. Butthe duty never becomes an integral part of the price, except in theinstances where the demand and the supply remain after the duty isimposed precisely what they were before, or the demand is increased, andthe supply remains stationary. 

Competition, therefore, wherever existing, whether at home or abroad, is the parent cause of cheapness. If a high duty excites production athome, and the quantity of the domestic article exceeds the amount whichhad been previously imported, the price will fall. * * *

But it is argued that if, by the skill, experience, and perfection whichwe have acquired in certain branches of manufacture, they can be made ascheap as similar articles abroad, and enter fairly into competition withthem, why not repeal the duties as to those articles? And why should we?Assuming the truth of the supposition, the foreign article would not beintroduced in the regular course of trade, but would remain excludedby the possession of the home market, which the domestic article hadobtained. The repeal, therefore, would have no legitimate effect. Butmight not the foreign article be imported in vast quantities, to glutour markets, break down our establishments, and ultimately to enable theforeigner to monopolize the supply of our consumption? America is thegreatest foreign market for European manufactures. It is that to whichEuropean attention is constantly directed. If a great house becomesbankrupt there, its storehouses are emptied, and the goods are shippedto America, where, in consequence of our auctions, and our custom-housecredits, the greatest facilities are afforded in the sale of them. Combinations among manufacturers might take place, or even theoperations of foreign governments might be directed to the destructionof our establishments. A repeal, therefore, of one protecting duty, from some one or all of these causes, would be followed by flooding thecountry with the foreign fabric, surcharging the market, reducing theprice, and a complete prostration of our manufactories; after whichthe foreigner would leisurely look about to indemnify himself in theincreased prices which he would be enabled to command by his monopolyof the supply of our consumption. What American citizen, after thegovernment had displayed this vacillating policy, would be again temptedto place the smallest confidence in the public faith, and adventure oncemore into this branch of industry?

Gentlemen have allowed to the manufacturing portions of the communityno peace; they have been constantly threatened with the overthrow ofthe American system. From the year 1820, if not from 1816, down tothis time, they have been held in a condition of constant alarm andinsecurity. Nothing is more prejudicial to the great interests of anation than an unsettled and varying policy. Although every appeal tothe National Legislature has been responded to in conformity with thewishes and sentiments of the great majority of the people, measures ofprotection have only been carried by such small majorities as to excitehopes on the one hand, and fears on the other. Let the country breathe, let its vast resources be developed, let its energies be fully putforth, let it have tranquillity, and, my word for it, the degree ofperfection in the arts which it will exhibit will be greater than thatwhich has been presented, astonishing as our progress has been. Althoughsome branches of our manufactures might, and in foreign markets now do, fearlessly contend with similar foreign fabrics, there are many othersyet in their infancy, struggling with the difficulties which encompassthem. We should look at the whole system, and recollect that time, whenwe contemplate the great movements of a nation, is very different fromthe short period which is allotted for the duration of individual life. The honorable gentleman from South Carolina well and eloquently said, in 1824: "No great interest of any country ever grew up in a day; no newbranch of industry can become firmly and profitably established but in along course of years; every thing, indeed, great or good, is matured byslow degrees; that which attains a speedy maturity is of small value, and is destined to brief existence. It is the order of Providence, that powers gradually developed, shall alone attain permanency andperfection. Thus must it be with our national institutions, and nationalcharacter itself. "

I feel most sensibly, Mr. President, how much I have trespassed upon theSenate. My apology is a deep and deliberate conviction, that the greatcause under debate involves the prosperity and the destiny of the Union. But the best requital I can make, for the friendly indulgence which hasbeen extended to me by the Senate, and for which I shall ever retainsentiments of lasting gratitude, is to proceed with as little delay aspracticable, to the conclusion of a discourse which has not been moretedious to the Senate than exhausting to me. I have now to consider theremaining of the two propositions which I have already announced. Thatis

Second, that under the operation of the American system, the products ofour agriculture command a higher price than they would do without it, by the creation of a home market, and by the augmentation of wealthproduced by manufacturing industry, which enlarges our powers ofconsumption both of domestic and foreign articles. The importance ofthe home market is among the established maxims which are universallyrecognized by all writers and all men. However some may differ as to therelative advantages of the foreign and the home market, none deny to thelatter great value and high consideration. It is nearer to us;beyond the control of foreign legislation; and undisturbed by thosevicissitudes to which all inter-national intercourse is more or lessexposed. The most stupid are sensible of the benefit of a residencein the vicinity of a large manufactory, or of a market-town, of a goodroad, or of a navigable stream, which connects their farms with somegreat capital. If the pursuits of all men were perfectly the same, although they would be in possession of the greatest abundance of theparticular products of their industry, they might, at the same time, bein extreme want of other necessary articles of human subsistence. Theuniformity of the general occupation would preclude all exchange, allcommerce. It is only in the diversity of the vocations of the membersof a community that the means can be found for those salutary exchangeswhich conduce to the general prosperity. And the greater that diversity, the more extensive and the more animating is the circle of exchange. Even if foreign markets were freely and widely open to the reception ofour agricultural produce, from its bulky nature, and the distance of theinterior, and the dangers of the ocean, large portions of it couldnever profitably reach the foreign market. But let us quit this fieldof theory, clear as it is, and look at the practical operation of thesystem of protection, beginning with the most valuable staple of ouragriculture. 

In considering this staple, the first circumstance that excites oursurprise is the rapidity with which the amount of it has annuallyincreased. Does not this fact, however, demonstrate that the cultivationof it could not have been so very unprofitable? If the business wereruinous, would more and more have annually engaged in it? The quantityin 1816 was eighty-one millions of pounds; in 1826, two hundred andfour millions; and in 1830, near three hundred millions! The ground ofgreatest surprise is that it has been able to sustain even its presentprice with such an enormous augmentation of quantity. It could not havebeen done but for the combined operation of three causes, by which theconsumption of cotton fabrics has been greatly extended in consequenceof their reduced prices: first, competition; second, the improvement oflabor-saving machinery; and thirdly, the low price of the raw material. The crop of 1819, amounting to eighty-eight millions of pounds, producedtwenty-one millions of dollars; the crop of 1823, when the amount wasswelled to one hundred and seventy-four millions (almost double of thatof 1819), produced a less sum by more than half a million of dollars;and the crop of 1824, amounting to thirty millions of pounds less thanthat of the preceding year, produced a million and a half of dollarsmore. 

If there be any foundation for the established law of price, supply, and demand, ought not the fact of this great increase of the supply toaccount satisfactorily for the alleged low price of cotton? * * *

Let us suppose that the home demand for cotton, which has been createdby the American system, should cease, and that the two hundred thousandbales which the home market now absorbs were now thrown into the gluttedmarkets of foreign countries; would not the effect inevitably be toproduce a further and great reduction in the price of the article?If there be any truth in the facts and principles which I have beforestated and endeavored to illustrate, it cannot be doubted that theexistence of American manufactures has tended to increase the demandand extend the consumption of the raw material; and that, but for thisincreased demand, the price of the article would have fallen possiblyone half lower than it now is. The error of the opposite argument isin assuming one thing, which being denied, the whole fails--that is, itassumes that the whole labor of the United States would be profitablyemployed without manufactures. Now, the truth is that the system excitesand creates labor, and this labor creates wealth, and this new wealthcommunicates additional ability to consume, which acts on all theobjects contributing to human comfort and enjoyment. The amount ofcotton imported into the two ports of Boston and Providence alone duringthe last year (and it was imported exclusively for the home manufacture)was 109, 517 bales. 

On passing from that article to others of our agricultural productions, we shall find not less gratifying facts. The total quantity of flourimported into Boston, during the same year, was 284, 504 barrels, and3, 955 half barrels; of which, there were from Virginia, Georgetown, andAlexandria, 114, 222 barrels; of Indian corn, 681, 131 bushels; of oats, 239, 809 bushels; of rye, about 50, 000 bushels; and of shorts, 63, 489bushels; into the port of Providence, 71, 369 barrels of flour; 216, 662bushels of Indian corn, and 7, 772 bushels of rye. And there weredischarged at the port of Philadelphia, 420, 353 bushels of Indian corn, 201, 878 bushels of wheat, and 110, 557 bushels of rye and barley. There were slaughtered in Boston during the same year, 1831, (the onlyNorthern city from which I have obtained returns, ) 33, 922 beef cattle;15, 400 calves; 84, 453 sheep, and 26, 871 swine. It is confidentlybelieved that there is not a less quantity of Southern flour consumedat the North than eight hundred thousand barrels, a greater amount, probably, than is shipped to all the foreign markets of the worldtogether. 

What would be the condition of the farming country of the UnitedStates--of all that portion which lies north, east, and west of JamesRiver, including a large part of North Carolina--if a home market didnot exist for this immense amount of agricultural produce. Without thatmarket, where could it be sold? In foreign markets? If their restrictivelaws did not exist, their capacity would not enable them to purchaseand consume this vast addition to their present supplies, which mustbe thrown in, or thrown away, but for the home market. But their lawsexclude us from their markets. I shall content myself by calling theattention of the Senate to Great Britain only. The duties in the portsof the united kingdom on bread-stuffs are prohibitory, except in timesof dearth. On rice, the duty is fifteen shillings sterling per hundredweight, being more than one hundred per centum. On manufactured tobaccoit is nine shillings sterling per pound, or about two thousand percentum. On leaf tobacco three shillings per pound, or one thousand twohundred per centum. On lumber, and some other articles, they are fromfour hundred to fifteen hundred per centum more than on similar articlesimported from British colonies. In the British West Indies the duty onbeef, pork, hams, and bacon, is twelve shillings sterling per hundred, more than one hundred per centum on the first cost of beef and pork inthe Western States. And yet Great Britain is the power in whose behalfwe are called upon to legislate, so that we may enable her to purchaseour cotton. Great Britain, that thinks only of herself in her ownlegislation! When have we experienced justice, much less favor, ather hands? When did she shape her legislation with reference to theinterests of any foreign power? She is a great, opulent, and powerfulnation; but haughty, arrogant, and supercilious; not more separatedfrom the rest of the world by the sea that girts her island, than sheis separated in feeling, sympathy, or friendly consideration of theirwelfare. Gentlemen, in supposing it impracticable that we shouldsuccessfully compete with her in manufactures, do injustice to theskill and enterprise of their own country. Gallant as Great Britainundoubtedly is, we have gloriously contended with her, man to man, gunto gun, ship to ship, fleet to fleet, and army to army. And I have nodoubt we are destined to achieve equal success in the more useful, ifnot nobler, contest for superiority in the arts of civil life. 

I could extend and dwell on the long list of articles--the hemp, iron, lead, coal, and other items--for which a demand is created in the homemarket by the operation of the American system; but I should exhaustthe patience of the Senate. Where, where should we find a market for allthese articles, if it did not exist at home? What would be the conditionof the largest portion of our people, and of the territory, if thishome market were annihilated? How could they be supplied with objects ofprime necessity? What would not be the certain and inevitable decline inthe price of all these articles, but for the home market? And allow me, Mr. President, to say, that of all the agricultural parts of the UnitedStates which are benefited by the operation of this system, none areequally so with those which border the Chesapeake Bay, the lower partsof North Carolina, Virginia, and the two shores of Mary-land. Theirfacilities of transportation, and proximity to the North, give themdecided advantages. 

But if all this reasoning were totally fallacious; if the price ofmanufactured articles were really higher, under the American system, than without it, I should still argue that high or low prices werethemselves relative--relative to the ability to pay them. It is in vainto tempt, to tantalize us with the lower prices of European fabrics thanour own, if we have nothing wherewith to purchase them. If, by the homeexchanges, we can be supplied with necessary, even if they are dearerand worse, articles of American production than the foreign, it isbetter than not to be supplied at all. And how would the large portionof our country, which I have described, be supplied, but for thehome exchanges? A poor people, destitute of wealth or of exchangeablecommodities, have nothing to purchase foreign fabrics with. To themthey are equally beyond their reach, whether their cost be a dollar or aguinea. It is in this view of the matter that Great Britain, by her vastwealth, her excited and protected industry, is enabled to bear a burdenof taxation, which, when compared to that of other nations, appearsenormous; but which, when her immense riches are compared to theirs, islight and trivial. The gentleman from South Carolina has drawn a livelyand flattering picture of our coasts, bays, rivers, and harbors; and heargues that these proclaimed the design of Providence that we should bea commercial people. I agree with him. We differ only as to the means. He would cherish the foreign, and neglect the internal, trade. I wouldfoster both. What is navigation without ships, or ships without cargoes?By penetrating the bosoms of our mountains, and extracting from themtheir precious treasures; by cultivating the earth, and securing a homemarket for its rich and abundant products; by employing the water powerwith which we are blessed; by stimulating and protecting our nativeindustry, in all its forms; we shall but nourish and promote theprosperity of commerce, foreign and domestic. 

I have hitherto considered the question in reference only to a state ofpeace; but who can tell when the storm of war shall again break forth?Have we forgotten so soon the privations to which not merely our bravesoldiers and our gallant tars were subjected, but the whole community, during the last war, for the want of absolute necessaries? To what anenormous price they rose! And how inadequate the supply was, at anyprice! The states-man who justly elevates his views will look behindas well as forward, and at the existing state of things; and he willgraduate the policy which he recommends to all the probable exigencieswhich may arise in the republic. Taking this comprehensive range, itwould be easy to show that the higher prices of peace, if prices werehigher in peace, were more than compensated by the lower prices of war, during which supplies of all essential articles are indispensable to itsvigorous, effectual, and glorious prosecution. I conclude this partof the argument with the hope that my humble exertions have not beenaltogether unsuccessful in showing:

First, that the policy which we have been considering ought to continueto be regarded as the genuine American system. 

Secondly, that the free-trade system, which is proposed as itssubstitute, ought really to be considered as the British colonialsystem. 

Thirdly, that the American system is beneficial to all parts of theUnion, and absolutely necessary to much the larger portion. 

Fourthly, that the price of the great staple of cotton, and of all ourchief productions of agriculture, has been sustained and upheld, and adecline averted, by the protective system. 

Fifthly, that if the foreign demand for cotton has been at alldiminished, the diminution has been more than compensated in theadditional demand created at home. 

Sixthly, that the constant tendency of the system, by creatingcompetition among ourselves, and between American and European industry, reciprocally acting upon each other, is to reduce prices of manufacturedobjects. 

Seventhly, that, in point of fact, objects within the scope of thepolicy of protection have greatly fallen in price. 

Eighthly, that if, in a season of peace, these benefits are experienced, in a season of war, when the foreign supply might be cut off, they wouldbe much more extensively felt. 

Ninthly, and finally, that the substitution of the British colonialsystem for the American system, without benefiting any section of theUnion, by subjecting us to a foreign legislation, regulated by foreigninterests, would lead to the prostration of our manufactories, generalimpoverishment, and ultimate ruin. * * * The danger of our Union doesnot lie on the side of persistence in the American system, but on thatof its abandonment. If, as I have supposed and believe, the inhabitantsof all north and east of James River, and all west of the mountains, including Louisiana, are deeply interested in the preservation of thatsystem, would they be reconciled to its overthrow? Can it be expectedthat two thirds, if not three fourths, of the people of the UnitedStates would consent to the destruction of a policy, believed to beindispensably necessary to their prosperity? When, too, the sacrificeis made at the instance of a single interest, which they verily believewill not be promoted by it? In estimating the degree of peril which maybe incident to two opposite courses of human policy, the statesman wouldbe short-sighted who should content himself with viewing only the evils, real or imaginary, which belong to that course which is in practicaloperation. He should lift himself up to the contemplation of thosegreater and more certain dangers which might inevitably attend theadoption of the alternative course. What would be the condition ofthis Union, if Pennsylvania and New York, those mammoth members of ourConfederacy, were firmly persuaded that their industry was paralyzed, and their prosperity blighted, by the enforcement of the Britishcolonial system, under the delusive name of free trade? They are nowtranquil and happy and contented, conscious of their welfare, andfeeling a salutary and rapid circulation of the products of homemanufactures and home industry, throughout all their great arteries. But let that be checked, let them feel that a foreign system is topredominate, and the sources of their subsistence and comfort dried up;let New England and the West, and the Middle States, all feel that theytoo are the victims of a mistaken policy, and let these vast portionsof our country despair of any favorable change, and then indeed might wetremble for the continuance and safety of this Union!

And need I remind you, sir, that this dereliction of the duty ofprotecting our domestic industry, and abandonment of it to the fateof foreign legislation, would be directly at war with leadingconsiderations which prompted the adoption of the present Constitution?The States respectively surrendered to the general government the wholepower of laying imposts on foreign goods. They stripped themselves ofall power to protect their own manufactures by the most efficaciousmeans of encouragement--the imposition of duties on rival foreignfabrics. Did they create that great trust, did they voluntarily subjectthemselves to this self-restriction, that the power should remain in theFederal government inactive, unexecuted, and lifeless? Mr. Madison, atthe commencement of the government, told you otherwise. In discussingat that early period this very subject, he declared that a failure toexercise this power would be a "fraud" upon the Northern States, towhich may now be added the Middle and Western States. 

[Governor Miller asked to what expression of Mr. Madison's opinion Mr. Clay referred; and Mr. Clay replied, his opinion, expressed in theHouse of Representatives in 1789, as reported in Lloyd's CongressionalDebates. ]

Gentlemen are greatly deceived as to the hold which this system has inthe affections of the people of the United States. They represent thatit is the policy of New England, and that she is most benefited by it. If there be any part of this Union which has been most steady, mostunanimous, and most determined in its support, it is Pennsylvania. Whyis not that powerful State attacked? Why pass her over, and aim the blowat New England? New England came reluctantly into the policy. In 1824, amajority of her delegation was opposed to it. From the largest Stateof New England there was but a solitary vote in favor of the bill. Thatinteresting people can readily accommodate their industry to any policy, provided it be settled. They supposed this was fixed, and they submittedto the decrees of government. And the progress of public opinion haskept pace with the developments of the benefits of the system. Now, allNew England, at least in this House (with the exception of one smallstill voice), is in favor of the system. In 1824, all Maryland wasagainst it; now the majority is for it. Then, Louisiana, with oneexception, was opposed to it; now, without any exception, she is infavor of it. The march of public sentiment is to the South. Virginiawill be the next convert; and in less than seven years, if there be noobstacles from political causes, or prejudices industriously instilled, the majority of Eastern Virginia will be, as the majority of WesternVirginia now is, in favor of the American system. North Carolina willfollow later, but not less certainly. Eastern Tennessee is now in favorof the system. And, finally, its doctrines will pervade the whole Union, and the wonder will be, that they ever should have been opposed. 

FRANK H. HURD, OF OHIO. (BORN 1841, DIED 1896. )

A TARIFF FOR REVENUE ONLY;

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 18, 1881. 

MR. CHAIRMAN:

At the very threshold it is proper to define the terms I shall use andstate the exact propositions I purpose to maintain. A tariff is a taxupon imported goods. Like other taxes which are levied, it shouldbe imposed only to raise revenue for the government. It is true thatincidental protection to some industries will occur when the duty isplaced upon articles which may enter into competition with thoseof domestic manufacture. I do not propose to discuss now how thisincidental protection shall be distributed. This will be a subsequentconsideration when the preliminary question has been settled as to whatshall be the nature of the tariff itself. The present tariff imposesduties upon nearly four thousand articles, and was levied and isdefended upon the ground that American industries should be protected. Thus protection has been made the object; revenue the incident. Indeed, in many cases the duty is so high that no revenue whatever is raisedfor the government, and in nearly all so high that much less revenue iscollected than might be realized. So true is this that, if the presenttariff were changed so as to make it thereby a revenue tariff, one fifthat least could be added to the receipts of the Treasury from imports. Whenever I use the phrase free trade or free trader, I mean either atariff for revenue only or one who advocates it. 

So far as a tariff for revenue is concerned, I do not oppose it, eventhough it may contain some objectionable incidental protection. Thenecessities of the government require large revenues, and it is notproposed to interfere with a tariff so long as it is levied to producethem; but, to a tariff levied for protection in itself and for its ownsake, I do object. I therefore oppose the present tariff, and the wholedoctrine by which it is attempted to be justified. I make war againstall its protective features, and insist that the laws which contain themshall be amended, so that out of the importations upon which the duty islevied the greatest possible revenue for the government may be obtained. 

What, then, is the theory of protection? It is based upon the idea thatforeign produce imported into this country will enter into competitionwith domestic products and undersell them in the home market, thuscrippling if not destroying domestic production. To prevent this, theprice of the foreign goods in the home market is increased so as to keepthem out of the country altogether, or to place the foreigner, in thecost of production, upon the same footing as the American producer. Thisis proposed to be done by levying a duty upon the foreign importation. If it be so high that the importer cannot pay it and sell the goods ata profit, the facilities of production between this and other countriesare said to be equalized, and the American producer is said to beprotected. It will be seen, therefore, that protection means theincrease of price. Without it the fabric has no foundation on which torest. If the foreign goods are still imported, the importer adds theduty paid to the selling price. If he cannot import with profit, theAmerican producer raises his price to a point always below that at whichthe foreign goods could be profitably brought into the country, andcontrols the market. In either event, there is an increase of price ofthe products sought to be protected. The bald proposition therefore isthat American industries can and ought to be protected by increasing theprices of the products of such industries. 

There are three popular opinions, industriously cultivated andstrengthened by adroit advocates, upon which the whole system rests, and to which appeals are ever confidently made. These opinions areerroneous, and lead to false conclusions, and should be first consideredin every discussion of this question. 

The first is, that the balance of trade is in our favor when ourexportations exceed our importations. Upon this theory it is argued thatit cannot be unwise to put restrictions upon importations, for they saythat at one and the same time you give protection to our industries andkeep the balance of trade in our favor. But the slightest investigationwill show that this proposition cannot be maintained. A singleillustration, often repeated, but never old in this discussion, willdemonstrate it. Let a ship set sail from Portland, Maine, with a cargoof staves registered at the port of departure as worth $5, 000. Theyare carried to the West India Islands, where staves are in demand, andexchanged for sugar or molasses. The ship returns, and after duty paidthe owner sells his sugar and molasses at a profit of $5, 000. Here morehas been imported than exported. Upon this transaction the protectionistwould say that the balance of trade was against us $5, 000; the freetrader says that the sum represents the profit to the shipper upon histraffic, and the true balance in our favor. 

Suppose that after it has set sail the vessel with its cargo had beenlost. In such case five thousand dollars' worth of goods would have beenexported, with no importation against it. The exportation has exceededthe importation that sum. Is not the balance of trade, according tothe protection theory, to that amount in our favor? Then let theprotectionist turn pirate and scuttle and sink all the vessels ladenwith our exports, and soon the balance of trade in our favor will belarge enough to satisfy even most advocates of the American protectivesystem. The true theory is that in commerce the overplus of theimportation above the exportation represents the profit accruing to thecountry. This overplus, deducting the expenses, is real wealth added tothe land. Push the two theories to their last position and the true onewill be clearly seen. Export every thing, import nothing, though thebalance of trade may be said to be overwhelmingly in our favor, thereis poverty, scarcity, death. Import every thing, export nothing, wethen will have in addition to our own all the wealth of the world in ourpossession. 

Secondly, it is said that a nation should be independent of foreignnations, lest in time of war it might find itself helpless ordefenceless. Free trade, it is charged, makes a people dependent uponforeigners. But traffic is exchange. Foreign products do not come into acountry unless domestic products go out. This dependence, therefore, ismutual. By trade with foreign nations they are as dependent upon us aswe upon them, and in the event of a disturbance of peace the nation withwhich we would be at war would lose just as much as we would lose, andboth as to the war would in that regard stand upon terms of equality. Itmust not be forgotten that the obstruction of trade between nationsis one of the greatest occasions of war. It frequently gives rise tomisunderstandings which result in serious conflicts. By removing theseobstacles and making trade as free as possible, nations are broughtcloser together, the interests of their people become intermingled, business associations are formed between them, which go far to keep downnational dispute, and prevent the wars in which the dependent nation issaid to be so helpless. Japan and China have for centuries practised theprotective theory of independence of foreigners, and yet, in a war withother nations, they would be the most helpless people in the world. That nation is the most independent which knows most of, and trades mostwith, the world, and by such knowledge and trade is able to avail itselfof the products of the skill, intellect, and genius of all the nationsof the earth. 

A third erroneous impression sought to be made upon the public mind isthat whatever increases the amount of labor in a country is a benefitto it. Protection, it is argued, will increase the amount of labor, and therefore will increase a country's prosperity. The error in thisproposition lies in mistaking the true nature of labor. It regards itas the end, not as the means to an end. Men do not labor merely for thesake of labor, but that out of its products they may derive supportand comfort for themselves and those dependent upon them. The result, therefore, does not depend upon the amount of labor done, but upon thevalue of the product. That country, therefore, is the most prosperouswhich enables the laborer to obtain the greatest possible value for theproduct of his toil, not that which imposes the greatest labor upon him. If this were not the case men were better off before the appliances ofsteam as motive power were discovered, or railroads were built, or thetelegraph was invented. The man who invents a labor-saving machine is apublic enemy; and he would be a public benefactor who would restorethe good old times when the farmer never had a leisure day, and thesun never set on the toil of the mechanic. No, Mr. Chairman, it is thedesire of every laborer to get the maximum of result from the minimumof effort. That system, therefore, can be of no advantage to him which, while it gives him employment, robs him of its fruits. This, it will beseen, protection does, while free trade, giving him unrestricted controlof the product of his labor, enables him to get the fullest value for itin markets of his own selection. 

The protectionist, relying upon the propositions I have thus hurriedlydiscussed, urges many specious reasons for his system, to a few of whichonly do I intend to call attention to-day. 

In the first place, it is urged that protection will develop theresources of a country, which without it would remain undeveloped. Of course this, to be of advantage to a country, must be a generalaggregate increase of development, for if it be an increase of someresources as a result of diminution in others, the people as a whole canbe no better off after protection than before. But the general resourcescannot be increased by a tariff. There can only be such an increase byan addition to the disposable capital of the country to be applied tothe development of resources. But legislation cannot make this. If itcould it would only be necessary to enact laws indefinitely to increasecapital indefinitely. But, if any legislation could accomplish this, it would not be protective legislation. As already shown, the theoryof protection is to make prices higher, in order to make businessprofitable. This necessarily increases the expense of production, whichkeeps foreign capital away, because it can be employed in the protectedindustries more profit-ably elsewhere. The domestic capital, therefore, must be relied upon for the proposed development. As legislation cannotincrease that capital, if it be tempted by the higher prices to thebusiness protected, it must be taken from some other business orinvestment. If there are more workers in factories there will befewer artisans. If there are more workers in shops there will be fewerfarmers. If there are more in the towns there will be fewer in thecountry. The only effect of protection, therefore, in this pointof view, can be to take capital from some employment to put it intoanother, that the aggregate disposable capital cannot be increased, northe aggregate development of the resources of a country be greater witha tariff than without. 

But, secondly, it is said that protection increases the number ofindustries, thereby diversifying labor and making a variety in theoccupations of a people who otherwise might be confined to a singlebranch of employment. This argument proceeds upon the assumption thatthere would be no diversification of labor without protection. In otherwords, it is assumed that but for protection our people would devotethemselves to agriculture. This, however, is not true. Even if acommunity were purely agricultural, the necessities of the situationwould make diversification of industry. There must be blacksmiths, and shoemakers, and millers, and merchants, and carpenters, and otherartisans. To each one of these employments, as population increases, more and more will devote themselves, and with each year new demandswill spring up, which will create new industries to supply them. I wasborn in the midst of a splendid farming country. The business of ninetenths of the people of my native county was farming. My intelligentboyhood was spent there from 1850 to 1860, when there was no tariff forprotection. There were thriving towns for the general trading. Therewere woollen mills and operatives. There were flouring mills andmillers. There were iron founders and their employes. There wereartisans of every description. There were grocers and merchants, withevery variety of goods and wares for sale; there were banks andbankers; there was all the diversification of industry that a thriving, industrious, and intelligent community required; not established byprotection nor by government aid, but growing naturally out of thewants and necessities of the people. Such a diversification is alwayshealthful, because it is natural, and will continue so long as thepeople are industrious and thrifty. The diversification which protectionmakes is forced and artificial. Suppose protection had come to my nativecounty to further diversify industries. It would have begun by givinghigher prices to some industry already established, or profits greaterthan the average rate to some new industry which it would have started. This would have disturbed the natural order. It would necessarily haveembarrassed some interests to help the protected ones. The loss in themost favorable view would have been equal to the gain, and besides tradewould inevitably have been annoyed by the obstruction of its naturalchannels. 

The worst feature of this kind of diversified industry is that theprotected ones never willingly give up the government aid. They scare atcompetition as a child at a ghost. As soon as the markets seem againstthem, they rush to Congress for further help. They are never contentwith the protection they have; they are always eager for more. In thisdependence upon the government bounty the persons protected learn todistrust themselves; and protection therefore inevitably destroys thatmanly, sturdy spirit of individuality and independence which shouldcharacterize the successful American business man. 

Thirdly, it is said that protection gives increased employment to laborand enhances the wages of workingmen. For a long time no position wasmore strenuously insisted upon by the advocates of the protective systemthan that the wages of labor would be increased under it. At this pointin the discussion I shall only undertake to show that it is impossiblethat protection should produce this result. What determines the amountof wages paid? Some maintain that it is the amount of the wage fundexisting at the time that the labor is done. Under this theory it isclaimed that, at any given time, there is a certain amount of capital tobe applied to the payment of wages, as certain and fixed as though itsamount had been determined in advance. Others maintain that the amountof wages is fixed by what the laborer makes, or, in other words, by theproduct of his work, and that, therefore, his wage is determined by theefficiency of his labor alone. Both these views are partly true. Thewages of the laborer are undoubtedly determined by the efficiency of hiswork, but the aggregate amount paid for labor cannot exceed theamount properly chargeable to the wage fund without in a little timediminishing the profits of production and ultimately the quantity oflabor employed. '

But, whichever theory be true, it is clear that protection can addnothing to the amount of wages. It cannot increase the amount of capitalapplicable to the payment of wages, unless it can be shown that theaggregate capital of a country can be increased by legislation; norcan it add to the efficiency of labor, for that depends upon individualeffort exclusively. A man who makes little in a day now may in a yearmake much more in the same time; his labor has become more efficient. Whether this shalt be done depends on the taste, temperament, application, aptitude, and skill of the individual. No one will pretendthat protection can increase the aggregate of these qualities inthe labor of the country. The result is that it is impossible forprotection, either by adding to the wage fund or by increasing theefficiency of labor, to enhance the wages of laboring men, a theorywhich I shall shortly show is incontrovertibly established by the facts. 

I will now, Mr. Chairman, briefly present a few of the principalobjections to a tariff for protection. As has been shown, the basis ofprotection is an increase in the price of the protected products. Whopays this increased price? I shall not stop now to consider the argumentoften urged that it is paid by the foreign producer, because it can beeasily shown to the contrary by every one's experience. I shall forthis argument assume it as demonstrated that the increase of price whichprotection makes is paid by the consumer. This suggests the first greatobjection to protection, that it compels the consumer to pay more forgoods than they are really worth, ostensibly to help the business of aproducer. Now consumers constitute the vast majority of the people. Theproducers of protected articles are few in comparison with them. It istrue that most men are both producers and consumers. But, for the greatmajority, there is little or no protection for what they produce, butlarge protection for what they consume. The tariff is principally leviedupon woollen goods, lumber, furniture, stoves and other manufacturedarticles of iron, and upon sugar and salt. The necessities of life areweighted with the burden. It is out of the necessities of the people, therefore, that the money is realized to support the protective system. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it is beyond the sphere of true governmentalpower to tax one man to help the business of another. It is, by power, taking money from one to give it to another. This is robbery, nothingmore nor less. When a man earns a dollar it is his own; and no power ofreasoning can justify the legislative power in taking it from him exceptfor the uses of the government. 

Yet, Mr. Chairman, the present tariff takes hundreds of millions ofdollars every year from the farmer, the laborer, and other consumers, under the claim of enriching the manufacturer. It may not be much foreach one to contribute, yet in the aggregate it is an enormous sum. Formany, too, it is very much. The statistics will show that every head ofa family who receives four hundred dollars a year in wages pays at leastone hundred dollars on account of protection. Put such a tax on allincomes and the country would be in a ferment of excitement until it wasremoved. But it is upon the poor and lowly that the tax is placed, and their voices are not often heard in shaping the policies of tarifflegislation. I repeat, the product of one's labor is his own. It is hishighest right, subject only to the necessities of the government, to dowith it as he pleases. Protection invades, destroys that right. It oughtto be destroyed, until every American freeman can spend his money whereit will be of the most service to him. 

To illustrate the cost of protection to the consumer, consider itsoperation in increasing the price of two or three of the leadingarticles protected. Take paper for example. The duty on that commodityis twenty per cent. Ad valorem. Most of the articles which enterinto its manufacture or are required in the process of making it areincreased in price by protection. The result is that the price of paperto the consumer is increased nearly fifteen per cent. ; that is, if thetariff were taken off paper and the articles used in its manufacture, paper would be fifteen per cent. Cheaper to the buyer. The paper-millsfor five years have produced nearly one hundred millions of dollars'worth of paper a year. The consumers have been compelled to pay fifteenmillions a year to the manufacturer more than the paper could havebeen bought for without the tariff. In five years this has amounted to$75, 000, 000, an immense sum paid to protection. It is a tax upon booksand newspapers; it is a tax upon intelligence; it is a premium uponignorance. So heavy had the burden of this tax become that everynewspaper man in the district I have the honor to represent has appealedto Congress to take the duty off. The government has derived littlerevenue from the paper duty. It has gone almost entirely to themanufacturer, who himself has not been benefited as anticipated, as willpresently be seen. These burdens have been imposed to protect the papermanufacturer against the foreigner, in face of the confident predictionmade by one of the most experienced paper men in the country, thatif all protection were taken off paper and the material used in itsmanufacture, the manufacturer would be able to successfully compete withthe foreigner in nearly every desirable market in the world. 

Take blankets also for example. The tariff on coarse blankets is nearlyone hundred per cent. Ad valorem. They can be bought in most of themarkets of the world for two dollars a pair. Yet our poor, who use themost of that grade of blankets, are compelled to pay about fourdollars a pair. The government derives little revenue from it, as theimportation of these blankets for years has been trifling. This taxhas been a heavy burden upon the poor during this severe winter, a taxrunning into the millions to support protection. Heaven save a countryfrom a system which begrudges to the shivering poor the blankets to makethem comfortable in the winter and the cold!

Secondly, protection has diminished the income of the laborer from hiswages. The first factor in the ascertainment of the value of wages istheir purchasing power, or how much can be bought with them. If in onecountry the wages are five dollars a day and in another only one dollar, if the laborer can in the one country with the one dollar, purchase moreof the necessary articles required in daily consumption, he, in fact, is better paid than the former in the other who gets five dollars a day. Admit for a moment that protection raises the wages of the laborer, italso raises the price of nearly all the necessaries of life, and what hemakes in wages he more than loses in the increase of prices of what heis obliged to buy. As already stated, a head of a family who earns $400per year is compelled to pay $100 more for what he needs, on account ofprotection. What difference is it to him whether the $100 are taken outof his wages before they are paid, or taken from him afterward in theincreased price of articles he cannot get along without? In both caseshe really receives only $300 for his year's labor. The statistics showthat the average increased cost of twelve articles most required indaily consumption in 1874 over 1860 was ninety-two per cent. , while theaverage increase of wages of eight artisans, cabinet-makers, coopers, carpenters, painters, shoemakers, tail-ors, tanners, and tinsmiths, wasonly sixty per cent. , demonstrating that the purchasing power of laborhad under protection in thirteen years depreciated 19. 5 per cent. But protection has not even raised the nominal wages in most of theunprotected industries. I find that the wages of the farm hand, the daylaborer, and the ordinary artisan are in most places now no higher thanthey were in 1860. 

But it is confidently asserted that the wages of laborers in theprotected industries are higher because of protection. Admit it. I havenot the figures for 1880, but in 1870 there were not 500, 000 of them;but of the laborers in other industries there were 12, 000, 000, exclusiveof those in agriculture, who were 6, 000, 000 more. Why should the wagesof the half million be increased beyond their natural rate, whilethose of the others remain unchanged? More--why should the wages ofthe 18, 000, 000 be diminished that those of the half million may beincreased? For an increase cannot be made in the wage rate of one classwithout a proportionate decrease in that of others. But the wagesof labor in protected industries are not permanently increased byprotection. Another very important factor in ascertaining the valueof wages is the continuance or the steadiness of the employment. Twodollars a day for half the year is no more than a dollar a day for thewhole year. Employment in most protected industries is spasmodic. In theleading industries for the past ten years employment has not averagedmore than three fourths of the time, and not at very high wages. Withinthe last year manufacturers of silk, carpets, nails and many otherarticles of iron, of various kinds of glassware and furniture, and coalproducers have shut down their works for a part of the time, or reducedthe hours of labor. Production has been too great. To stop this andprevent the reduction of profits through increasing competition, thefirst thing done is to diminish the production, thus turning employesout of employment. Wages are diminished or stopped until times are flushagain. With the time estimated in which the laborers are not at work, the average rate of wages for the ten years preceding 1880 did not equalthe wages in similar industries for the ten years preceding 1860 under arevenue tariff. Indeed, in many branches the wages have not been so highas those received by the pauper labor, so-called, in Europe. But it ismanifest that the wages in these industries cannot for any long periodbe higher than the average rate in the community, for, if the wages behigher, labor will crowd into the employments thus favored until therate is brought down to the general level. So true is this, that itis admitted by many protectionists that wages are not higher in theprotected industries than in others. 

Thirdly, the effect of protection is disastrous to most of the protectedindustries themselves. We have seen that many of them have in recentyears been compelled to diminish production. The cause of this ismanifest. Production confines them to the American market. The highprices they are compelled to pay for protected materials which enterinto the manufacture of their products disable them from going into theforeign market. The profits which they make under the first impulse ofprotection invite others into the same business. As a result, therefore, more goods are made than the American market can consume. Prices go downto some extent through the competition, but rarely under the costof production, increased, as we have seen, by the enhanced price ofmaterial required. The losses threatened by such competition are soughtto be averted by the diminution of production. Combinations of thoseinterested are formed to stop work or reduce it until the stock on handhas been consumed. Production then begins again and continues untilthe same necessity calls again for the same remedy. But this remedy isarbitrary, capricious, and unsatisfactory. Some will not enter into thecombination at all. Others will secretly violate the agreement from thebeginning. Others still, when their surplus stock has been sold, andbefore the general price has risen, will begin to manufacture again. There is no power to enforce any bargain they have made, and they findthe plan only imperfectly curing the difficulty. They remain uncertainwhat to do, embarrassed and doubtful as to the future. They have throughprotection violated the natural laws of supply and demand, and humanregulations are powerless to relieve them from the penalty. 

Take, as an illustration of the operation of the system, the article ofpaper. One of the first effects of the general tariff was to increasethe price of nearly every thing the manufacturer required to make thepaper. Fifteen mil-lions of dollars a year through the protection aretaken from the consumer. The manufacturer himself is able to retainbut a small part of it, as he is obliged to pay to some other protectedindustry for its products, they in turn to some others who furnishedthem with protected articles for their use, and so on to the end. Theresult is that nominal prices are raised all around; the consumers paythe fifteen millions, while nobody receives any substantial benefit, because what one makes in the increased price of his product he losesin the increased price he is obliged to pay for the required productsof others. The consumer is the loser, and though competition mayoccasionally reduce prices for him to a reasonable rate, it never to anyappreciable extent compensates him for the losses he sustains throughthe enhanced price which the protective system inevitably causes. 

It is not to be disputed that many of the protected manufacturers havegrown rich. In very many cases I think it can be demonstrated that theirwealth has resulted from some patent which has given them a monopoly inparticular branches of manufacturing, or from some other advantage whichthey have employed exclusively in their business. In such cases theywould have prospered without protection as with it. I think there arefew, except in the very inception of a manufacturing enterprise, or inabnormal cases growing out of war or destruction of property, or thecombinations of large amounts of capital, where protection alone hasenriched men. The result is the robbery of the consumer with no ultimategood to most of the protective industries. 

At a meeting of the textile manufacturers in Philadelphia the otherday, one of the leading men in that interest said: "The fact is that thetextile manufacturers of Philadelphia, the centre of the American trade, are fast approaching a crisis, and realize that something must be done, and that soon. Cotton and woollen mills are fast springing up over theSouth and West, and the prospects are that we will soon lose much ofour trade in the coarse fabrics by reason of cheap competition. Theonly thing we can do, therefore, is to turn our attention to the higherplane, and endeavor to make goods equal to those imported. We cannot dothis now, because we have not a sufficient supply either of the culturewhich begets designs, or of the skill which manipulates the fibres. "

What a commentary this upon protection, which has brought to sucha crisis one of the chief industries protected, and which is hereconfessed to have failed, after twenty years, to enable it to competeeven in our own markets with foreign goods of the finer quality! Whatis true of textile manufacturing is also true of many other industries. What remedy, then, will afford the American manufacturer relief? Notthe one here suggested of increasing the manufacture of goods of finerquality, for, aside from the impracticability of the plan, this willonly aggravate the difficulty by adding to the aggregate stock in thehome market. * * * The American demand cannot consume what they produce. They must therefore enlarge their market or stop production. To adoptthe latter course is to invite ruin. The market cannot be increased inthis country. It must be found in other countries. Foreign markets mustbe sought. But these cannot be opened as long as we close our marketsto their products, with which alone, in most instances, they can buy; inother words, as long as we continue the protective system. 

I say, therefore, to the American manufacturer, sooner or later youmust choose between the alternatives of ruin or the abandonment ofprotection. Why hesitate in the decision? Are not Canada and SouthAmerica and Mexico your natural markets? England now supplies them withalmost all the foreign goods they buy. Why should not you? Your coaland iron lie together in the mountain side, and can almost be droppedwithout carriage into your furnaces; while in England the miners mustgo thousands of feet under the earth for those products. * * * Thesituation is yours. Break down your protective barrier. All the worldwill soon do the same. Their walls will disappear when ours fall. Openevery market of the world to your products; give steady employment toyour laborers. In a little while you will have the reward which naturealways gives to those who obey her laws, and will escape the ruinwhich many of your most intelligent opera-tors see impending over yourindustries. 

I have not time to-day to more than refer to the ruinous effect ofprotection upon our carrying trade. In 1856, seventy-five per cent. Of the total value of our imports and exports was carried in Americanvessels; while in 1879 but seventeen per cent. Was carried in suchvessels, and in 1880 the proportion was still less. In 1855, 381 shipsand barks were built in the United States, while in 1879 there wereonly 37. It is a question of very few years at this rate until Americanvessels and the American flag will disappear from the high seas. Protection has more than all else to do with the prostration of thistrade. It accomplishes this result (1) by enhancing the price of thematerials which enter into the construction of vessels, so that ourship-builders cannot compete with foreigners engaged in the samebusiness; (2) by increasing the cost of domestic production so thatAmerican manufactured goods cannot profitably be exported; and (3) bydisabling our merchants from bringing back on their return trips foreigncargoes in exchange for our products. 

Nor will I say any thing as to the increase of the crime of smugglingunder protection, a crime which has done incalculable harm to honestdealers, particularly on the border, and a crime out of which some ofthe largest fortunes in the country have been made. 

There are many who will admit the abstract justice of much that I havesaid who profess to believe that it will not do to disturb thetariff now. But for the protectionist that time never comes. When thedepression in business was universal, they said you must not disturbthe tariff now, because the times are so hard and there is so muchsuffering. Now, when business has improved, they say you must notinterfere with the tariff, because times are good and you may bringsuffering again. When the present tariff was first levied it wasdefended as a temporary expedient only, required as a necessity by war. Now that a quarter of a century nearly has passed by and peace hasbeen restored for fifteen years, the advocates for protection are asdetermined to hold on to the government bounty as ever. If they are tobe consulted upon the subject as to when the people shall have relief, the system will be perpetual. 

It is said we must not disturb the tariff because we must raise so muchrevenue. I do not propose to disturb it to diminish revenue, but toincrease it. The plan I propose will add one fifth at least to therevenue of the country. It is protection I propose to get rid of, notrevenue. It has been well said that revenue ceases where protectionbegins. 

It is claimed that by taking away protection you will embarrass manyindustries by compelling them to close up and discharge their employees. I do not believe that the changing of the present tariff to arevenue tariff will produce this result. I believe that at once everymanufacturer will make more in the diminished cost of production thanhe will lose in the taking away of protection. But if there shouldbe danger to any industry I would provide against it in the law whichchanges the tariff so that if there should be any displacement of laborthere will be no loss in consequence. 

No more perfect illustration of the effect of free trade has been shownthan in the history of the United States. Very much of our prosperity isdue to the fact that the productions of each State can be sold in everyother State without restriction. During the war the most potent argumentfor the cause of the Union was found in the apprehension that disunionmeant restriction of commerce, and particularly the placing of the mouthof the Mississippi River under foreign control. The war was fought, therefore, to maintain free trade, and the victory was the triumph offree trade. The Union every day exhibits the advantages of the system. 

Are these due to the accident of a State being a member of that Unionor to the beneficent principle of the system itself? What would preventsimilar results following if, subject only to the necessities ofgovernment, it were extended to Mexico, to Canada, to South America, tothe world? In such extension the United States have everything to gain, nothing to lose. This country would soon become the supply house of theworld. We will soon have cattle and harvests enough for all nations. Our cotton is everywhere in demand. It is again king. Its crown hasbeen restored, and in all the markets of the world it waves its royalsceptre. Out of our coal and minerals can be manufactured every thingwhich human ingenuity can devise. Our gold and silver mines will supplythe greater part of the precious metals for the use of the arts andtrade. 

With the opportunity of unrestricted exchange of these products, howlimitless the horizon of our possibilities! Let American adventurousnessand genius be free upon the high seas, to go wherever they please andbring back whatever they please, and the oceans will swarm with Americansails, and the land will laugh with the plenty within its borders. Thetrade of Tyre and Sidon, the far extending commerce of the Venetianrepublic, the wealth-producing traffic of the Netherlands, will be asdreams in contrast with the stupendous reality which American enterprisewill develop in our own generation. Through the humanizing influence ofthe trade thus encouraged, I see nations become the friends of nations, and the causes of war disappear. I see the influence of the greatrepublic in the amelioration of the condition of the poor and theoppressed in every land, and in the moderation of the arbitrariness ofpower. Upon the wings of free trade will be carried the seeds of freegovernment, to be scattered everywhere to grow and ripen into harvestsof free peoples in every nation under the sun. 

IX. --FINANCE AND CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 

With the election of 1876 and the inauguration of President Hayes, March4, 1877, the Period of Reconstruction may be said to have closed. Thelast formal act of that period was the withdrawal of the national troopsfrom the South by President Hayes soon after his inauguration. Duringthe last two decades the "Southern Question, " while it has beenoccasionally prominent in political discussions, --especially inconnection with the Lodge Federal Elections Bill, 1889-91, has, nevertheless, occupied a subordinate place in public interest andattention. As an issue in serious political discussions and partydivisions the question has disappeared. 

In addition to the subject of the Tariff, considered in the previoussection, public attention has been directed chiefly, during the lastquarter of a century, to the two great subjects, Finance and CivilService Reform. 

The Financial question has been like that of the Tariff, --it hasbeen almost a constant factor in political controversies since theorganization of the Government. 

The financial measures of Hamilton were the chief subject of politicalcontroversy under our first administration, and they formed the basisof division for the first political parties under the Constitution. Thefunding of the Revolutionary debt, its payment dollar for dollarwithout discrimination between the holders of the public securities, the assumption of the State debts by the National Government, andthe establishment of the First United States Bank, these measures ofHamilton were all stoutly combated by his opponents, but they wereall carried to a successful conclusion. It was the discussion on theestablishment of the First United States Bank that brought from Hamiltonand Jefferson their differing constructions of the Constitution. Inhis argument to Washington in favor of the Bank, Hamilton presentedhis famous theory of implied powers, while Jefferson contended thatthe Constitution should be strictly construed, and that the "sweepingclause"--"words subsidiary to limited powers"--should not be soconstrued as to give unlimited powers. Madison and Giles in the Housepresented notable arguments in support of the Jeffersonian view. Fortwenty years after 1791 our financial questions were chiefly questionsof administration, not of legislation. In 1811 the attempt to recharterthe First United States Bank was defeated in the Senate by the castingvote of Vice-President Clinton. The financial embarrassments of thewar of 1812, however, led to the establishment, in 1812, of the secondUnited States Bank, --by a law very similar in its provisions to the actcreating the First Bank in 1791. The bill chartering the Second UnitedStates Bank was signed by Madison, who had strenuously opposed thecharter of the First Bank. The financial difficulties in which thewar had involved his administration had convinced Madison that such aninstitution as the Bank was a "necessary and proper" means of carryingon the fiscal affairs of the Government. The Second Bank was, however, opposed on constitutional grounds, as the First had been; but in 1819 inthe famous case of McCulloch vs. Maryland, the Supreme Court sustainedits constitutionality, Chief-Justice Marshall rendering the decision. The Court held, in this notable decision, that the Federal Governmentwas a government of limited powers, and these powers are not to betranscended; but wherein a power is specifically conferred Congressmight exercise a sovereign and unlimited discretion as to the meansnecessary in carrying that power into operation. 

The next important chapter in our financial history is the war upon theSecond United States Bank begun and conducted to a finish by PresidentJackson. A bill rechartering the Bank was passed by Congress in 1832, four years before its charter expired. Jackson vetoed this bill, chieflyon constitutional grounds, in the face of Marshall's decision of 1819. The political literature of Jackson's two administrations is full ofthe Bank controversy, and this literature contains contributions fromWebster, Clay, Calhoun, Benton, and other of the ablest public men ofthe day. No subject of public discussion in that day more completelyabsorbed the attention of the people. 

On these important subjects, which engaged public attention during thefirst half-century of our national history, there may be found manyvaluable speeches. These, however, are largely of a Constitutionalcharacter. It has been since the opening of our civil war thatour financial discussions have assumed their greatest interest andimportance. We can attempt here only a meagre outline of the financialhistory of the last thirty years, --a history which suggests an almostcontinuous financial struggle and debate. 

Leaving on one side the questions of taxation and banking, the financialdiscussion has presented itself under two aspects, --the issue andredemption of Government paper currency, and the Government policytoward silver coinage. The issue, the funding, and the payment ofGovernment bonds have been incidentally connected with these questions. 

The first "legal-tender" Act was approved February 25, 1862. Mr. Blainesays of this Act that it was "the most momentous financial step evertaken by Congress, " and it was a step concerning which there has eversince been the most pronounced difference of opinion. The Act providedfor the issue of $150, 000, 000 non-interest-bearing notes, payableto bearer, in denominations of not less than $5, and legal tender inpayment of all debts, public and private, except duties on imports andinterest on the public debt. These notes were made exchangeable for 6per cent. Bonds and receivable for loans that might thereafter be madeby the Government. Supplementary acts of July 11, 1862, and January17, 1863, authorized additional issues of $150, 000, 000 each, indenominations of not less than one dollar, and the time in which toexchange the notes for bonds was limited to July 1, 1863. It was underthese Acts that the legal-tender notes known as "greenbacks, " nowoutstanding, were issued. 

The retirement of the greenbacks was begun soon after the war. On April12, 1866, an Act authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to retire andcancel not more than $10, 000, 000 of these notes within six months of thepassage of the Act, and $4, 000, 000 per month thereafter. This policy ofcontraction was carried out by Secretary McCulloch, who urged still morerapid contraction; but the policy was resisted by a large influence inthe country, and on February 4, 1868, an Act of Congress suspending theauthority of the Secretary of the Treasury to retire and cancel UnitedStates notes, became a law without the signature of the President. 

On March 18, 1869, an "Act to strengthen the public credit" was passed, which declared that the "greenbacks" were redeemable in coin. This Actconcluded as follows: "And the United States also solemnly pledgesits faith to make provision at the earliest practicable period for theredemption of the United States notes in coin. "

On January 14, 1875, the "Resumption Act" was passed. It declared that"on and after January 1, 1879, the Secretary of the Treasury shallredeem in coin the United States legal-tender notes then outstanding, on their presentation for redemption at the office of the AssistantTreasurer of the United States in the city of New York, in sums ofnot less than fifty dollars. " The same Act provided that while thelegal-tender notes outstanding remained in excess of $300, 000, 000, theSecretary of the Treasury should redeem such notes to the amount of 80per cent. Of the increase in National Bank notes issued. 

On May 31, 1878, an Act was passed forbidding the further retirement ofUnited States legal-tender notes, and providing that "when any of saidnotes may be redeemed or be received into the Treasury under any lawfrom any source whatever and shall belong to the United States, theyshall not be retired, cancelled, or destroyed, but they shall bere-issued and paid out again and kept in circulation. " When this Act waspassed there were $346, 681, 016 of United States notes outstanding, andthere has been no change in the amount since. 

As to the silver policy of the Government since the war it is expectedthat the purport of certain important acts of legislation should beunderstood by all who would have an intelligent conception of ourfinancial controversies. 

The Act of February 12, 1873, suspended the coinage of the standardsilver dollar of 412 and 1/2 grains. This Act authorized the coinage ofthe trade dollar of 420 grains, making it a legal tender for $5. Thisis the Act which has been called the "crime of 1873, " on which tomes ofcontroversy have been called forth. It is discussed at some length inthe speech of Mr. Morrill, found in our text. 

On February 28, 1878, the Bland-Allison Act was passed over the veto ofPresident Hayes. A bill providing for the free and unlimited coinageof silver, of 412 and 1/2 grains to the dollar, had passed the Housein November, 1877, under a suspension of the rules. At this time thebullion in the silver dollar was worth about 92 cents. When the Blandfree-coinage Act came to the Senate, it was amended there on reportof Senator Allison, of Iowa, Chairman of the Finance Committee ofthe Senate, by a provision that the Government should purchase from$2, 000, 000 to $4, 000, 000 worth of silver bullion for coinage intodollars. Holders of the coin were authorized to deposit the same withthe United States Treasurer and to receive therefor certificates ofdeposit, known as silver certificates. These certificates are not legaltender, although receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, andare redeemable only in silver. This Act called forth an exhaustiveand able debate. Senator Morrill, of Vermont, opened the debate inopposition to silver coinage. Senator Beck, of Kentucky, was one ofthe ablest advocates of silver coinage, while Mr. Blaine made a notablecontribution to the debate, in which he favored the unlimited coinage ofa silver dollar of 425 grains. Preceding the Congressional action therehad been much public discussion on the subject throughout the country. A Monetary Commission had been organized, by joint resolution of August15, 1875, for the purpose of making an examination into the silverquestion. This Commission made an exhaustive report to Congress on March2, 1877, the majority of the Commission recommending the resumption ofsilver coinage. Also, previous to the discussion of the Bland-AllisonAct in the Senate, the celebrated Matthews Resolution was passed by thatbody. This asserted that "all bonds of the United States are payable insilver dollars of 412 and 1/2 grains, and that to restore such dollarsas a full legal tender for that purpose, is not in violation of publicfaith or the rights of the creditors. " The de-bate on this resolutionwas a notable one. It was chiefly under these aspects that the financialquestion was discussed in the years 1877-1878. 

The Bland-Allison Act was in operation from 1878 to 1890, during whichtime $2, 000, 000 in silver were coined per month, the minimum amountauthorized by law. On July 14, 1890, the so-called Sherman Act stoppedthe coinage of silver dollars and provided for the purchase of silverbullion to the amount of 4, 500, 000 ounces per month. Against thisbullion Treasury notes were to be issued, redeemable in gold or silvercoin at the option of the Secretary of the Treasury. These notes weremade a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, andreceivable for all customs, taxes, and all public dues. It was alsodeclared in this Act to be the established policy of the United Statesto maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the presentlegal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law. On account of thislanguage in the law the Secretary of the Treasury under Mr. Clevelandhas not deemed it advisable to exercise the discretion which the lawgives him to redeem these notes in silver, and these new Treasury noteshave been treated as gold obligations. By November 1, 1893, when thesilver purchase clause of the Act of July 14, 1890, was repealed, Treasury notes to the amount of $155, 000, 000 had been issued, thoughsome of these have since been exchanged for silver dollars at the optionof the holders. It has been by these Treasury notes and the outstandinggreenbacks that gold has been withdrawn from the Treasury, thusdepleting the gold reserve and making bond issues necessary. It hasbeen deemed advisable by successive administrations of the TreasuryDepartment to maintain a gold reserve of $100, 000, 000 against the$346, 681, 000 outstanding greenbacks, though no law requires that sucha reserve should be maintained further than that the Act of March 18, 1869, pledges the faith of the United States that its outstanding notesshould be redeemed in coin. 

The repeal of the silver purchase clause of the Sherman Act wasaccomplished in a special session of Congress, November 1, 1893. Sincethis repeal, the silver policy of the Government has been as itwas before the Bland-Allison Act of 1878, which involves a completesuspension of silver coinage. The Acts of 1878 and of 1890 werecompromise measures, agreed to by the opponents of silver coinage inorder to prevent the passage of a bill providing for full unlimitedcoinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. Speaking in his_Recollections_ of the situation in 1890, Senator Sherman says: "Thesituation at that time was critical. A large majority of the Senatefavored free silver, and it was feared that the small majority againstit in the other House might yield and agree to it. The silence of thePresident on the matter gave rise to an apprehension that if a freecoinage bill should pass both Houses he would not feel at liberty toveto it. Some action had to be taken to prevent a return to free silvercoinage, and the measure evolved was the best obtainable. I voted forit, but the day it became a law I was ready to repeal it, if repealcould be had without substituting in its place absolute free coinage. "

Since 1893 the contention has been carried on by the silver men in apublic agitation in favor of free silver coinage, without compromise orinternational agreement, and this year (1896), by our form of politicalreferendum, the question has been referred to the people for decision. 

We have attempted to include four representative orations on thiscomplex subject, from four of our most prominent public men. Theliterature of the subject is unlimited. Mr. Morrill is a representativeadvocate of the gold standard. In the same discussion Mr. Blaine offersa compromise position. Senator Sherman is an international bimetallistand a pronounced opponent of independent silver coinage. He has givenmuch attention--probably no one has given more--to financial questionsduring a long public life. Senator Jones is recognized as one of theablest advocates and one of the deepest students of monetary problemson the free silver side of the controversy. The extracts from thesespeeches will indicate the merits of the long debate on silvercoinage, --the greatest question in our financial history in a quarter ofa century. 

The reform of the Civil Service has been a subject of public attentionespecially since 1867. The public service of the United States isdivided into three branches, the civil, military, and naval. By thecivil service we mean that which is neither military nor naval, and itcomprises all the offices by which the civil administration is carriedon. The struggle for Civil Service Reform has been an effort tosubstitute what is known as the "Merit System" for what is known as the"Spoils System"; to require that appointment to public office shoulddepend, not upon the applicant's having rendered a party service, butupon his fitness to render a public service. It would seem that theestablishment in public practice of so obvious a principle shouldrequire no contest or agitation; and that the civil service should everhave been perverted and that a long struggle should be necessary toreform it, are to be explained only in connection with a modern partyorganization and a party machinery and usage which were entirelyunforeseen by the framers of the Constitution. The practice of theearly administrations was reasonable and natural. Washington required ofapplicants for places in the civil service proofs of ability, integrity, and fitness. "Beyond this, " he said, "nothing with me is necessaryor will be of any avail. " Washington did not dream that party serviceshould be considered as a reason for a public appointment. John Adamsfollowed the example of Washington. Jefferson came into power at thehead of a victorious party which had displaced its opponent after abitter struggle. The pressure for places was strong, but Jeffersonresisted it, and he declared in a famous utterance that "the onlyquestions concerning a candidate shall be, Is he honest? is he capable?is he faithful to the Constitution?" Madison, Monroe, and JohnQuincy Adams followed in the same practice so faithfully that a jointCongressional Committee was led to say in 1868 that, having consultedall accessible means of information, they had not learned of a singleremoval of a subordinate officer except for cause, from the beginning ofWashington's administration to the close of that of John Quincy Adams. 

The change came in 1829 with the accession of Jackson. The Spoils Systemwas formally proclaimed in 1832. In that year Martin Van Buren wasnominated Minister to England, and, in advocating his confirmation, Senator Marcy, of New York, first used the famous phrase in reference tothe public officers, "To the victors belong the spoils of the enemy. "

Since then every administration has succumbed, in whole or in part, to the Spoils System. The movement for the reform of the civil servicebegan in 1867-68, in the 39th and 40th Congresses in investigations andreports of a Joint Committee on Retrenchment. The reports were made andthe movement led by Hon. Thomas A. Jenckes, a member of the House fromRhode Island. These reports contained a mass of valuable informationupon the evils of the spoils service. In 1871 an Act, a section of anappropriation bill, was passed authorizing the President to prescriberules for admission to the civil service, to appoint suitable personsto make inquiries and to establish regulations for the conduct ofappointees. Mr. George William Curtis was at the head of the CivilService Commission appointed by General Grant under this Act, and onDecember 18, 1871, the Commission made a notable report, written by Mr. Curtis, on the evils of the present system and the need of reform. InApril, 1872, a set of rules was promulgated by the Commission regulatingappointments. These rules were suspended in March, 1875, by PresidentGrant although personally friendly to the reform, because Congress hadrefused appropriations for the expenses of the Commission. Appealwas made to the people through the usual agencies of education andagitation. President Hayes revised the Civil Service Rules, and Mr. Schurz, Secretary of the Interior, made notable application of theprinciple of the reform in his department. President Garfield recognizedthe need of reform, though he asserted that it could be brought aboutonly through Congressional action. Garfield's assassination by adisappointed placeman added to the public demand for reform, and onJanuary, 18, 1883, the Pendleton Civil Service Law was passed. ThisAct, which had been pending in the Senate since 1880, provided foropen competitive examinations for admission to the public service inWashington and in all custom-houses and post-offices where the officialforce numbered as many as fifty; for the appointment of a Civil ServiceCommission of three members, not more than two of whom shall be ofthe same political party; and for the apportionment of appointmentsaccording to the population of the States. Provision was made for aperiod of probation before permanent appointment should be made, and norecommendations from a Senator or member of Congress, except as tothe character or residence of the applicant, should be received orconsidered by any person making an appointment or examination. The Actprohibited political assessments in a provision that "no person shall, in any room occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officeror employee of the United States, solicit in any manner whatever anycontribution of money or anything of value, for any political purposewhatever. "

The Pendleton Act was a landmark in the history of the reform andindicated its certain triumph. The Act was faithfully executed byPresident Arthur in the appointment of a Commission friendly to thecause, and under the Act the Civil Service Rules have since beenextended by Presidents Harrison and Cleveland until the operations ofthe reform embrace the greater part of the service, including fully85, 000 appointments. It is not probable that the nation will ever againreturn to the feudalism of the Spoils System. 

No two men have done more for the cause of Civil Service Reform thanGeorge William Curtis and Carl Schurz. When Mr. Curtis died, in 1892, the presidency of the Civil Service Reform League, so long held byhim, worthily devolved upon Mr. Schurz. It may be said that in the lasttwenty-five years of Mr. Curtis' life is written the history ofthis reform. His orations on the subject have enriched our politicalliterature and they hold up before the young men of America the noblestideals of American citizenship. He gave unselfishly of his time and ofhis exalted talents to this cause, and his services deserve from hiscountrymen the reward due to high and devoted patriotism. Refusing highand honorable appointments which were held out to him, he preferred toserve his country by doing what he could to put her public service upona worthy plane. The oration from Mr. Curtis included in our text is oneamong many of his worthy productions. 

J. A. W. 

JUSTIN S. MORRILL, OF VERMONT. (BORN 1810. )

ON THE REMONETIZATION OF SILVER

--UNITED STATES SENATE, JANUARY 28, 1878. 

MR. PRESIDENT, the bill now before the Senate provides for theresuscitation of the obsolete dollar of 412 and 1/2 grains of silver, which Congress entombed in 1834 by an Act which diminished the weight ofgold coins to the extent of 6. 6 per cent. , and thus bade a long farewellto silver. It is to be a dollar made of metal worth now fifty-three andfive-eighths pence per ounce, or ten cents less in value than agold dollar, and on January 23d, awkwardly enough, worth eight andthree-fourths cents less than a dollar in greenbacks, gold being onlyIf per cent. Premium, but, nevertheless, to be a legal tender for alldebts, public and private, except where otherwise provided by contract. The words seem to be aptly chosen to override and annul whatever nowmay be otherwise provided by law. Beyond this, as the bill came from theHouse, the holders of silver bullion--not the Government or the wholepeople--were to have all the profits of coinage and the Government allof the expense. This, but for the amendment proposed by the Committee onFinance, would have furnished the power to the enterprising operators insilver, either at home or abroad, to inflate the currency without limit;and, even as amended, inflation will be secured to the full extentof all the silver which may be issued, for there is no provision forredeeming or retiring a single dollar of paper currency. Labor isthreatened with a continuation of the unequal struggle against adepreciated and fluctuating standard of money. 

The bill, if it becomes a law, must at the very threshold arrest theresumption of specie payments, for, were the holders of United Statesnotes suddenly willing to exchange them for much less than their presentvalue, payment even in silver is to be postponed indefinitely. For yearsUnited States notes have been slowly climbing upward, but now they areto have a sudden plunge downward, and in every incompletedcontract, great and small, the robbery of Peter to pay Paul is to before-ordained. The whole measure looks to me like a fearful assault uponthe public credit. The losses it will inflict upon the holders of papermoney and many others will be large, and if the bill, without furtherradical amendments, obtains the approval of the Senate, it will givethe death-blow to the cardinal policy of the country, which now seeksa large reduction of the rate of interest upon our national debt. Even that portion now held abroad will come back in a stampede to beexchanged for gold at any sacrifice. The ultimate result would be, when the supply for customs shall have been coined and the firsteffervescence has passed away, the emission of silver far below thestandard of gold; and when the people become tired of it, disgusted orruined by its instability, as they soon would be, a fresh clamor maybe expected for the remonetization of gold, and another clipping ordebasing of gold coins may follow to bring them again into circulationon the basis of silver equivalency. In this slippery descent there canbe no stopping place. The consoling philosophy of the silver commissionmay then be repealed, that a fall in the value of either or both of themetals is a "benefaction to mankind. " If that were true, then copper, being more abundant and of lower value, should be used in preferenceto either gold or silver. The gravity of these questions will not bedisputed. 

The silver question in its various aspects, as involved in the billbefore us, is one of admitted importance, possibly of difficultsolution; and it is further embarrassed by not only the conflictingviews of those entitled to some respect, but by the multifariousprescriptions intruded by a host of self-constituted experts and by allof the quack financiers of the land. Every crocheteer and pamphleteer, cocksure "there's no two ways about it, " generously contributes hisadvice free of charge; but sound, trust-worthy advice does not roam liketramps and seldom comes uninvited. Many of the facts which surroundthe subject are perhaps of too recent occurrence to justify hasty andirrevocable conclusions. The service of our own people, however, mustbe our paramount concern. Their intercourse with themselves and withthe world should be placed upon the most solid foundation. If any havesilver to sell it is comparatively a small matter, and yet we earnestlydesire that they may obtain for it the highest as well as the moststable price; but not at the expense of corn, cotton, and wheat; and itis to be hoped, if any have debts to meet now or hereafter, that theymay meet them with the least inconvenience consistent with plain, downright, integrity; but, from being led astray by the louddeclamations of those who earn nothing themselves and know no trade butspoliation of the earnings of others, let them heartily say, "Good Lord, deliver us. "

 * * * * *

A stupid charge, heretofore, in the front of debate, has been made, and wickedly repeated in many places, that the Coinage Act of 1873 wassecretly and clandestinely engineered through Congress without properconsideration or knowledge of its contents; but it is to be noted thatthis charge had its birth and growth years after the passage of the Act, and not until after the fall of silver. Long ago it was declared by oneof the old Greek dramatists that, "No lie ever grows old. " This one isas fresh and boneless now as at its birth, and is therefore swallowedwith avidity by those to whom such food is nutritious or by those whohave no appetite for searching the documents and records for facts. Whether the Act itself was right or wrong does not depend upon thedegradation of Congress implied in the original charge. Interestedoutsiders may glory in libelling Congress, but why should its ownmembers? The Act may be good and Congress bad, and yet it is to be hopedthat the latter has not fallen to the level of its traducers. But therehas been no fall of Congress; only a fall of silver. To present theabundant evidence showing that few laws were ever more openly proposed, year after year, and squarely understood than the Coinage Act of 1873, will require but a moment. It had been for years elaborately consideredand reported upon by the Deputy Comptroller of the Currency. The specialattention of Congress was called to the bill and the report by theSecretary of the Treasury in his annual re-ports for 1870, 1871, and1872, where the "new features" of the bill, "discontinuing thecoinage of the silver dollar, " were fully set forth. The extensivecorrespondence of the Department had been printed in relation to theproposed bill, and widely circulated. The bill was separately printedeleven times, and twice in reports of the Deputy Comptroller of theCurrency, --thirteen times in all, --and so printed by order of Congress. A copy of the printed bill was many times on the table of everySenator, and I now have all of them here before me in large type. It wasconsidered at much length by the appropriate committees of both Housesof Congress; and the debates at different times upon the bill inthe Senate filled sixty-six columns of the _Globe_, and in the Houseseventy-eight columns of the _Globe_. No argus-eyed debater objected byany amendment to the discontinuance of the silver dollar. In substancethe bill twice passed each House, and was finally agreed upon andreported by a very able and trustworthy committee of conference, whereMr. Sherman, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Bayard appeared on the part of theSenate. No one who knows anything of those eminent Senators will chargethem with doing anything secretly or clandestinely. And yet more capitalhas been made by the silver propagandists out of this groundless chargethan by all of their legitimate arguments. '

 * * * * *

The gold standard, it may confidently be asserted, is practicallyfar cheaper than that of silver. I do not insist upon having the goldstandard, but if we are to have but one, I think that the best. Theexpense of maintaining a metallic currency is of course greater thanthat of paper; but it must be borne in mind that a paper currency isonly tolerable when convertible at the will of the holder into coin--andno one asks for more than that. A metallic currency is also subjectto considerable loss by abrasion or the annual wear; and it is quiteimportant to know which metal--gold or silver--can be most cheaplysupported. A careful examination of the subject conclusively shows thatthe loss is nearly in proportion to the length of time coins have beenin circulation, and to the amount of surface exposed, although smallcoins, being handled with less care, suffer most. The well-ascertainedresult is that it costs from fifteen to twenty-five times more to keepsilver afloat than it does to maintain the same amount in gold. Tosustain the silver standard would annually cost about one per cent. Forabrasion; but that of gold would not exceed one-twentieth of one percent. This is a trouble-some charge, forever to bristle up in thepath-way of a silver standard. It must also be borne in mind that themint cost of coining silver is many times greater than that of the sameamount in gold. More than sixteen tons of silver are required as theequivalent of one ton of gold. As a cold matter of fact, silver isneither the best nor the cheapest standard. It is far dearer to plantand forever dearer to maintain. 

A double standard put forth by us on the terms now proposed by thecommission or by the House bill would be so only in name. The perfectdual ideal of theorists, based upon an exact equilibrium of values, cannot be realized while the intrinsic value of either of the componentparts is overrated or remains a debatable question and everywhere moreor less open to suspicion. A standard of value linked to the changingfortunes of two metals instead of one, when combined with an existingdisjointed and all-pervading confusion in the ratio of value, mustnecessarily be linked to the hazard of double perturbations and becomean alternating standard in perpetual motion. 

The bimetallic scheme, with silver predominant--largely everywhere elsesuspended, if not repudiated--is pressed upon us now with a ratio thatwill leave nothing in circulation but silver, as a profitable mode ofproviding a new and cheaper way of pinching and paying the nationaldebt; but a mode which would leave even a possible cloud upon ournational credit should find neither favor nor tolerance among a proudand independent people. 

The proposition is openly and squarely made to pay the public debt atour option in whichever metal, gold or silver, happens to be cheapest, and chiefly for the reason that silver already happens to be at 10 percent. The cheapest. In 1873, to have paid the debt in silver would havecost 3 per cent. More than to have paid it in gold, and then there wasno unwillingness on the part of the present non-contents to pay in gold. Silver was worth more then to sell than to pay on debts. No one thenpulled out the hair of his head to cure grief for the disappearance ofthe nominal silver option. Since that time it has been and would be nowcheaper nominally to pay in silver if we had it; and therefore we areurged to repudiate our former action and to claim the power to resume anoption already once supposed to have been profitably exercised, of whichthe world was called upon to take notice, and to pay in silver to-dayor to let it alone to-morrow. I know that the detestable doctrine ofMachiavelli was that "a prudent prince ought not to keep his word exceptwhen he can do it without injury to himself;" but the Bible teaches adifferent doctrine, and honoreth him "who sweareth to his own hurt andchangeth not. " If we would not multiply examples of individualfinancial turpitude, already painfully numerous, we must not trample outconscience and sound morality from the monetary affairs of the nation. The "option" about which we should be most solicitous was definitelyexpressed by Washington when he said: "There is an option left tothe United States whether they will be respectable and prosperous orcontemptible and miserable as a nation. " Our national self-respect wouldnot be increased when Turkey, as a debt-paying nation, shall be heldas our equal and Mexico as our superior. The credit of a great nationcannot even be discussed without some loss; it cannot even be temptedby the devious advantages of legal technicalities without bringing somesense of shame; but to live, it must go, like chastity, unchallenged andunsuspected. It cannot take refuge behind the fig-leaves of the law, andespecially not behind a law yet to be made to meet the case. 

 * * * * *

The argument relied upon in favor of a bimetallic standard as againsta monometallic seems to be that a single-metal standard leaves outone-half of the world's resources; but the same thing must occur with abimetallic standard unless the metals can be placed and kept in a stateof exact equilibrium, or so that nothing can be gained by the exchangeof one for the other. Hitherto this has been an unattainable perfection. A law fixing the ratio of 16 of silver to 1 of gold, as proposed bydifferent members of the Commission, would now be a gross over-valuationof silver and wholly exclude gold from circulation. It will hardly bedisputed that the two metals cannot circulate together unless they aremutually convertible without profit or loss at the ratio fixed at themint. But it is here proposed to start silver with a large legal-tenderadvantage above its market value, and with the probability, throughfurther depreciation, of increasing that advantage by which themonometallic standard of silver will be ordained and confirmed. Theargument in behalf of a double standard is double-tongued, when infact nothing is intended, or can be the outcome, but a single silverstandard. The argument would wed silver and gold, but the conditionswhich follow amount to a decree of perpetual divorcement. Enforce themeasure by legislation, and gold would at once flee out of the country. Like liberty, gold never stays where it is undervalued. 

No approach to a bimetallic currency of uniform and fixed value can bepossible, as it appears to me, without the co-operation of the leadingcommercial nations. Even with that co-operation its accomplishment andpermanence may not be absolutely certain, unless the late transcendentfickleness of the supply and demand subsides, or unless the ratio ofvalue can be adjusted with more consummate accuracy than has hithertobeen found by any single nation to be practicable. One-tenth of one percent. Difference will always exclude from use one or the other metal;but here a difference nearly one hundred times greater has beenproposed. The double-standard nations and the differing single gold- orsilver-standard nations doubtless contributed something to the relativeequalization of values so long as they furnished an available market forany surplus of either metal, but this they are doing no longer. Silver, though not yet universally demonetized, is thrown upon the market insuch masses and from so many prolific sources as to be governed by theinexorable laws of demand and supply. Its magic as coin, if it has nothopelessly departed, has been, like the retreating soldier, fearfully"demoralized, " and is passing to the rear. 

 * * * * *

It cannot be for the interest or the honor of the United States, whilepossessed of any healthy national pride, to resort to any expedient ofbankrupt governments to lower the money standard of the country. Thatstandard should keep us "four square" to the world and give us equalrank in the advanced civilization and industrial enterprise of all thegreat commercial nations. 

I have failed of my purpose if I have not shown that there has beenso large an increase of the stock of silver as of itself to effect apositive reduction of its value; and that this result has been confirmedand made irreversible by the new and extensive European disuse of silvercoinage. I have indicated the advisability of obtaining the co-operationof other leading nations, in fixing upon a common ratio of value betweengold and silver, before embarking upon a course of independent actionfrom which there could be no retreat. I have also attempted to showthat, even in the lowest pecuniary sense of profit, the Government ofthe United States could not be the gainer by proposing to pay either thepublic debt or the United States notes in silver; that such a paymentwould violate public pledges as to the whole, and violates existingstatutes as to all that part of the debt contracted since 1870, and forwhich gold has been received; that the remonetization of silver meansthe banishment of gold and our degradation among nations to the secondor third rank; that it would be a sweeping 10 per cent. Reduction ofall duties upon imports, requiring the imposition of new taxes to thatextent; that it would prevent the further funding of the public debt ata lower rate of interest and give to the present holders of our 6 percent. Bonds a great advantage; that, instead of aiding resumption, itwould only inflate a currency already too long depreciated, and consignit to a still lower deep; that, instead of being a tonic to spur idlecapital once more into activity, it would be its bane, destructive ofall vitality; and that as a permanent silver standard it would notonly be void of all stability, and the dearest and clumsiest in itsintroduction and maintenance, but that it would reduce the wages oflabor to the full extent of the difference there might be between itspurchasing power and that of gold. 

JAMES G. BLAINE, OF MAINE. (BORN 1830, DIED 1893. )

ON THE REMONETIZATION OF SILVER, UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 7, 1878. 

The discussion on the question of remonetizing silver, Mr. President, has been prolonged, able, and exhaustive. I may not expect to add muchto its value, but I promise not to add much to its length. I shallendeavor to consider facts rather than theories, to state conclusionsrather than arguments:

First. I believe gold and silver coin to be the money of theConstitution--indeed, the money of the American people anterior tothe Constitution, which that great organic law recognized as quiteindependent of its own existence. No power was conferred on Congress todeclare that either metal should not be money. Congress has therefore, in my judgment, no power to demonetize silver any more than todemonetize gold; no power to demonetize either any more than todemonetize both. In this statement I am but repeating the weighty dictumof the first of constitutional lawyers. "I am certainly of opinion, "said Mr. Webster, "that gold and silver, at rates fixed by Congress, constitute the legal standard of value in this country, and that neitherCongress nor any State has authority to establish any other standard orto displace this standard. " Few persons can be found, I apprehend, whowill maintain that Congress possesses the power to demonetize bothgold and silver, or that Congress could be justified in prohibiting thecoinage of both; and yet in logic and legal construction it would bedifficult to show where and why the power of Congress over silver isgreater than over gold--greater over either than over the two. If, therefore, silver has been demonetized, I am in favor of remonetizingit. If its coinage has been prohibited, I am in favor of ordering Itto be resumed. If it has been restricted, I am in favor of having itenlarged. 

Second. What power, then, has Congress over gold and silver? It hasthe exclusive power to coin them; the exclusive power to regulate theirvalue; very great, very wise, very necessary powers, for the discreetexercise of which a critical occasion has now arisen. However men maydiffer about causes and processes, all will admit that within a fewyears a great disturbance has taken place in the relative values of goldand silver, and that silver is worth less or gold is worth more inthe money markets of the world in 1878 than in 1873, when the furthercoinage of silver dollars was prohibited in this country. To remonetizeit now as though the facts and circumstances of that day weresurrounding us, is to wilfully and blindly deceive ourselves. If ourdemonetization were the only cause for the decline in the value ofsilver, then remonetization would be its proper and effectual cure. Butother causes, quite beyond our control, have been far more potentiallyoperative than the simple fact of Congress prohibiting its furthercoinage; and as legislators we are bound to take cognizance of thesecauses. The demonetization of silver in the great German Empire and theconsequent partial, or well-nigh complete, suspension of coinage in thegovernments of the Latin Union, have been the leading dominant causesfor the rapid decline in the value of silver. I do not think theover-supply of silver has had, in comparison with these other causes, an appreciable influence in the decline of its value, because itsover-supply with respect to gold in these later years, has not beennearly so great as was the over-supply of gold with respect to silverfor many years after the mines of California and Australia were opened;and the over-supply of gold from those rich sources did not effect therelative positions and uses of the two metals in any European country. 

I believe then if Germany were to remonetize silver and the kingdoms andstates of the Latin Union were to reopen their mints, silver would atonce resume its former relation with gold. The European countries whendriven to full re-monetization, as I believe they will be, must ofnecessity adopt their old ratio of fifteen and a half of silver to oneof gold, and we shall then be compelled to adopt the same ratio insteadof our former sixteen to one. For if we fail to do this we shall, asbefore, lose our silver, which like all things else seeks the highestmarket; and if fifteen and a half pounds of silver will buy as much goldin Europe as sixteen pounds will buy in America, the silver, of course, will go to Europe. But our line of policy in a joint movement with othernations to remonetize is very simple and very direct. The difficultproblem is what we shall do when we aim to re-establish silver withoutthe co-operation of European powers, and really as an advance movementto coerce them there into the same policy. Evidently the first dictateof prudence is to coin such a dollar, as will not only do justiceamong our citizens at home, but will prove a protection--an absolutebarricade--against the gold monometallists of Europe, who, whenever theopportunity offers, will quickly draw from us the one hundred and sixtymillions of gold coin still in our midst. And if we coin a silver dollarof full legal tender, obviously below the current value of the golddollar, we are opening wide our doors and inviting Europe to take ourgold. And with our gold flowing out from us we are forced to the singlesilver standard and our relations with the leading commercial countriesof the world are at once embarrassed and crippled. 

Third. The question before Congress then--sharply defined in the pendingHouse bill--is, whether it is now safe and expedient to offer freecoinage to the silver dollar of 412 1/2 grains, with the mints of theLatin Union closed and Germany not permitting silver to be coinedas money. At current rates of silver, the free coinage of a dollarcontaining 412 1/2 grains, worth in gold about ninety-two cents, givesan illegitimate profit to the owner of the bullion, enabling him to takeninety-two cents' worth of it to the mint and get it stamped as coin andforce his neighbor to take it for a full dollar. This is an undue andunfair advantage which the Government has no right to give to the ownerof silver bullion, and which defrauds the man who is forced to take thedollar. And it assuredly follows that if we give free coinage to thisdollar of inferior value and put it in circulation, we do so at theexpense of our better coinage in gold; and unless we expect the uniformand invariable experience of other nations to be in some mysterious waysuspended for our peculiar benefit, we inevitably lose our gold coin. It will flow out from us with the certainty and resistless force of thetides. Gold has indeed remained with us in considerable amount duringthe circulation of the inferior currency of the legal tender; but thatwas because there were two great uses reserved by law for gold: thecollection of customs and the payment of interest on the public debt. But if the inferior silver coin is also to be used for these tworeserved purposes, then gold has no tie to bind it to us. What gain, therefore, would we make for the circulating medium, if on opening thegate for silver to flow in, we open a still wider gate for gold to flowout? If I were to venture upon a dictum on the silver question, I woulddeclare that until Europe remonetizes we cannot afford to coin a dollaras low as 412 1/2 grains. After Europe remonetizes on the old standard, we cannot afford to coin a dollar above 400 grains. If we coin too low adollar before general re-monetization our gold will flow out from us. Ifwe coin too high a dollar after general remonetization our silver willleave us. It is only an equated value both before and after generalremonetization that will preserve both gold and silver to us. 

 * * * * *

Fifth. The responsibility of re-establishing silver in its ancient andhonorable place as money in Europe and America, devolves really on theCongress of the United States. If we act here with prudence, wisdom, andfirmness, we shall not only successfully remonetize silver and bring itinto general use as money in our own country, but the influence of ourexample will be potential among all European nations, with the possibleexception of England. Indeed, our annual indebtment to Europe is sogreat that if we have the right to pay it in silver we necessarilycoerce those nations by the strongest of all forces, self-interest, toaid us in up-holding the value of silver as money. But if we attempt theremonetization on a basis which is obviously and notoriously belowthe fair standard of value as it now exists, we incur all the evilconsequences of failure at home and the positive certainty of successfulopposition abroad. We are and shall be the greatest producers of silverin the world, and we have a larger stake in its complete monetizationthan any other country. The difference to the United States between thegeneral acceptance of silver as money in the commercial world and itsdestruction as money, will possibly equal within the next half-centurythe entire bonded debt of the nation. But to gain this advantage we mustmake it actual money--the accepted equal of gold in the markets of theworld. Re-monetization here followed by general remonetization in Europewill secure to the United States the most stable basis for its currencythat we have ever enjoyed, and will effectually aid in solving all theproblems by which our financial situation is surrounded. 

Sixth. On the much-vexed and long-mooted question of a bi-metallic ormono-metallic standard my own views are sufficiently indicated in theremarks I have made. I believe the struggle now going on in this countryand in other countries for a single gold standard would, if successful, produce wide-spread disaster in the end throughout the commercial world. The destruction of silver as money and establishing gold as the soleunit of value must have a ruinous effect on all forms of property exceptthose investments which yield a fixed return in money. These would beenormously enhanced in value, and would gain a disproportionate andunfair advantage over every other species of property. If, as the mostreliable statistics affirm, there are nearly seven thousand millions ofcoin or bullion in the world, not very unequally divided between goldand silver, it is impossible to strike silver out of existence as moneywithout results which will prove distressing to millions and utterlydisastrous to tens of thousands. Alexander Hamilton, in his able andinvaluable report in 1791 on the establishment of a mint, declared that"to annul the use of either gold or silver as money is to abridge thequantity of circulating medium, and is liable to all the objectionswhich arise from a comparison of the benefits of a full circulation withthe evils of a scanty circulation. " I take no risk in saying that thebenefits of a full circulation and the evils of a scanty circulationare both immeasurably greater to-day than they were when Mr. Hamiltonuttered these weighty words, always provided that the circulation is oneof actual money, and not of depreciated promises to pay. 

In the report from which I have already quoted, Mr. Hamilton argues atlength in favor of a double standard, and all the subsequent experienceof well-nigh ninety years has brought out no clearer statement of thewhole case nor developed a more complete comprehension of this subtleand difficult subject. "On the whole, " says Mr. Hamilton, "it seems mostadvisable not to attach the unit exclusively to either of the metals, because this cannot be done effectually without destroying the officeand character of one of them as money and reducing it to the situationof mere merchandise. " And then Mr. Hamilton wisely concludes that thisreduction of either of the metals to mere merchandise (I again quotehis exact words) "would probably be a greater evil than occasionalvariations in the unit from the fluctuations in the relative valueof the metals, especially if care be taken to regulate the proportionbetween them with an eye to their average commercial value. " I do notthink that this country, holding so vast a proportion of the world'ssupply of silver in its mountains and its mines, can afford to reducethe metal to the "situation of mere merchandise. " If silver ceases tobe used as money in Europe and America, the great mines of the Pacificslope will be closed and dead. Mining enterprises of the gigantic scaleexisting in this country cannot be carried on to provide backs forlooking-glasses and to manufacture cream-pitchers and sugar-bowls. Avast source of wealth to this entire country is destroyed the momentsilver is permanently disused as money. It is for us to check thattendency and bring the continent of Europe back to the full recognitionof the value of the metal as a medium of exchange. 

Seventh. The question of beginning anew the coinage of silver dollarshas aroused much discussion as to its effect on the public credit; andthe Senator from Ohio (Mr. Matthews) placed this phase of the subjectin the very forefront of the debate--insisting, prematurely andillogically, I think, on a sort of judicial construction in advance, byconcurrent resolution, of a certain law in case that law should happento be passed by Congress. My own view on this question can be statedvery briefly. I believe the public creditor can afford to be paid in anysilver dollar that the United States can afford to coin and circulate. We have forty thousand millions of property in this country, and a wiseself-interest will not permit us to overturn its relations by seekingfor an inferior dollar wherewith to settle the dues and demands ofany creditor. The question might be different from a merely selfishstand-point if, on paying the dollar to the public creditor, it woulddisappear after performing that function. But the trouble is that theinferior dollar you pay the public creditor remains in circulation, tothe exclusion of the better dollar. That which you pay at home will staythere; that which you send abroad will come back. The interest of thepublic creditor is indissolubly bound up with the interest of the wholepeople. Whatever affects him affects us all; and the evil that we mightinflict upon him by paying an inferior dollar would recoil upon uswith a vengeance as manifold as the aggregate wealth of the Republictranscends the comparatively small limits of our bonded debt. Andremember that our aggregate wealth is always increasing, and ourbonded debt steadily growing less! If paid in a good silver dollar, thebondholder has nothing to complain of. If paid in an inferior silverdollar, he has the same grievance that will be uttered still moreplaintively by the holder of the legal-tender note and of thenational-bank bill, by the pensioner, by the day-laborer, and by thecountless host of the poor, whom we have with us always, and on whomthe most distressing effect of inferior money will be ultimatelyprecipitated. 

But I must say, Mr. President, that the specific demand for the paymentof our bonds in gold coin and in nothing else, comes with an ill gracefrom certain quarters. European criticism is levelled against us andhard names are hurled at us across the ocean, for simply daring to statethat the letter of our law declares the bonds to be payable in standardcoin of July 14, 1870; expressly and explicitly declared so, anddeclared so in the interest of the public creditor, and the declarationinserted in the very body of the eight hundred million of bonds thathave been issued since that date. Beyond all doubt the silver dollar wasincluded in the standard coins of that public act. Payment at that timewould have been as acceptable and as undisputed in silver as in golddollars, for both were equally valuable in the European as well as inthe American market. Seven-eighths of all our bonds, owned out of thecountry, are held in Germany and in Holland, and Germany has demonetizedsilver and Holland has been forced thereby to suspend its coinage, sincethe subjects of both powers purchased our securities. The German Empire, the very year after we made our specific declaration for paying ourbonds in coin, passed a law destroying so far as lay in their power thevalue of silver as money. I do not say that it was specially aimed atthis country, but it was passed regardless of its effect upon us, andwas followed, according to public and undenied statement, by a largeinvestment on the part of the German Government in our bonds, with aview, it was understood, of holding them as a coin reserve for drawinggold from us to aid in establishing their gold standard at home. Thus, by one move the German Government destroyed, so far as lay in its power, the then existing value of silver as money, enhanced consequently thevalue of gold, and then got into position to draw gold from us at themoment of their need, which would also be the moment of our own sorestdistress. I do not say that the German Government in these successivesteps did a single thing which it had not a perfect right to do, but Ido say that the subjects of that Empire have no right to complain of ourGovernment for the initial step which has impaired the value of one ofour standard coins. And the German Government by joining with us inthe remonetization of silver, can place that standard coin in itsold position and make it as easy for this Government to pay and asprofitable for their subjects to receive the one metal as the other. 

 * * * * *

The effect of paying the labor of this country in silver coin of fullvalue, as compared with the irredeemable paper or as compared even withsilver of inferior value, will make itself felt in a single generationto the extent of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, inthe aggregate savings which represent consolidated capital. It is theinstinct of man from the savage to the scholar--developed in childhoodand remaining with age--to value the metals which in all tongues arecalled precious. Excessive paper money leads to extravagance, to waste, and to want, as we painfully witness on all sides to-day. And in themidst of the proof of its demoralizing and destructive effect, we hearit proclaimed in the Halls of Congress that "the people demandcheap money. " I deny it. I declare such a phrase to be a totalmisapprehension, a total misinterpretation of the popular wish. Thepeople do not demand cheap money. They demand an abundance of goodmoney, which is an entirely different thing. They do not want a singlegold standard that will exclude silver and benefit those already rich. They do not want an inferior silver standard that will drive out goldand not help those already poor. They want both metals, in full value, in equal honor, in what-ever abundance the bountiful earth will yieldthem to the searching eye of science and to the hard hand of labor. 

The two metals have existed side by side in harmonious, honorablecompanionship as money, ever since intelligent trade was known amongmen. It is well-nigh forty centuries since "Abraham weighed to Ephronthe silver which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth--fourhundred shekels of silver--current money with the merchant. " Since thattime nations have risen and fallen, races have disappeared, dialectsand languages have been forgotten, arts have been lost, treasures haveperished, continents have been discovered, islands have been sunk in thesea, and through all these ages and through all these changes, silverand gold have reigned supreme, as the representatives of value, as themedia of exchange. The dethronement of each has been attempted in turn, and sometimes the dethronement of both; but always in vain. And we arehere to-day, deliberating anew over the problem which comes down to usfrom Abraham's time: the weight of the silver that shall be "currentmoney with the merchant. "

JOHN SHERMAN, OF OHIO. (BORN 1823. )

ON SILVER COINAGE AND TREASURY NOTES;

UNITED STATES SENATE, JUNE 5, 1890. 

I approach the discussion of this bill and the kindred bills andamendments pending in the two Houses with unaffected diffidence. Noproblem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty. Ouraction will affect the value of all the property of the people of theUnited States, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our trade andcommerce with all the world. In the consideration of such a questionwe should not be controlled by previous opinions or bound by localinterests, but with the lights of experience and full knowledge of allthe complicated facts involved, give to the subject the best judgmentwhich imperfect human nature allows. With the wide diversity of opinionthat prevails, each of us must make concessions in order to secure sucha measure as will accomplish the objects sought for without impairingthe public credit or the general interests of our people. This is notime for visionary theories of political economy. We must deal withfacts as we find them and not as we wish them. We must aim at resultsbased upon practical experience, for what has been probably will be. Thebest prophet of the future is the past. 

To know what measures ought to be adopted we should have a clearconception of what we wish to accomplish. I believe a majority ofthe Senate desire, first, to provide an increase of money to meet theincreasing wants of our rapidly growing country and population, andto supply the reduction in our circulation caused by the retiring ofnational-bank notes; second, to increase the market value of silver notonly in the United States but in the world, in the belief that this isessential to the success of any measure proposed, and in the hope thatour efforts will advance silver to its legal ratio with gold, and inducethe great commercial nations to join with us in maintaining the legalparity of the two metals, or in agreeing with us in a new ratio of theirrelative value; and third, to secure a genuine bimetallic standard, onethat will not demonetize gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, butthat will establish both gold and silver as standards of value not onlyin the United States, but among all the civilized nations of the world. 

Believing that these are the chief objects aimed at by us all, and thatwe differ only as to the best means to obtain them, I will discussthe pending propositions to test how far they tend, in my opinion, topromote or defeat these obtects. 

And, first, as to the amount of currency necessary to meet the wants ofthe people. 

 * * * * *

It is a fact that there has been a constant increase of currency. It isa fact which must be constantly borne in mind. If any evils now existsuch as have been so often stated, such as falling prices, increasedmortgages, contentions between capital and labor, decreasing value ofsilver, increased relative value of gold, they must be attributed tosome other cause than our insufficient supply of circulation, for notonly has the circulation increased in these twelve years 80 per cent. , while our population has only increased 36 per cent. , but it has allbeen maintained at the gold standard, which, it is plain, has beengreatly advanced in purchasing power. If the value of money is tested byits amount, by numerals, according to the favorite theory of the Senatorfrom Nevada (Mr. Jones), then surely we ought to be on the high roadof prosperity, for these numerals have increased in twelve years from$805, 000, -000 to $1, 405, 000, 000 in October last, and to $1, 420, 000, 000on the 1st of this month. This single fact disposes of the claim thatinsufficient currency is the cause of the woes, real and imaginary, thathave been depicted, and compel us to look to other causes for the evilscomplained of. 

I admit that prices for agricultural productions have been abnormallylow, and that the farmers of the United States have suffered greatlyfrom this cause. But this depression of prices is easily accountedfor by the greatly increased amount of agricultural production, thewonderful development of agricultural implements, the opening of vastregions of new and fertile fields in the West, the reduced costof transportation, the doubling of the miles of railroads, and thequadrupling capacity of railroads and steamboats for transportation, andthe new-fangled forms of trusts and combinations which monopolize nearlyall the productions of the farms and workshops of our country, reducingthe price to the producer and in some cases increasing the cost to theconsumer. All these causes cooperate to reduce prices of farm products. No one of them can be traced to an insufficient currency, now larger inamount in proportion to population than ever before in our history. 

But to these causes of a domestic character must be added others, overwhich we have no control. The same wonderful development of industryhas been going on in other parts of the globe. In Russia, especially inSouthern Russia, vast regions have been opened to the commerce of theworld. Railroads have been built, mines have been opened, exhaustlesssupplies of petroleum have been found, and all these are competitorswith us in supplying the wants of Europe for food, metals, heat, andlight. India, with its teeming millions of poorly paid laborers, iscompeting with our farmers, and their products are transported to marketover thousands of miles of railroads constructed by English capital, or by swift steamers through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, reachingdirectly the people of Europe whom we formerly supplied with food. Nowonder, then, that our agriculture is depressed by low prices, caused bycompetition with new rivals and agencies. 

Any one who can overlook these causes and attribute low prices to a wantof domestic currency, that has increased and is increasing continually, must be blind to the great forces that in recent times throughout theworld are tending by improved methods and modern inventions to lessenthe prices of all commodities. 

These fluctuations depend upon the law of supply and demand, involvingfacts too numerous to state, but rarely depending on the volume of moneyin circulation. An increase of currency can have no effect to advanceprices unless we cheapen and degrade it by making it less valuable; andif that is the intention now, the direct and honest way is to putfewer grains of gold or silver in our dollar. This was the old way, byclipping the coin, adding base metal. 

If we want a cheaper dollar we have the clear constitutional right to putin it 15 grains of gold instead of 23, or 300 grains of silver insteadof 412 1/2, but you have no power to say how many bushels of wheat thenew dollar shall buy. You can, if you choose, cheapen the dollar underyour power to coin money, and thus enable a debtor to pay his debts withfewer grains of silver or gold, under the pretext that gold or silverhas risen in value, but in this way you would destroy all forms ofcredit and make it impossible for nations or individuals to borrow moneyfor a period of time. It is a species of repudiation. 

The best standard of value is one that measures for the longest periodits equivalent in other products. Its relative value may vary from timeto time. If it falls, the creditor loses; if it increases, the debtorloses; and these changes are the chances of all trade and commerce andall loaning and borrowing. The duty of the Government is performed whenit coins money and provides convenient credit representatives ofcoin. The purchasing power of money for other commodities depends uponchanging conditions over which the Government has no control. Even itspower to issue paper money has been denied until recently, but this maybe considered as settled by the recent decisions of the Supreme Courtin the legal-tender cases. All that Congress ought to do is to providea sufficient amount of money, either of coin or its equivalent of papermoney, to meet the current wants of business. This it has done in thetwelve years last passed at a ratio of increase far in excess of any inour previous history. 

 * * * * *

Under the law of February, 1878, the purchase of $2, 000, 000 worth ofsilver bullion a month has by coinage produced annually an average ofnearly $3, 000, 000 a month for a period of twelve years, but this amount, in view of the retirement of the bank notes, will not increase ourcurrency in proportion to our increase in population. If our presentcurrency is estimated at $1, 400, 000, 000, and our population isincreasing at the ratio of 3 per cent. Per annum, it would require$42, 000, 000 increased circulation each year to keep pace with theincrease of population; but as the increase of population is accompaniedby a still greater ratio of increase of wealth and business, it wasthought that an immediate increase of circulation might be obtained bylarger pur chases of silver bullion to an amount sufficient to makegood the retirement of bank notes, and keep pace with the growth ofpopulation. Assuming that $54, 000, 000 a year of additional circulationis needed upon this basis, that amount is provided for in this bill bythe issue of Treasury notes in exchange for bullion at the market price. I see no objection to this proposition, but believe that Treasurynotes based upon silver bullion purchased in this way will be as safe afoundation for paper money as can be conceived. 

Experience shows that silver coin will not circulate to any considerableamount. Only about one silver dollar to each inhabitant is maintainedin circulation with all the efforts made by the Treasury Department, but silver certificates, the representatives of this coin, pass currentwithout question, and are maintained at par in gold by being receivedby the Government for all purposes and redeemed if called for. I do notfear to give to these notes every sanction and value that the UnitedStates can confer. I do not object to their being made a legal tenderfor all debts, public or private. I believe that if they are to beissued they ought to be issued as money, with all the sanction andauthority that the Government can possibly confer. While I believe theamount to be issued is greater than is necessary, yet in view of theretirement of bank notes I yielded my objections to the increase beyond$4, 000, 000. As an expedient to provide increased circulation it is farpreferable to free coinage of silver or any proposition that has beenmade to provide some other security than United States bonds for bankcirculation. I believe it will accomplish the first object proposed, agradual and steady increase of the current money of the country. 

 * * * * *

What then can we do to arrest the fall of silver and to advance itsmarket value? I know of but two expedients. One is to purchase bullionin large quantities as the basis and security of Treasury notes, asproposed by this bill. The other is to adopt the single standard ofsilver, and take the chances for its rise or fall in the markets of theworld. I have already stated the probable results of the hoarding ofbullion. By purchasing in the open market our domestic production ofsilver and hoarding it in the Treasury we withdraw so much from thesupply of the world, and thus maintain or increase the price of theremaining silver production of the world. It is not idle in our vaults, but is represented by certificates in active circulation. Sixteen ouncesof silver bullion may not be worth one ounce of gold, still one dollar'sworth of silver bullion is worth one dollar of gold. 

What will be the effect of the free coinage of silver? It is said thatit will at once advance silver to par with gold at the ratio of 16 to1. I deny it. The attempt will bring us to the single standard of thecheaper metal. When we advertise that we will buy all the silver of theworld at that ratio and pay in Treasury notes, our notes will have theprecise value of 371 1/2 grains of pure silver, but the silver will haveno higher value in the markets of the world. If, now, that amount ofsilver can be purchased at 80 cents, then gold will be worth $1. 25 inthe new standard. All labor, property, and commodities will advance innominal value, but their purchasing power in other commodities will notincrease. If you make the yard 30 inches long instead of 36 you mustpurchase more yards for a coat or a dress, but do not lessen the costof the coat or the dress. You may by free coinage, by a species ofconfiscation, reduce the burden of a debt, but you cannot change therelative value of gold or silver, or any object of human desire. Theonly result is to demonetize gold and to cause it to be hoarded orexported. The cheaper metal fills the channels of circulation and thedearer metal commands a premium. 

If experience is needed to prove so plain an axiom we have it in our ownhistory. At the beginning of our National Government we fixed the valueof gold and silver as 1 to 15. Gold was undervalued and fled the countryto where an ounce of gold was worth 151 ounces of silver. Congress, in1834, endeavored to rectify this by making the ratio 1 to 16, but bythis silver was undervalued. Sixteen ounces of silver were worth morethan 1 ounce of gold, and silver disappeared. Congress, in 1853, adoptedanother expedient to secure the value of both metals as money. Bythis expedient gold is the standard and silver the subsidiary coin, containing confessedly silver of less value in the market than the goldcoin, but maintained at the parity of gold coin by the Government. 

 * * * * *

But it is said that those of us who demand the gold standard, orpaper money always equal to gold, are the representatives of capital, money-changers, bondholders, Shylocks, who want to grind and oppress thepeople. This kind of argument I hoped would never find its way into theSenate Chamber. It is the cry of the demagogue, without the slightestfoundation. All these classes can take care of themselves. They are themen who make their profits out of the depreciation of money. They canmark up the price of their property to meet changing standards. They canprotect themselves by gold contracts. In proportion to their wealththey have less money on hand than any other class. They have alreadyprotected themselves to a great extent by converting the great body ofthe securities in which they deal into gold bonds, and they hold thegold of the country, which you cannot change in value. They are not, asa rule, the creditors of the country. 

The great creditors are savings-banks, insurance companies, widows andorphans, and provident farmers, and business men on a small scale. Thegreat operators are the great borrowers and owe more than is due them. Their credit is their capital and they need not have even money enoughto pay their rent. 

But how will this change affect the great mass of our fellow-citizenswho depend upon their daily labor? A dollar to them means so much food, clothing, and rent. If you cheapen the dollar it will buy less ofthese. You may say they will get more dollars for their labor, but allexperience shows that labor and land are the last to feel the change inmonetary standards, and the same resistance will be made to an advanceof wages on the silver standard as on the gold standard, and when theadvance is won it will be found that the purchasing power of the newdollar is less than the old. No principle of political economy is betterestablished than that the producing classes are the first to suffer andthe last to gain by monetary changes. 

I might apply this argument to the farmer, the merchant, theprofessional man, and to all classes except the speculator or thedebtor who wishes to lessen the burden of his obligations; but it is notnecessary. 

It is sometimes said that all this is a false alarm, that our demandfor silver will absorb all that will be offered and bring it to par withgold at the old ratio. I have no faith in such a miracle. If they reallythought so, many would lose their interest in the question. What theywant is a cheaper dollar that would pay debts easier. Others do notwant either silver or gold, but want numbers, numerals, the fruit ofthe printing-press, to be fixed every year by Congress as we do anappropriation bill. 

Now, sir, I am willing to do all I can with safety even to taking greatrisks to increase the value of silver to gold at the old ratio, andto supply paper substitutes for both for circulation, but there isone immutable, unchangeable, ever-existing condition, that the papersubstitute must always have the same purchasing power as gold andsilver coin, maintained at their legal ratio with each other. I feel aconviction, as strong as the human mind can have, that the free coinageof silver now by the United States will be a grave mistake and amisfortune to all classes and conditions of our fellow-citizens. Ialso have a hope and belief, but far from a certainty, that the measureproposed for the purchase of silver bullion to a limited amount, and theissue of Treasury notes for it, will bring silver and gold to the oldratio, and will lead to an agreement with other commercial nations tomaintain the free coinage of both metals. 

And now, sir, I want to state in conclusion, without any purpose tobind myself to detail, that I will vote for any measure that will, inmy judgment, secure a genuine bimetallic standard--one that willnot demonetize gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but willestablish both silver and gold as common standards and maintain them ata fixed ratio, not only in the United States but among all the nationsof the world. The principles adopted by the Acts of 1853 and 1875 havebeen sustained by experience and should be adhered to. In pursuance ofthem I would receive into the Treasury of the United States all thegold and silver produced in our country at their market value, not ata speculative or forced value, but at their value in the markets of theworld. And for the convenience of our people I would represent them byTreasury notes to an amount not exceeding their cost. I would conferupon these notes all the use, qualities, and attributes that we canconfer within our constitutional power, and support and maintain themas money by coining the silver and gold as needed upon the present legalratios, and by a pledge of all the revenues of the Government and allthe wealth and credit of the United States. 

And I would proclaim to all our readiness, by international negotiationsor treaties, to bring about an agreement among nations for common unitsof value and of weights and measures for all the productions of theworld. 

This hope of philosophers and statesmen is now nearer realization thanever before. If we could contribute to this result it would tend topromote commerce and intercourse, trade and travel, peace and harmonyamong nations. It would be in line with the civilization of our age. It is by such measures statesmen may keep pace with the marvellousinventions, improvements, and discoveries which have quadrupled thecapacity of man for production, made lightning subservient to his will, revealed to him new agencies of power hidden in the earth, and openedup to his enterprise all the dark places of the world. The people ofthe United States boast that they have done their full share in all thisdevelopment; that they have grown in population, wealth, and strength;that they are the richest of nations, with untarnished credit, a modeland example of self-government without kings or princes or lords. Surelythis is no time for a radical change of public policy which seems tohave no motive except to reduce the burden of obligations freely taken, a change likely to impair our public credit and produce disorder andconfusion in all monetary transactions. Others may see reasons for thischange, but I prefer to stand by the standards of value that come to uswith the approval and sanction of every party that has administered theGovernment since its beginning. 

JOHN P. JONES, OF NEVADA. (BORN 1830. )

ON TREASURY NOTES AND SILVER, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 12, 1890. 

MR. PRESIDENT, the question now about to be discussed by this body isin my judgment the most important that has attracted the attention ofCongress or the country since the formation of the Constitution. Itaffects every interest, great and small, from the slightest concern ofthe individual to the largest and most comprehensive interest of thenation. 

The measure under consideration was reported by me from the Committee onFinance. It is hardly necessary for me to say, however, that it does notfully reflect my individual views regarding the relation which silvershould bear to the monetary circulation of the country or of the world. I am, at all times and in all places, a firm and unwavering advocate ofthe free and unlimited coinage of silver, not merely for the reason thatsilver is as ancient and honorable a money metal as gold, and equallywell adapted for the money use, but for the further reason that, lookingat the annual yield from the mines, the entire supply that can come tothe mints will at no time be more than is needed to maintain at asteady level the prices of commodities among a constantly increasingpopulation. 

 * * * * *

History gives evidence of no more prolific source of human misery than apersistent and long continued fall in the general range of prices. But, although exercising so pernicious an influence, it is not itself acause, but an effect. 

When a fall of prices is found operating, not on one article or class ofarticles alone, but on the products of all industries; when found tobe not confined to any one climate, country, or race of people, but todiffuse itself over the civilized world; when it is found not to be acharacteristic of any one year, but to go on progressively for a seriesof years, it becomes manifest that it does not and can not arise fromlocal, temporary, or subordinate causes, but must have its genesis anddevelopment in some principle of universal application. 

What, then, is it that produces a general decline of prices in anycountry? It is produced by a shrinkage in the volume of money relativelyto population and business, which has never yet failed to cause anincrease in the value of the money unit, and a consequent decrease inthe price of the commodities for which such unit is exchanged. If thevolume of money in circulation be made to bear a direct and steady ratioto population and business, prices will be maintained at a steady level, and, what is of supreme importance, money will be kept of unchangingvalue. With an advancing civilization, in which a large volume ofbusiness is conducted on a basis of credit extending over long periods, it is of the uttermost importance that money, which is the measure ofall equities, should be kept unchanging in value through time. 

A reduction in the volume of money relatively to population andbusiness, or, (to state the proposition in another form) a volume whichremains stationary while population and business are increasing, has theeffect of increasing the value of each unit of money, by increasing itspurchasing power. 

 * * * * *

We have 22, 000, 000 workmen in this country. In order that they may bekept uninterruptedly employed it is absolutely necessary that businesscontracts and obligations be made long in advance. Accordingly, we readalmost daily of the inception of industrial undertakings requiring yearsto fulfil. It is not too much to say that the suspension for one seasonof the making of time-contracts would close the factories, furnaces, andmachine-shops of all civilized countries. 

The natural concomitant of such a system of industry is the elaboratesystem of debt and credit which has grown up with it, and isindispensable to it. Any serious enhancement in the value of the unit ofmoney between the time of making a contract or incurring a debt and thedate of fulfilment or maturity always works hardship and frequently ruinto the contractor or debtor. 

Three fourths of the business enterprises of this country are conductedon borrowed capital. Three fourths of the homes and farms that stand inthe name of the actual occupants have been bought on time, and a verylarge proportion of them are mortgaged for the payment of some part ofthe purchase money. 

Under the operation of a shrinkage in the volume of money this enormousmass of borrowers, at the maturity of their respective debts, thoughnominally paying no more than the amount borrowed, with interest, are, in reality, in the amount of the principal alone, returning a percentageof value greater than they received--more than in equity they contractedto pay, and oftentimes more, in substance, than they profited by theloan. To the man of business this percentage in many cases constitutesthe difference between success and failure. Thus a shrinkage in thevolume of money is the prolific source of bankruptcy and ruin. It is thecanker that, unperceived and unsuspected, is eating out the prosperityof our people. By reason of the almost universal inattention to thenature and functions of money this evil is permitted, unobserved, towork widespread ruin and disaster. So subtle is it in its operationsthat it eludes the vigilance of the most acute. It baffles all foresightand calculation; it sets at naught all industry, all energy, allenterprise. 

 * * * * *

The advocates of the single gold standard deem even silver money muchbetter money than greenbacks. Does it then follow that when greenbackswere our only money--good enough money to carry our nation through thegreatest war in all history--we were "along-side" or underneath thebarbarous nations of the world? It is not the form or material of anation's money that fixes its status relatively to other nations. Thatis accomplished by the vitality, the energy, the intellectuality andeffective force of its people. The United States can never be placed"alongside" any barbarous nation, except by compelling our people tocompete with barbarous peoples--compelling them to sell the products ofAmerican labor at prices regulated by the cost of labor and manner ofliving in barbarous countries. As well might it be said that we arealongside the barbarous people of India because we continue to producewheat and cotton. 

The distinguishing feature of all barbarous nations is the squalor oftheir working classes. The reward of their hard toil is barely enoughto maintain animal existence. A civilized people are placed alongsidea barbarous one when, in their means of livelihood, the foundation oftheir civilization, they are made to compete with the barbarians. Thatwas the result accomplished for the farmers and planters of the UnitedStates when silver was demonetized. 

 * * * * *

It is a remarkable circumstance, Mr. President, that throughout theentire range of economic discussion in gold-standard circles, it seemsto be taken for granted that a change in the value of the money unit isa matter of no significance, and imports no mischief to society, so longas the change is in one direction. Who has ever heard from an Easternjournal any complaint against a contraction of our money volume; anyadmonition that in a shrinking volume of money lurk evils of the utmostmagnitude? On the other hand, we have been treated to lengthy homilieson the evils of "inflation, " whenever the slightest prospect presenteditself to a decrease in the value of money--not with the view of givingthe debtor an advantage over the lender of money, but of preventing theunconscionable injustice of a further increasing value in the dollarswhich the debtor contracted to pay. Loud and re-sounding protests havebeen entered against the "dishonesty" of making payments in "depreciateddollars. " The debtors are characterized as dishonest for desiring tokeep money at a steady and unwavering value. If that object could besecured, it would undoubtedly be to the interest of the debtor, andcould not possibly work any injustice to the creditor. It would simplyassure to both debtor and creditor the exact measure for which theybargained. It would enable the debtor to pay his debt with exactly theamount of sacrifice to which, on the making of the debt, he undertook tosubmit, in order to pay it. 

In all discussions of the subject the creditors attempt to brush asidethe equities involved by sneering at the debtors. But, Mr. President, debt is the distinguishing characteristic of modern society. It isthrough debt that the marvellous developments of the nineteenth-centurycivilization have been effected. Who are the debtors in this country?Who are the borrowers of money? The men of enterprise, of energy, ofskill, the men of industry, of fore-sight, of calculation, of daring. In the ranks of the debtors will be found a large preponderance of theconstructive energy of every country. The debtors are the upbuilders ofthe national wealth and prosperity; they are the men of initiative, themen who conceive plans and set on foot enterprises. They are those whoby borrowing money enrich the community. They are the dynamic forceamong the people. They are the busy, restless, moving throng whom youfind in all walks of life in this country--the active, the vigorous, thestrong, the undaunted. 

These men are sustained in their efforts by the hope and belief thattheir labors will be crowned with success. Destroy that hope and youtake away from society the most powerful of all the incentives tomaterial development; you place in the pathway of progress an obstaclewhich it is impossible to surmount. 

The men of whom I have spoken are undoubtedly the first who are likelyto be affected by a shrinkage in the volume of money. 

The highest prosperity of a nation is attained only when all its peopleare employed in avocations suited to their individual aptitudes, andwhen a just money system insures an equitable distribution of theproducts of their industry. With our present complex civilization, inorder that men may have constant employment, it is indispensable thatwork be planned and undertakings projected years in advance. Withoutan intelligent forecast of enterprises large numbers of workmen mustperiodically be relegated to idleness. Enterprises that take years tocomplete must be contracted for in advance, and payments provided for. 

A constant but unperceived rise in the value of the dollar with whichthose payments must be made, baffles all plans, thwarts all calculation, and destroys all equities between debtor and creditor. If we cannotintelligently regulate our money volume so as to maintain unchangingthe value of the money unit, if we cannot preserve our people from theblighting effects which an increase in the measuring power of themoney unit entails upon all industry, to what purpose is our boastedcivilization?

By the increase of that measuring power all hopes are disappointed, allpurposes baffled, all efforts thwarted, all calculations defied. Thissubtle enlargement in the measuring power of the unit of money (thedollar) affects every class of the working community. Like a poisonousdrug in the human body, it permeates every vein, every artery, everyfibre and filament of the industrial structure. The debtor is fightingfor his life against an enemy he does not see, against an influencehe does not understand. For, while his calculations were well andintelligently made, and the amount of his debts and the terms of hiscontracts remain the same, the weight of all his obligations has beenincreased by an insidious increase in the value of the money unit. 

 * * * * *

In an ancient village there once stood a gold clock, which, ever sincethe invention of clocks, had been the measure of time for the peopleof that village. They were proud of its beauty, its workmanship, itsmusical stroke, and the unfailing regularity with which it heralded thepassing hours. This clock had been endeared to all the inhabitants ofthe village by the hallowed associations with which it was identified. Generation after generation it had called the children from far and wideto attend the village school; its fresh morning peal had set the honestvillagers to labor; its noonday notes had called them to refreshment;its welcome evening chime had summoned them to rest. 

From time immemorial, on all festive occasions, it had rung out itsmerry tones to assemble the young people on the green; and on theSabbath it had advertised to all the countryside the hour of worship inthe village church. So perfect was its mechanism that it never neededrepair. So proud were the people of this wonderful clock that it becamethe standard for all the country round about, and the time which it keptcame to be known as the gold standard of time, which was universallyadmitted to be correct and unchanging. 

In the course of time there wandered that way a queer character, a clock-maker, who being fully instructed in the inner workings oftime-tellers, and not having inherited the traditions of that village, did not regard this clock with the veneration accorded to it by thenatives. To their astonishment he denied that there was really anysuch thing as a gold standard of time; and in order to prove that thematerial, gold, did not monopolize all the qualities characteristic ofclocks, he placed alongside the gold clock, another clock, of silver, and set both clocks at 12 noon. For a long time the clocks ran alongin almost perfect accord, their only disagreement being that of anoccasional second or two, and even that disagreement only at rareintervals, such as might naturally occur with the best of clocks. Butthe Council of the village, in their admiration for the gold clock, passed an ordinance requiring that all the weights (the motive power) ofthe silver clock, except one, be removed from it, and attached to thoseof the gold clock. Instantly the clocks began to fall apart, and oneday, as the sun was passing the meridian, the hands of the gold clockwere observed to indicate the hour of 1, while those of the silver clockindicated 12. 15. At this everybody in the village ridiculed thesilver clock, derided the silver standard, and hurled epithets at theindividual who had had the temerity to doubt the infallibility of thegold standard. 

Finally, the divergence between the clocks went so far that it was noonby the gold standard when it was only 6 A. M. By the silver standard, sothat those who were guided by the gold standard, notwithstanding that itwas yet the gray of the morning, insisted on eating their mid-day meal, because the gold standard indicated that it must be noon. And whenthe sun was high in the heavens, and its light was shining warm andrefulgent on the dusty streets of the village, those who observed thegold standard had already eaten supper and were preparing for bed. 

But this state of things could not last. It was clear that thedifference between the standards must be reconciled, or all industrywould be disarranged and the village ruined. 

Discussion was rife among the villagers as to the cause of thedifference. Some said the silver clock had lost time; others that bothclocks had lost time, but the silver clock more than the gold; whileothers again asserted that both clocks had gained time, but that thegold clock had gained more than the silver clock. 

While this discussion was at its height a philosopher came along andobserving the excitement on the subject remarked: "By measuring twothings, one against the other, you can never arrive at any determinationas to which has changed. Instead of disputing as to whether one clockhas lost or another gained would it not be well to consult the sun andthe stars and ascertain exactly what has happened?"

Some demurred to this because, as they asserted, the gold standard wasunchanging and was always right no matter how much it might seem to bewrong; others agreed that the philosopher's advice should be taken. Upon consulting the sun and the stars it was discovered that what hadhappened was that both clocks had gained in time but that the gain ofthe silver clock had been very slight, while that of the gold clock hadbeen so great as to disturb all industry and destroy all correct senseof time. 

Nothwithstanding this demonstration, there were many who adhered to thebelief that the gold standard was correct and unchanging, and insistedthat what appeared to be its aberrations were not in reality due to anyfault of the gold clock, but to some convulsion of nature by whichthe solar system had been disarranged and the planets made to moveirregularly in their orbits. 

Some of the people also remembered having heard at the village inn, fromtravellers returning from the East, that silver clocks were the standardof time in India and other barbarous countries, while in countries of amore advanced civilization gold clocks were the standard. They thereforefeared that the use of the silver clock might have the effect ofdegrading the civilization of the village by placing it alongside Indiaand other barbarous countries. And although the great mass of the peoplereally believed, from the demonstration made, that the silver standardof time was the better one, yet this objection was so momentous thatthey were puzzled what course to pursue, and at last advices wereconsulting the manufacturers of gold clocks as to what was best to bedone. 

Now our gold standard men are in the position of those who first refuseto look at anything beyond the two things, gold and silver, to see whathas happened, and who, when it is finally demonstrated that all otherthings retain their former relations to silver, still persist that thelaw which makes gold an unchanging standard of measure is more immutablethan that which holds the stars in their courses. If they will comparegold and silver with commodities in general, to see how the metals havemaintained their relations, not to one another but to all other things, they will find that instead of a fall having taken place in the value ofsilver, the change that has really taken place is a rise in the value ofboth gold and silver, the rise in silver being relatively slight, whilethat of gold has been ruinously great. And those who do not shut theireyes to the truth must see that the change of relation between themetals has been effected by depriving silver of its legal-tenderfunction, as the want of accord between the clocks was brought aboutby depriving the silver clock of a portion of its motive power--theweights. The only thing that has prevented a greater divergency betweenthe metals is the limited coinage by the United States--the singleweight that, withheld from the gold clock, prevented its more ruinousgain. 

 * * * * *

Everybody admits that the value of all other things is regulated by theplay against each other of the forces of supply and demand. No reasonhas been or can be given why the value of the unit of money is notsubject to this law. 

The demand for money is equivalent to the sum of the demands for allother things whatsoever, for it is through a demand first made onmoney that all the wants of man are satisfied. The demand for money isinstant, constant, and unceasing, and is always at a maximum. If any manwants a pair of shoes, or a suit of clothes, he does not make his demandfirst on the shoemaker, or clothier. No man, except a beggar, makes ademand directly for food, clothes, or any other article. Whether it beto obtain clothing, food, or shelter--whether the simplest necessityor the greatest luxury of life--it is on money that the demand is firstmade. As this rule operates throughout the entire range of commoditiesit is manifest that the demand for money equals at least the uniteddemands for all other things. 

While population remains stationary, the demand for money will remainthe same. As the demand for one article becomes less, the demand forsome other which shall take its place becomes greater. The demand formoney, therefore, must ever be as pressing and urgent as the needs ofman are varied, incessant, and importunate. 

Such being the demand for money, what is the supply? It is the totalnumber of units of money in circulation (actual or potential) in anycountry. 

The force of the demand for money operating against the supply isrepresented by the earnest, incessant struggle to obtain it. All men, inall trades and occupations, are offering either property or servicesfor money. Each shoemaker in each locality is in competition with everyother shoemaker in the same locality, each hatter is in competitionwith every other hatter, each clothier with every other clothier, alloffering their wares for units of money. In this universal and perpetualcompetition for money, that number of shoemakers that can supply thedemand for shoes at the smallest average price (excellence of qualitybeing taken into account) will fix the market value of shoes in money;and conversely, will fix the value of money in shoes. So with thehatters as to hats, so with the tailors as to clothes, and so with thoseengaged in all other occupations as to the products respectively oftheir labor. 

The transcendent importance of money, and the constant pressure of thedemand for it, may be realized by comparing its utility with that of anyother force that contributes to human welfare. 

In all the broad range of articles that in a state of civilization areneeded by man, the only absolutely indispensable thing is money. Foreverything else there is some substitute--some alternative; for moneythere is none. Among articles of food, if beef rises in price, thedemand for it will diminish, as a certain proportion of the people willresort to other forms of food. If, by reason of its continued scarcity, beef continues to rise, the demand will further diminish, until finallyit may altogether cease and centre on something else. So in the matterof clothing. If any one fabric becomes scarce, and consequently dear, the demand will diminish, and, if the price continue rising, it is onlya question of time for the demand to cease and be transferred to somealternative. 

But this cannot be the case with money. It can never be driven out ofuse. There is not, and there never can be, any substitute for it. Itmay become so scarce that one dollar at the end of a decade may buy tentimes as much as at the beginning; that is to say, it may cost in laboror commodities ten times as much to get it, but at whatever cost, thepeople must have it. Without money the demands of civilization could notbe supplied. 

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, OF NEW YORK (BORN 1824, DIED 1892. )

ON THE SPOILS SYSTEM AND THE PROGRESS OF CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 

An Address delivered before the American Social Science Association atits Meeting in Saratoga, New York, September 8, 1881. 

Twelve years ago I read a paper before this association upon reformin the Civil Service. The subject was of very little interest. A fewnewspapers which were thought to be visionary occasionally discussedit, but the press of both parties smiled with profound indifference. Mr. Jenckes had pressed it upon an utterly listless Congress, and hisproposition was regarded as the harmless hobby of an amiable man, fromwhich a little knowledge of practical politics would soon dismount him. The English reform, which was by far the most significant politicalevent in that country since the parliamentary reform bill of 1832, was virtually unknown to us. To the general public it was necessaryto explain what the Civil Service was, how it was recruited, what theabuses were, and how and why they were to be remedied. Old professionalpoliticians, who look upon reform as Dr. Johnson defined patriotism, asthe last refuge of a scoundrel, either laughed at what they called thepolitics of idiocy and the moon, or sneered bitterly that reformers werecheap hypocrites who wanted other people's places and lamented otherpeople's sins. 

This general public indifference was not surprising. The great reactionof feeling which followed the war, the relaxation of the long-strainedanxiety of the nation for its own existence, the exhaustion of the vastexpenditure of life and money, and the satisfaction with the generalsuccess, had left little disposition to do anything but secure in thenational polity the legitimate results of the great contest. To thecountry, reform was a proposition to reform evils of administrationof which it knew little, and which, at most, seemed to it pettyand impertinent in the midst of great affairs. To Congress, it wasapparently a proposal to deprive members of the patronage which to manyof them was the real gratification of their position, the only way inwhich they felt their distinction and power. To such members reform wasa plot to deprive the bear of his honey, the dog of his bone, and theystared and growled incredulously. 

This was a dozen years ago. To-day the demand for reform is imperative. The drop has become a deluge. Leading journals of both parties eagerlyproclaim its urgent necessity. From New England to California publicopinion is organizing itself in reform associations. In the greatcustom-house and the great post-office of the country--those in the cityof New York--reform has been actually begun upon definite principlesand with remarkable success, and the good example has been followedelsewhere with the same results. A bill carefully prepared and providingfor gradual and thorough reform has been introduced with an admirablereport in the Senate of the United States. Mr. Pendleton, the DemocraticSenator from Ohio, declares that the Spoils System which has debauchedthe Civil Service of fifty millions of people must be destroyed. Mr. Dawes, the Republican Senator from Massachusetts, summons all goodcitizens to unite to suppress this gigantic evil which threatensthe republic. Conspicuous reformers sit in the Cabinet; and in thissorrowful moment, at least, the national heart and mind and conscience, stricken and bowed by a calamity whose pathos penetrates everyhouse-hold in Christendom, cries to these warning words, "Amen! Amen!"Like the slight sound amid the frozen silence of the Alps that loosensand brings down the avalanche, the solitary pistol-shot of the 2d ofJuly has suddenly startled this vast accumulation of public opinioninto conviction, and on every side thunders the rush and roar of itsoverwhelming descent, which will sweep away the host of evils bred ofthis monstrous abuse. 

This is an extraordinary change for twelve years, but it shows thevigorous political health, the alert common-sense, and the essentialpatriotism of the country, which are the earnest of the success ofany wise reform. The war which naturally produced the lassitude andindifference to the subject which were evident twelve years ago hadmade reform, indeed, a vital necessity, but the necessity was not thenperceived. The dangers that attend a vast system of administration basedto its least detail upon personal patronage were not first exposed byMr. Jenckes in 1867, but before that time they had been mainly discussedas possibilities and inferences. Yet the history of the old New Yorkcouncil of appointment had illustrated in that State the party fury andcorruption which patronage necessarily breeds, and Governor McKean inPennsylvania, at the close of the last century, had made "a clean sweep"of the places within his power. The spoils spirit struggled desperatelyto obtain possession of the national administration from the day ofJefferson's inauguration to that of Jackson's, when it succeeded. Its first great but undesigned triumph was the decision of the FirstCongress in 1789, vesting the sole power of removal in the President, a decision which placed almost every position in the Civil Serviceunconditionally at his pleasure. This decision was determined bythe weight of Madison's authority. But Webster, nearly fifty yearsafterwards, opposing his authority to that of Madison, while admittingthe decision to have been final, declared it to have been wrong. Theyear 1820, which saw the great victory of slavery in the MissouriCompromise, was also the year in which the second great triumph of thespoils system was gained, by the passage of the law which, under theplea of securing greater responsibility in certain financial offices, limited such offices to a term of four years. The decision of 1789, which gave the sole power of removal to the President, required positiveexecutive action to effect removal; but this law of 1820 vacated all thechief financial offices, with all the places dependent upon them, duringthe term of every President, who, without an order of removal, couldfill them all at his pleasure. 

A little later a change in the method of nominating the President froma congressional caucus to a national convention still further developedthe power of patronage as a party resource, and in the session of1825-26, when John Quincy Adams was President, Mr. Benton introduced hisreport upon Mr. Macon's resolution declaring the necessity of reducingand regulating executive patronage; although Mr. Adams, the last of theRevolutionary line of Presidents, so scorned to misuse patronage that heleaned backward in standing erect. The pressure for the overthrow of theconstitutional system had grown steadily more angry and peremptorywith the progress of the country, the development of party spirit, the increase of patronage, the unanticipated consequences of the soleexecutive power of removal, and the immense opportunity offered by thefour-years' law. It was a pressure against which Jefferson held thegates by main force, which was relaxed by the war under Madison and thefusion of parties under Monroe, but which swelled again into a furioustorrent as the later parties took form. John Quincy Adams adhered, withthe tough tenacity of his father's son, to the best principles of allhis predecessors. He followed Washington, and observed the spirit ofthe Constitution in refusing to remove for any reason but officialmisconduct or incapacity. But he knew well what was coming, andwith characteristically stinging sarcasm he called General Jackson'sinaugural address "a threat of re-form. " With Jackson's administrationin 1830 the deluge of the spoils system burst over our nationalpolitics. Sixteen years later, Mr. Buchanan said in a public speechthat General Taylor would be faithless to the Whig party if he did notproscribe Democrats. So high the deluge had risen which has ravaged andwasted our politics ever since, and the danger will be stayed onlywhen every President, leaning upon the law, shall stand fast where JohnQuincy Adams stood. 

But the debate continued during the whole Jackson administration. Inthe Senate and on the stump, in elaborate reports and popular speeches, Webster, Calhoun, and Clay, the great political chiefs of their time, sought to alarm the country with the dangers of patronage. Sargent S. Prentiss, in the House of Representatives, caught up and echoed the cryunder the administration of Van Buren. But the country refused to bealarmed. As the Yankee said of the Americans at the battle ofWhite Plains, where they were beaten, "The fact is, as far as I canunderstand, our folks did n't seem to take no sort of interest in thatbattle. " The reason that the country took no sort of interest in thediscussion of the evils of patronage was evident. It believed thedenunciation to be a mere party cry, a scream of disappointment andimpotence from those who held no places and controlled no patronage. It heard the leaders of the opposition fiercely arraigning theadministration for proscription and universal wrong-doing, but it wasaccustomed by its English tradition and descent always to hear theTories cry that the Constitution was in danger when the Whigs were inpower, and the Whigs under a Tory administration to shout that all waslost. It heard the uproar like the old lady upon her first railroadjourney, who sat serene amid the wreck of a collision, and when askedif she was much hurt, looked over her spectacles and answered, blandly, "Hurt? Why, I supposed they always stopped so in this kind oftravelling. " The feeling that the denunciation was only a part of thegame of politics, and no more to be accepted as a true statement thanSnug the joiner as a true lion, was confirmed by the fact that when theWhig opposition came into power with President Harrison, it adopted thevery policy which under Democratic administration it had strenuouslydenounced as fatal. The pressure for place was even greater than it hadbeen ten years before, and although Mr. Webster as Secretary of Statemaintained his consistency by putting his name to an executive orderasserting sound principles, the order was swept away like a lamb by alocomotive. 

Nothing but a miracle, said General Harrison's attorney-general, canfeed the swarm of hungry office-seekers. 

Adopted by both parties, Mr. Marcy's doctrine that the places in thepublic service are the proper spoils of a victorious party, was acceptedas a necessary condition of popular government. One of the highestofficers of the government expounded this doctrine to me longafterwards. "I believe, " said he, "that when the people vote to changea party administration they vote to change every person of the oppositeparty who holds a place, from the President of the United States tothe messenger at my door. " It is this extraordinary but sinceremisconception of the function of party in a free government that leadsto the serious defence of the spoils system. Now, a party is merely avoluntary association of citizens to secure the enforcement of acertain policy of administration upon which they are agreed. In a freegovernment this is done by the election of legislators and of certainexecutive officers who are friendly to that policy. But the duty of thegreat body of persons employed in the minor administrative places is inno sense political. It is wholly ministerial, and the political opinionsof such persons affect the discharge of their duties no more than theirreligious views or their literary preferences. All that can be justlyrequired of such persons, in the interest of the public business, ishonesty, intelligence, capacity, industry, and due subordination; and tosay that, when the policy of the Government is changed by the resultof an election from protection to free-trade, every book-keeper andletter-carrier and messenger and porter in the public offices ought tobe a free-trader, is as wise as to say that if a merchant is a Baptistevery clerk in his office ought to be a believer in total immersion. Butthe officer of whom I spoke undoubtedly expressed the general feeling. The necessarily evil consequences of the practice which he justifiedseemed to be still speculative and inferential, and to the nationalindifference which followed the war the demand of Mr. Jenckes for reformappeared to be a mere whimsical vagary most inopportunely introduced. 

It was, however, soon evident that the war had made the necessity ofreform imperative, and chiefly for two reasons: first, the enormousincrease of patronage, and second, the fact that circumstances hadlargely identified a party name with patriotism. The great and radicalevil of the spoils system was carefully fostered by the apparentabsolute necessity to the public welfare of making political opinion andsympathy a condition of appointment to the smallest place. It is sincethe war, therefore, that the evil has run riot and that its consequenceshave been fully revealed. Those consequences are now familiar, andI shall not describe them. It is enough that the most patriotic andintelligent Americans and the most competent foreign observers agreethat the direct and logical results of that system are the dangerousconfusion of the executive and legislative powers of the Government;the conversion of politics into mere place-hunting; the extension of themischief to State and county and city administration, and the consequentdegradation of the national character; the practical disfranchisement ofthe people wherever the system is most powerful; and the perversion of arepublic of equal citizens into a despotism of venal politicians. Theseare the greatest dangers that can threaten a republic, and they are dueto the practice of treating the vast system of minor public places whichare wholly ministerial, and whose duties are the same under every partyadministration, not as public trusts, but as party perquisites. TheEnglish-speaking race has a grim sense of humor, and the absurdity oftransacting the public business of a great nation in a way which wouldruin both the trade and the character of a small huckster, of proceedingupon the theory--for such is the theory of the spoils system--that a manshould be put in charge of a locomotive because he holds certain viewsof original sin, or because he polishes boots nimbly with his tongue--itis a folly so stupendous and grotesque that when it is fully perceivedby the shrewd mother-wit of the Yankee it will be laughed indignantlyand contemptuously away. But the laugh must have the method, and theindignation the form, of law; and now that the public mind is arousedto the true nature and tendency of the spoils system is the time toconsider the practicable legal remedy for them. 

The whole system of appointments in the Civil Service proceeds from thePresident, and in regard to his action the intention of the Constitutionis indisputable. It is that the President shall appoint solely uponpublic considerations, and that the officer appointed shall serveas long as he discharges his duty faithfully. This is shown in Mr. Jefferson's familiar phrase in his reply to the remonstrance of themerchants of New Haven against the removal of the collector of thatport. Mr. Jefferson asserted that Mr. Adams had purposely appointed inthe last moments of his administration officers whose designation heshould have left to his successor. Alluding to these appointments, hesays: "I shall correct the procedure, and that done, return with joy tothat state of things when the only question concerning a candidate shallbe, Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?"Mr. Jefferson here recognizes that these had been the considerationswhich had usually determined appointments; and Mr. Madison, in thedebate upon the President's sole power of removal, declared that if aPresident should remove an officer for any reason not connected withefficient service he would be impeached. Reform, therefore, is merelya return to the principle and purpose of the Constitution and to thepractice of the early administrations. 

What more is necessary, then, for reform than that the President shouldreturn to that practice? As all places in the Civil Service are filledeither by his direct nomination or by officers whom he appoints, why hasnot any President ample constitutional authority to effect at any momenta complete and thorough reform? The answer is simple. He has the power. He has always had it. A President has only to do as Washington did, and all his successors have only to do likewise, and reform would becomplete. Every President has but to refuse to remove non-politicalofficers for political or personal reasons; to appoint only those whomhe knows to be competent; to renominate, as Monroe and John Quincy Adamsdid, every faithful officer whose commission expires, and to require theheads of departments and all inferior appointing officers to conform tothis practice, and the work would be done. This is apparently a shortand easy and constitutional method of reform, requiring no furtherlegislation or scheme of procedure. But why has no President adopted it?For the same reason that the best of Popes does not reform the abusesof his Church. For the same reason that a leaf goes over Niagara. It isbecause the opposing forces are overpowering. The same high officer ofthe government to whom I have alluded said to me as we drove upon theHeights of Washington, "Do you mean that I ought not to appoint mysubordinates for whom I am responsible?" I answered: "I mean that you donot appoint them now; I mean that if, when we return to the capital, you hear that your chief subordinate is dead, you will not appointhis successor. You will have to choose among the men urged upon you bycertain powerful politicians. Undoubtedly you ought to appoint the manwhom you believe to be the most fit. But you do not and can not. Ifyou could or did appoint such men only, and that were the rule of yourdepartment and of the service, there would be no need of reform. " And hecould not deny it. There was no law to prevent his selection of thebest man. Indeed, the law assumed that he would do it. The Constitutionintended that he should do it. But when I reminded him that there wereforces beyond the law that paralyzed the intention of the Constitution, and which would inevitably compel him to accept the choice of others, hesaid no more. 

It is easy to assert that the reform of the Civil Service is anexecutive reform. So it is. But the Executive alone cannot accomplishit. 

The abuses are now completely and aggressively organized, and thesturdiest President would quail before them. The President whoshould undertake, single-handed, to deal with the complication ofadministrative evils known as the Spoils System would find his partyleaders in Congress and their retainers throughout the country arrayedagainst him; the proposal to disregard traditions and practices whichare regarded as essential to the very existence and effectiveness ofparty organization would be stigmatized as treachery, and the Presidenthimself would be covered with odium as a traitor. The air would hum withdenunciation. The measures he should favor, the appointments he mightmake, the recommendations of his secretaries, would be opposed andimperilled, and the success of his administration would be endangered. APresident who should alone undertake thoroughly to reform the evil mustfeel it to be the vital and paramount issue, and must be willing tohazard everything for its success. He must have the absolute faith andthe indomitable will of Luther. "Here stand I; I can no other. " How canwe expect a President whom this system elects to devote himself to itsdestruction? General Grant, elected by a spontaneous patriotic impulse, fresh from the regulated order of military life and new to politics andpoliticians, saw the reason and the necessity of reform. The hero of avictorious war, at the height of his popularity, his party in undisputedand seemingly indisputable supremacy, made the attempt. Congress, good-naturedly tolerating what it considered his whim of inexperience, granted money to try an experiment. The adverse pressure was tremendous. "I am used to pressure, " said the soldier. So he was, but not to thispressure. He was driven by unknown and incalculable currents. He wasenveloped in whirlwinds of sophistry, scorn, and incredulity. He whoupon his own line had fought it out all summer to victory, upon a lineabsolutely new and unknown was naturally bewildered and dismayed. SoWellington had drawn the lines of victory on the Spanish Peninsula andhad saved Europe at Waterloo. But even Wellington at Waterloo couldnot be also Sir Robert Peel at Westminster. Even Wellington, who hadoverthrown Napoleon in the field, could not also be the parliamentaryhero who for the welfare of his country would dare to risk the overthrowof his party. 

When at last President Grant said, "If Congress adjourns withoutpositive legislation on Civil Service reform, I shall regard such actionas a disapproval of the system and shall abandon it, " it was, indeed, a surrender, but it was the surrender of a champion who had honestlymistaken both the nature and the strength of the adversary and his ownpower of endurance. 

It is not, then, reasonable, under the conditions of our Government andin the actual situation, to expect a President to go much faster ormuch further than public opinion. But executive action can aid mosteffectively the development and movement of that opinion, and the mostdecisive reform measures that the present administration might takewould be undoubtedly supported by a powerful public sentiment. Theeducative results of resolute executive action, however limited andincomplete in scope, have been shown in the two great public officesof which I have spoken, the New York custom-house and the New Yorkpost-office. For nearly three years the entire practicability of reformhas been demonstrated in those offices, and solely by the direction ofthe President. The value of such demonstrations, due to the Executivewill alone, carried into effect by thoroughly trained and interestedsubordinates, cannot be overestimated. But when they depend upon thewill of a transient officer and not upon a strong public conviction, they are seeds that have no depth of soil. A vital and enduringreform in administrative methods, although it be but a return to theconstitutional intention, can be accomplished only by the commandingimpulse of public opinion. Permanence is secured by law, not byindividual pleasure. But in this country law is only formulated publicopinion. Reform of the Civil Service does not contemplate an invasion ofthe constitutional prerogative of the President and the Senate, nor doesit propose to change the Constitution by statute. The whole systemof the Civil Service proceeds, as I said, from the President, and theobject of the reform movement is to enable him to fulfil the intentionof the Constitution by revealing to him the desire of the countrythrough the action of its authorized representatives. When theground-swell of public opinion lifts Congress from the rocks, thePresident will gladly float with it into the deep water of wise andpatriotic action. The President, indeed, has never been the chiefsinner in the Spoils System, although he has been the chief agent. Even President Jackson yielded to party pressure as much as to his ownconvictions. President Harrison sincerely wished to stay the flood, butit swept him away. President Grant doubtfully and with good intentionstested the pressure before yielding. President Hayes, with sturdyindependence, adhered inflexibly to a few points, but his party chiefscursed and derided him. President Garfield, --God bless and restorehim!--frankly declares permanent and effective reform to be impossiblewithout the consent of Congress. When, therefore, Congress obeys acommanding public opinion, and reflects it in legislation, it willrestore to the President the untrammelled exercise of his ampleconstitutional powers according to the constitutional intention; and thepractical question of reform is, How shall this be brought about?

Now, it is easy to kill weeds if we can destroy their roots, and itis not difficult to determine what the principle of reform legislationshould be if we can agree upon the source of the abuses to be reformed. May they not have a common origin? In fact, are they not all boundtogether as parts of one system? The Representative in Congress, forinstance, does not ask whether the interests of the public servicerequire this removal or that appointment, but whether, directly orindirectly, either will best serve his own interests. The Senator actsfrom the same motives. The President, in turn, balances between thepersonal interests of leading politicians--President, Senators, and Representatives all wishing to pay for personal service and toconciliate personal influence. So also the party labor required of theplace-holder, the task of carrying caucuses, of defeating one man andelecting another, as may be ordered, the payment of the assessmentlevied upon his salary--all these are the price of the place. They arethe taxes paid by him as conditions of receiving a personal favor. Thusthe abuses have a common source, whatever may be the plea for the systemfrom which they spring. Whether it be urged that the system is essentialto party organization, or that the desire for place is a laudablepolitical ambition, or that the Spoils System is a logical developmentof our political philosophy, or that new brooms sweep clean, or thatany other system is un-American--whatever the form of the plea for theabuse, the conclusion is always the same, that the minor places in theCivil Service are not public trusts, but rewards and prizes for personaland political favorites. 

The root of the complex evil, then, is personal favoritism. Thisproduces congressional dictation, senatorial usurpation, arbitraryremovals, interference in elections, political assessments, and allthe consequent corruption, degradation, and danger that experience hasdisclosed. The method of reform, therefore, must be a plan of selectionfor appointment which makes favoritism impossible. The general feelingundoubtedly is that this can be accomplished by a fixed limited term. But the terms of most of the offices to which the President and theSenate appoint, and upon which the myriad minor places in the servicedepend, have been fixed and limited for sixty years, yet it is duringthat very period that the chief evils of personal patronage haveappeared. The law of 1820, which limited the term of important revenueoffices to four years, and which was afterwards extended to otheroffices, was intended, as John Quincy Adams tells us, to promote theelection to the presidency of Mr. Crawford, who was then Secretary ofthe Treasury. The law was drawn by Mr. Crawford himself, and it wasintroduced into the Senate by one of his devoted partisans. It placedthe whole body of executive financial officers at the mercy of theSecretary of the Treasury and of a majority of the Senate, and itsdesign, as Mr. Adams says, "was to secure for Mr. Crawford the influenceof all the incumbents in office, at the peril of displacement, and offive or ten times an equal number of ravenous office-seekers, eagerto supplant them. " This is the very substance of the Spoils System, intentionally introduced by a fixed limitation of term in place of theconstitutional tenure of efficient service; and it was so far successfulthat it made the custom-house officers, district attorneys, marshals, registers of the land-office, receivers of public money, and evenpaymasters in the army, notoriously active partisans of Mr. Crawford. Mr. Benton says that the four-years' law merely made the dismissalof faithful officers easier, because the expiration of the termwas regarded as "the creation of a vacancy to be filled by newappointments. " A fixed limited term for the chief offices has notdestroyed or modified personal influence, but, on the contrary, ithas fostered universal servility and loss of self-respect, becausereappointment depends, not upon official fidelity and efficiency, butupon personal influence and favor. To fix by law the terms of placesdependent upon such offices would be like an attempt to cure hydrophobiaby the bite of a mad dog. The incumbent would be always busy keeping hisinfluence in repair to secure reappointment, and the applicant would beequally busy in seeking such influence to procure the place, and as thefixed terms would be constantly expiring, the eager and angry intrigueand contest of influence would be as endless as it is now. Thiscertainly would not be reform. 

But would not reform be secured by adding to a fixed limited term thesafeguard of removal for cause only? Removal for cause alone means, ofcourse, removal for legitimate cause, such as dishonesty, negligence, or incapacity. But who shall decide that such cause exists? This must bedetermined either by the responsible superior officer or by some otherauthority. But if left to some other authority the right of counseland the forms of a court would be invoked; the whole legal machinery ofmandamuses, injunctions, _certioraris_, and the rules of evidence wouldbe put in play to keep an incompetent clerk at his desk or a sleepywatchman on his beat. Cause for the removal of a letter-carrier in thepost-office or of an accountant in the custom-house would be presentedwith all the pomp of impeachment and established like a high crimeand misdemeanor. Thus every clerk in every office would have a kind ofvested interest in his place because, however careless, slovenly, ortroublesome he might be, he could be displaced only by an elaborateand doubtful legal process. Moreover, if the head of a bureau ora collector, or a postmaster were obliged to prove negligence, orinsolence, or incompetency against a clerk as he would prove theft, there would be no removals from the public service except for crimesof which the penal law takes cognizance. Consequently, removal would bealways and justly regarded as a stigma upon character, and a man removedfrom a position in a public office would be virtually branded as aconvicted criminal. Removal for cause, therefore, if the cause wereto be decided by any authority but that of the responsible superiorofficer, instead of improving, would swiftly and enormously enhancethe cost, and ruin the efficiency, of the public service, by destroyingsubordination, and making every lazy and worthless member of it twice ascareless and incompetent as he is now. 

If, then, the legitimate cause for removal ought to be determined inpublic as in private business by the responsible appointing power, it isof the highest public necessity that the exercise of that power shouldbe made as absolutely honest and independent as possible. But how canit be made honest and independent if it is not protected so far aspracticable from the constant bribery of selfish interest and theillicit solicitation of personal influence? The experience of our largepatronage offices proves conclusively that the cause of the largernumber of removals is not dishonesty or incompetency; it is the desireto make vacancies to fill. This is the actual cause, whatever cause maybe assigned. The removals would not be made except for the pressure ofpoliticians. But those politicians would not press for removals if theycould not secure the appointment of their favorites. Make it impossiblefor them to secure appointment, and the pressure would instantlydisappear and arbitrary removal cease. 

So long, therefore, as we permit minor appointments to be made by merepersonal influence and favor, a fixed limited term and removal duringthat term for cause only would not remedy the evil, because theincumbents would still be seeking influence to secure re-appointment, and the aspirants doing the same to replace them. Removal under pleaof good cause would be as wanton and arbitrary as it is now, unless thepower to remove were intrusted to some other discretion than that of thesuperior officer, and in that case the struggle for reappointment andthe knowledge that removal for the term was practically impossible wouldtotally demoralize the service. To make sure, then, that removals shallbe made for legitimate cause only, we must provide that appointmentshall be made only for legitimate cause. 

All roads lead to Rome. Personal influence in appointments can beannulled only by free and open competition. By that bridge we can returnto the practice of Washington and to the intention of the Constitution. That is the shoe of swiftness and the magic sword by which the Presidentcan pierce and outrun the protean enemy of sophistry and tradition whichprevents him from asserting his power. If you say that success ina competitive literary examination does not prove fitness to adjustcustoms duties, or to distribute letters, or to appraise linen, or tomeasure molasses, I answer that the reform does not propose that fitnessshall be proved by a competitive literary examination. It proposes toannul personal influence and political favoritism by making appointmentdepend upon proved capacity. To determine this it proposes first to testthe comparative general intelligence of all applicants and their specialknowledge of the particular official duties required, and then to provethe practical faculty of the most intelligent applicants by actual trialin the performance of the duties before they are appointed. If it bestill said that success in such a competition may not prove fitness, itis enough to reply that success in obtaining the favor of some kind ofboss, which is the present system, presumptively proves unfitness. 

Nor is it any objection to the reformed system that many efficientofficers in the service could not have entered it had it been necessaryto pass an examination; it is no objection, because their efficiency isa mere chance. They were not appointed because of efficiency, but eitherbecause they were diligent politicians or because they were recommendedby diligent politicians. The chance of getting efficient men in anybusiness is certainly not diminished by inquiry and investigation. Ihave heard an officer in the army say that he could select men fromthe ranks for special duty much more satisfactorily than they could beselected by an examination. Undoubtedly he could, because he knowshis men, and he selects solely by his knowledge of their comparativefitness. If this were true of the Civil Service, if every appointingofficer chose the fittest person from those that he knew, there wouldbe no need of reform. It is because he cannot do this that the reform isnecessary. 

It is the same kind of objection which alleges that competition is adroll plan by which to restore the conduct of the public business tobusiness principles and methods, since no private business selectsits agents by competition. But the managers of private business arevirtually free from personal influence in selecting their subordinates, and they employ and promote and dismiss them solely for the interestsof the business. Their choice, however, is determined by an actual, although not a formal, competition. Like the military officer, theyselect those whom they know by experience to be the most competent. Butif great business-houses and corporations were exposed to persistent, insolent, and overpowering interference and solicitation for placesuch as obstructs great public departments and officers, they too wouldresort to the form of competition, as they now have its substance, andthey would resort to it to secure the very freedom which they now enjoyof selecting for fitness alone. 

Mr. President, in the old Arabian story, from the little box upon thesea-shore, carelessly opened by the fisherman, arose the towering andhaughty demon, ever more monstrous and more threatening, who would notcrouch again. So from the small patronage of the earlier day, from aCivil Service dealing with a national revenue of only $2, 000, 000, andregulated upon sound business principles, has sprung the un-American, un-Democratic, un-Republican system which destroys politicalindependence, honor, and morality, and corrodes the national characteritself. In the solemn anxiety of this hour the warning words of theaustere Calhoun, uttered nearly half a century ago, echo in startledrecollection like words of doom: "If you do not put this thing down itwill put you down. " Happily it is the historic faith of the race fromwhich we are chiefly sprung, that eternal vigilance is the price ofliberty. It is that faith which has made our mother England the greatparent of free States. The same faith has made America the politicalhope of the world. Fortunately removed by our position from theentanglements of European politics, and more united and peaceful at homethan at any time within the memory of living men, the moment is mostauspicious for remedying that abuse in our political system whosenature, proportions, and perils the whole country begins clearly todiscern. The will and the power to apply the remedy will be a test ofthe sagacity and the energy of the people. The reform of which I havespoken is essentially the people's reform. With the instinct of robberswho run with the crowd and lustily cry "Stop thief!" those who wouldmake the public service the monopoly of a few favorites denounce thedetermination to open that service to the whole people as a plan toestablish an aristocracy. The huge ogre of patronage, gnawing at thecharacter, the honor, and the life of the country, grimly sneers thatthe people cannot help themselves and that nothing can be done. But muchgreater things have been done. Slavery was the Giant Despair of manygood men of the last generation, but slavery was overthrown. Ifthe Spoils System, a monster only less threatening than slavery, beunconquerable, it is because the country has lost its convictions, its courage, and its common-sense. "I expect, " said the Yankee as hesurveyed a stout antagonist, "I expect that you 're pretty ugly, but Ical'late I 'm a darned sight uglier. " I know that patronage is strong, but I believe that the American people are very much stronger. 

CARL SCHURZ, OF NEW YORK. (BORN 1829. )

THE NECESSITY AND PROGRESS OF CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 

An Address delivered at the Annual Meeting of the National Civil ServiceReform League at Chicago, Ill. , December 12, 1894. 

What Civil Service reform demands, is simply that the business part ofthe Government shall be carried on in a sound, business-like manner. This seems so obviously reasonable that among people of common-sensethere should be no two opinions about it. And the condition of thingsto be reformed is so obviously unreasonable, so flagrantly absurdand vicious, that we should not believe it could possibly exist amongsensible people, had we not become accustomed to its existence amongourselves. In truth, we can hardly bring the whole exorbitance of thatviciousness and absurdity home to our own minds unless we contemplate itas reflected in the mirror of a simile. 

Imagine, then, a bank, the stockholders of which, many in number, aredivided into two factions--let us call them the Jones party and theSmith party--who quarrel about some question of business policy, as, forinstance, whether the bank is to issue currency or not. The Jonesparty is in control, but the Smith men persuade over to their side asufficient number of Jones men to give them--the Smith men--a majorityat the next stockholders' meeting. Thus they succeed in getting theupper hand. They oust the old board of directors, and elect a new boardconsisting of Smith men. The new Smith board at once remove all theofficers, president, cashier, tellers, book-keepers, and clerks, down tothe messenger boys--the good and the bad alike--simply because they areJones men, and fill their places forth-with with new persons who areselected, not on the ground that they have in any way proved theirfitness for the positions so filled, but simply because they are Smithmen; and those of the Smith men who have shown the greatest zeal andskill in getting a majority of votes for the Smith party are held tohave the strongest claims for salaried places in the bank. The new menstruggle painfully with the duties novel to them until they acquire someexperience, but even then, it needs in many instances two men or more todo the work of one. 

In the course of events dissatisfaction spreads among the stockholderswith the Smith management, partly shared by ambitious Smith men whothought themselves entitled to reward in the shape of places andsalaries, but were "left out in the cold. " Now the time for a newstockholders' meeting arrives. After a hot fight the Jones party carriesthe day. Its ticket of directors being elected, off go the heads ofthe Smith president, the Smith cashier, the Smith tellers, the Smithbookkeepers, and clerks, to be replaced by true-blue Jones men, who havedone the work of the campaign and are expected to do more of it whenthe next election comes. And so the career of the bank goes on with itsperiodical changes of party in power at longer or shorter intervals, andits corresponding clean sweeps of the bank service, with mismanagementand occasional fraud and peculation as inevitable incidents. 

You might watch the proceedings of such a banking concern with intensecuriosity and amusement. But I ask you, what prudent man among you woulddeposit his money in it, or invest in its stock? And why would you not?Because you would think that this is not sensible men's business, butfoolish boys' play; that such management would necessarily result inreckless waste and dishonesty, and tend to land many of the bank'sofficers in Canada, and not a few of its depositors or investors in thepoor-house. Such would be your judgment, and in pronouncing it youwould at the same time pronounce judgment upon the manner in which thebusiness part of our national Government, as well as of many if not mostof our State and municipal governments, has been conducted for severalgenerations. This is the spoils system. And I have by no means presentedan exaggerated or even a complete picture of it; nay, rather a mildsketch, indicating only with faint touches the demoralizing influencesexercised by that system with such baneful effect upon the wholepolitical life of the nation. 

Looking at the financial side of the matter alone--it is certainly badenough; it is indeed almost incomprehensible how the spoils system couldbe permitted through scores of years to vitiate our business methodsin the conduct of the national revenue service, the postal service, theIndian service, the public-land service, involving us in indescribableadministrative blunders, bringing about Indian wars, causing immenselosses in the revenue, breeding extravagant and plundering practicesin all Departments, costing our people in the course of time untoldhundreds of millions of money, and making our Government one of themost wasteful in the world. All this, I say, is bad enough. It might becalled discreditable enough to move any self-respecting people to shame. But the spoils system has inflicted upon the American people injuriesfar greater than these. 

The spoils system, that practice which turns public offices, highand low, from public trusts into objects of prey and booty for thevictorious party, may without extravagance of language be called one ofthe greatest criminals in our history, if not the greatest. In the wholecatalogue of our ills there is none more dangerous to the vitality ofour free institutions. 

It tends to divert our whole political life from its true aims. Itteaches men to seek something else in politics than the public good. 

It puts mercenary selfishness as the motive power for political actionin the place of public spirit, and organizes that selfishness into adominant political force. 

It attracts to active party politics the worst elements of ourpopulation, and with them crowds out the best. It transforms politicalparties from associations of patriotic citizens, formed to serve apublic cause, into bands of mercenaries using a cause to serve them. Itperverts party contests from contentions of opinion into scrambles forplunder. By stimulating the mercenary spirit it promotes the corrupt useof money in party contests and in elections. 

It takes the leadership of political organizations out of the hands ofmen fit to be leaders of opinion and workers for high aims, and turns itover to the organizers and leaders of bands of political marauders. Itcreates the boss and the machine, putting the boss into the place of thestatesman, and the despotism of the machine in the place of an organizedpublic opinion. 

It converts the public office-holder, who should be the servant of thepeople, into the servant of a party or of an influential politician, extorting from him time and work which should belong to the public, andmoney which he receives from the public for public service. It corruptshis sense of duty by making him understand that his obligation to hisparty or his political patron is equal if not superior to his obligationto the public interest, and that his continuance in office does notdepend on his fidelity to duty. It debauches his honesty by seducinghim to use the opportunities of his office to indemnify himself forthe burdens forced upon him as a party slave. It undermines in alldirections the discipline of the public service. 

It falsifies our constitutional system. It leads to the usurpation, ina large measure, of the executive power of appointment by members of thelegislative branch, substituting their irresponsible views of personalor party interest for the judgment as to the public good and the senseof responsibility of the Executive. It subjects those who exercise theappointing power, from the President of the United States down, to theintrusion of hordes of office-hunters and their patrons, who rob them ofthe time and strength they should devote to the public interest. It hasalready killed two of our Presidents, one, the first Harrison, by worry, and the other, Garfield, by murder; and more recently it has killed amayor in Chicago and a judge in Tennessee. 

It degrades our Senators and Representatives in Congress to thecontemptible position of office-brokers, and even of mere agents ofoffice-brokers, making the business of dickering about spoils as weightyto them as their duties as legislators. It introduces the patronageas an agency of corrupt influence between the Executive and theLegislature. It serves to obscure the criminal character of briberyby treating bribery with offices as a legitimate practice. It thusreconciles the popular mind to practices essentially corrupt, andthereby debauches the popular sense of right and wrong in politics. 

It keeps in high political places, to the exclusion of better men, persons whose only ability consists in holding a personal followingby adroit manipulation of the patronage. It has thus sadly lowered thestandard of statesmanship in public position, compared with the highorder of ability displayed in all other walks of life. 

It does more than anything else to turn our large municipalities intosinks of corruption, to render Tammany Halls possible, and to make ofthe police force here and there a protector of crime and a terror tothose whose safety it is to guard. It exposes us, by the scandalousspectacle of its periodical spoils carnivals, to the ridicule andcontempt of civilized mankind, promoting among our own people the growthof serious doubts as to the practicability of democratic institutions ona great scale; and in an endless variety of ways it introduces intoour political life more elements of demoralization, debasement, anddecadence than any other agency of evil I know of, aye, perhaps morethan all other agencies of evil combined. 

These are some of the injuries the spoils system has been, and stillis, inflicting upon this Republic--some, I say; not all, for it isimpossible to follow its subtle virus into all the channels throughwhich it exercises its poisonous influence. But I have said enough toillustrate its pernicious effects; and what I have said is only theteaching of sober observation and long experience. 

And now, if such are the evils of the spoils system, what are, by way ofcompensation, the virtues it possesses, and the benefits it confers?Let its defenders speak. They do not pretend that it gives us a veryefficient public service; but they tell us that it is essentiallyAmerican; that it is necessary in order to keep alive among our peoplean active interest in public affairs; that frequent rotation in officeserves to give the people an intelligent insight in the nature andworkings of their Government; that without it parties cannot be heldtogether, and party government is impossible; and that all the officersand employees of the Government should be in political harmony with theparty in power. Let us pass the points of this defence in review one byone. 

First, then, in what sense can the spoils system be called essentiallyAmerican? Certainly not as to its origin. At the beginning of ournational Government nothing like it was known here, or dreamed of. Hadanything like it been proposed, the fathers of the Republic would haverepelled it with alarm and indignation. It did, indeed, prevail inEngland when the monarchy was much stronger than it is now, and whenthe aristocracy could still be called a ruling class. But as the BritishGovernment grew more democratic, the patronage system, as a relic offeudalism, had to yield to the forces of liberalism and enlightenmentuntil it completely disappeared. When it invaded our nationalGovernment, forty years after its constitutional beginning, we merelytook what England was casting off as an abuse inconsistent with populargovernment, and unworthy of a free and civilized nation. If not inorigin, is the spoils system essentially American in any other sense?Only in the sense in which murder is American, or small-pox, or highwayrobbery, or Tammany Hall. 

As to the spoils system being necessary to the end of keeping aliveamong our people an active interest in public affairs--where is theAmerican who does not blush to utter such an infamous calumny? Is thereno patriotism in America without plunder in sight? Was there no publicspirit before spoils systems and clean sweeps cursed us, none betweenthe battle of Lexington and Jackson's inauguration as President? Suchan argument deserves as an answer only a kick from every honest Americanboot. 

I admit, however, that there are among us some persons whose interestin public affairs does need the stimulus of office to remain alive. Iam far from denying that the ambition to serve one's country as a publicofficer is in itself a perfectly legitimate and honorable ambition. Itcertainly is. But when a man's interest in public affairs depends uponhis drawing an official salary, or having such a salary in prospect, theambition does not appear so honorable. There is too pungent a mercenaryflavor about it. No doubt, even among the mercenaries may be foundindividuals that are capable, faithful, and useful; but taking them asa class, the men whose active public spirit is conditional upon thepossession or prospect of official spoil are those whose interest inpublic affairs the commonweal can most conveniently spare. Indeed, ourpolitical life would be in a much healthier condition if they did nottake any part in politics at all. There would be plenty of patrioticAmericans to devote themselves to the public good without such acondition. In fact, there would be more of that class in regularpolitical activity than there are now, for they would not be jostled outby the pushing hordes of spoils-hunters, whose real interest in publicaffairs is that of serving themselves. The spoils system is thereforenot only not a stimulus of true public spirit, but in spreadingthe mercenary tendency among the people it has served to baffle anddiscourage true public spirit by the offensive infusion in politicallife of the mercenary element. 

The view that the spoils system with its frequent rotations in office isneeded to promote among the people a useful understanding of the natureand workings of the Government, finds, amazing as it may seem, stillserious adherents among well-meaning citizens. It is based upon theassumption that the public service which is instituted to do certainbusiness for the people, should at the same time serve as a school inwhich ignorant persons are to learn something about the functions ofthe Government. These two objects will hardly go together. If the publicservice is to do its business with efficiency and economy, it must ofcourse be manned with persons fit for the work. If on the other hand itis to be used as a school to instruct ignorant people in the functionsof the Government--that is, in the duties of a postmaster, or a revenuecollector, or an Indian agent, or a Department clerk--then we shouldselect for such places persons who know least about them, for they havethe most to learn; and inasmuch as such persons, before having acquiredthe necessary knowledge, skill, and experience, will inevitably dothe public business in a bungling manner, and therefore at muchinconvenience and loss to the people, they should, in justice tothe taxpayers, instead of drawing salaries, pay something for theinstruction they receive. For as soon as they have learned enough reallyto earn a salary, they will have to be turned out to make room forothers, who are as ignorant and in as great need of instruction as theoutgoing set had been before. Evidently this kindergarten theory ofthe public service is hardly worth discussion. The school of the spoilssystem, as it has been in operation since 1829, has educated thousandsof political loafers, but not one political sage. 

That the Government will not work satisfactorily unless all its officersand employees are in political harmony with the ruling party, is alsoone of those superstitions which some estimable people have not yet beenable to shake off. While they sternly resist the argument that there isno Democratic and no Republican way of sorting letters, or of collectingtaxes, or of treating Indians, as theoretical moonshine, their beliefmust, after all, have received a rude shock by the conduct of the lastthree national Administrations, including the present one. 

When in 1885, after twenty-four years of Republican ascendency, theDemocrats came into power, President Cleveland determined that, as ageneral rule, officers holding places covered by the four-years-term lawshould, if they had conducted themselves irreproachably, be permitted toserve out their four-years terms. How strictly this rule was adhered toI will not now inquire. At any rate it was adhered to in a great manycases. Many Republican office-holders, under that four-years rule, remained in place one, or two, or three years under the DemocraticAdministration. President Harrison, succeeding Mr. Cleveland, followeda similar rule, although to a less extent. And now President Clevelandagain does the same. Not only did we have during his first term thestartling spectacle of the great post-office of New York City remainingin the hands of a postmaster who was not a Democrat, but recently ofthe Collectorship of the port of New York, once considered the mostimportant political office in the country, being left for a year or morein possession of a Republican. 

It is clear, the Presidents who acted thus did not believe that thepublic interest required all the officers of the Government to be inharmony with the party in power. On the contrary, they thought thatthe public interest was served by keeping efficient officers in theirplaces, for a considerable time at least, although they were not in suchharmony. And no doubt all sensible people admit that the common weal didnot suffer therefrom. The theory of the necessity of political accordbetween the administrative officers of the Government and the partyin power has thus been thoroughly exploded by actual practice andexperience. Being obliged to admit this, candid men, it is to be hoped, will go a step further in their reasoning. If those two Presidentswere right in thinking that the public welfare was served by keepingmeritorious officers not belonging to the ruling party in place untilthey had served four years, is it not wrong to deprive the country ofthe services of such men, made especially valuable by their accumulatedexperience and the training of their skill, by turning them out afterthe lapse of the four years? If it was for the public interest to keepthem so long, is it not against the public interest not to keep themlonger?

 * * * * *

But all these evidences of progress I regard as of less importance thanthe strength our cause has gained in public sentiment. Of this we hada vivid illustration when a year ago, upon the motion of Mr. RichardWatson Gilder, the Anti-Spoils League was set on foot for the purposeof opening communication and facilitating correspondence and, in caseof need, concert of action with the friends of Civil Service reformthroughout the country, and when, in a short space of time, about 10, 000citizens sent in their adhesion, representing nearly every Stateand Territory of the Union, and in them, the most enlightened andinfluential classes of society. 

More encouraging still is the circumstance that now for the first timewe welcome at our annual meeting not only the familiar faces ofold friends, but also representatives of other organizations--GoodGovernment clubs, working for the purification of politics; municipalleagues, whose aim is the reform of municipal governments; andcommercial bodies, urging the reform of our consular service. We welcomethem with especial warmth, for their presence proves that at lastthe true significance of Civil Service reform is being appreciated inconstantly widening circles. The Good Government Club understands thatif the moral tone of our politics, national or local, is to be liftedup, the demoralizing element of party spoil must be done away with. TheMunicipal League understands that if our large municipalities are to beno longer cesspools of corruption, if our municipal governments are tobe made honest and business-like, if our police forces are to be keptclear of thugs and thieves, the appointments to places in the municipalservice must be withdrawn from the influence of party bosses andward ruffians, and must be strictly governed by the merit system. Themerchants understand that if our consular service is to be an effectivehelp to American commerce, and a credit to the American name, it mustnot be subject to periodical partisan lootings, and our consuls must notbe appointed by way of favor to some influential politician, but upona methodical ascertainment of their qualifications for the consularbusiness; then to be promoted according to merit, and also to besalaried as befits respectable agents and representatives of a greatnation. With this understanding, every Good Government Club, everyMunicipal League, every Chamber of Commerce or Board of Trade must bean active Civil Service Reform Association. But more than this. Everyintelligent and unprejudiced citizen, when he candidly inquires into thedevelopments which have brought about the present state of things, willunderstand that of the evils which have so alarmingly demoralized ourpolitical life, and so sadly lowered this Republic in the respect of theworld, many, if not most, had their origin, and find their sustenance, in that practice which treats the public offices as the plunder ofvictorious parties; that as, with the increase of our population, thegrowth of our wealth, and the multiplication of our public interests, the functions of government expand and become more complicated, thoseevils will grow and eventually destroy the very vitality of our freeinstitutions, unless their prolific source be stopped; that this forcecan be effectually stopped not by mere occasional spasms of indignantvirtue, but only by a systematic, thorough, and permanent reform. Everypatriotic citizen understanding this must be a Civil Service reformer. 

You may ask how far this understanding has penetrated our population. President Cleveland answers this question in his recent message. Listento what he says: "The advantages to the public service of an adherenceto the principles of Civil Service Reform are constantly more apparent, and nothing is so encouraging to those in official life who honestlydesire good government, as the increasing appreciation by our people ofthese advantages. A vast majority of the voters of the land are ready toinsist that the time and attention of those they select to perform forthem important public duties should not be distracted by doling outminor offices, and they are growing to be unanimous in regarding partyorganization as something that should be used in establishing partyprinciples instead of dictating the distribution of public places asrewards for partisan activity. "

With gladness I welcome this cheering assurance, coming from so high anauthority. If such is the sense of "a vast majority of the voters of theland, growing to be unanimous, " it may justly be called the will ofthe people. If it is the will of the people, what reason--nay, whatexcuse--can there be for further hesitation? Let the will of the peoplebe done! Let it be done without needless delay, and let the people'sPresident lead in doing it! Then no more spoils and plunder! No moreremovals not required by public interest! No more appointments forpartisan reasons! Continuance in office, regardless of any four-yearsrule, of meritorious public servants! Superior merit the only title topreferment! No longer can this be airily waved aside as a demand of amere sect of political philosophers, for now it is recognized as thepeople's demand. No longer can Civil Service reform be cried down bythe so-called practical politicians as the nebulous dream of unpracticalvisionaries, for it has been grasped by the popular understanding as apractical necessity--not to enervate our political life, but to liftit to a higher moral plane; not to destroy political parties, but torestore them to their legitimate functions; not to make party governmentimpossible, but to guard it against debasement, and to inspire it withhigher ambitions; not pretending to be in itself the consummation of allreforms, but being the Reform without which other reformatory efforts ingovernment cannot be permanently successful. 

Never, gentlemen, have we met under auspices more propitious. Let noexertion be spared to make the voice of the people heard. For when it isheard in its strength it will surely be obeyed.