Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 August 1880 — HENDRICKS. [ARTICLE]

HENDRICKS.

Governor Hendricks’ Brilliant Opening of the Campaign at Marion f • August 12th, 1880. Barfield's Fine Italian Hand in the Retaining Board Rascality of 1876. A Clear Presentment of the Issues of the Day.—A Short, Crisp Speech. ————— • Governor Hendricks’ Speech. As Governor of the State, I recommended to the Legislature that the Constitution should be so amended that the general elections should take place in November Instead of October. We Would then vote on the same day with most of the other States, and avoid the doable election in the Presidential year. For many reasons I thought the change desirable. I als > reoommended that a residence for a short and fixed period in the voting Precinct Should be made a qualification of the right to vote. The voters would then come to know each other when meeting on election day. The Legislature passed upon these propositions, but amended them by annexing conditions requiring registration laws to be passed and maintained. I think that was unfortunate. It should be left to the discretion of the Legislature what registry of the voters shall be made. A Very large body of the people opposed the amendments on that account. The vote upon them was had last April. A plurality was tor the amendments, but not a majority of the voters of the State—not a majority of the voters who voted at that election. Upon a case that came up from Floyd County the Supreme Court decided that the amendments had not been adopted. Upon the question of law the Democratic Judges were equally divided, and the decision was pronounced by Judge Biddle, who is not a Democrat, but Independent In politics. The Republican leaders nave hoped and labored to make political capital ont of that decision. In that they will fall. Tbe Court is the proper tribunal, nnder oar Constitution and laws, for the settlement of such questions. Intheoauseof good and stablegovernment the people will sustain the Court. I think the Court was right. Do you not think so? Are you willing that our Constitution and form of State Government shall be changed by less than half the people ? Tbe Leglslatnre, that represents all the people, can not pat over us any law except by a vote of a majority of all the members elected. Of the 160 members of the House, full fifty-one, and ol the fifty Senators, full twenty-six must vote for a law befere It can be over us. A full majority of all the people, through their representatives, must assent before a law can be made or changed. Would you have the State Government itself liable to change by a less expression of tbe will of the people 7 The Constitution protects our magnificent school fund from any loss. Can that be changed by less than half the people? By constitutional provisions wo are made secure in all our personal and domestic rights. Whp demands a modification unless full one hair the people consent? In the Constitution of the United States our lathers expressed their appreciation of the high Importance of stability and permanence of Constitutional law. That great instrument can be amended only by twothirds of both branches of Congress, and by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States. No change in either the State or Federal Constitution should be possible, except upon the m ature J udgmen; and deliberate action of the people. It is better that we bear, for a while, the inconvenience of frequent elections rather than impair the stability of our institutions. If a proposed change of government is not of sufficient public interest to command the approval of at least one-half the voters, the necessity for its adoption can not be very pressing. Take time lor deliberation. Strike off objectionable provisions. Allow the people to consider It again. If then adopted it will almost certainly be right, m tnis case thousands of the people are atraid of tne registration law. They have heard that in other localities that law is used as an instrument, of fraud and corruption, and they would rather not imbed it in the Constitution, but leave it to Legislative discretion. Fellow-citizens, upon party platforms we may be misled. They are sometimes adjusted to suit the tendency of publio opinion rather than to express the convictions of their authors. I think that was true of the Chicago platform. But we need not be misled if we carefully consider the opinions and conduct of the candidates. What does General Garfield’s nomination signify? Above and beyond all else it means the indorsement and approval, in the most positive and offensive manner possible, of the Presidential fraud of 1876-7. He had more to do with it than any other man. He is the only man who occupied toward it and in it a doable relation.

Immediately after the election he went to New Orleans—not by virtue of any law or rightful publio authority, but as a party man. General Grant’s request was without authority of law. He went to asstot hls party in maxing up the ease. I say he went for that purpose, because when there he did that work. When hto work was oompl ted In New Orleans he and hto associates returned to Washington, and he alone, of all the men engaged in making up the ease, took hto seat upon the commission to deolde It. What think you, gentlemen, of a man who has formed hto opinion, who has Indeed helped to prepare the ease for trial; who has sought and prepared the evidence, taking hls seat as a juror? By the laws of the United States, by the lawß of every State, such a man s excluded from the Jury box. By every sentiment of Justice and fair play snen a man to excluded. That he did this work at New Orleans no man can question. There was a pretense that he and his associates went to see hat the canvass of the votes was fairly made. For that pretense all respect disappeared alter they refused to join the Democrats from the North in seeing that the count was In foot fair. He has made a sworn statement of hls conduct at New Orleans, and by that be must be judged. Hls testimony commences at page 789 of Doc. 81, accompanying report No. 140, House Representatives, 8d Bess., 46th Congress. Bomewnat by designation and somewhat by choice, the Parish of West Feliciana came into the charge of General Garfield for examination. He received copies of all the official papers, which had been delivered to the Returning Board, touching the election in that Parish. For hto work one of Packard’s inner rooms in the Custom House was assigned to him. This room he occupied alone. On page 801 he says: “Occasionally some of the men, who were getting up statements about other Parishes, came in there, but the room was assigned to my use.” In that room he examined the affidavits that had been taken, and made out a list of half or three-fourths of the witnesses, and procured interviews with them. When the affidavits were not, as he supposed sufficiently full, he prepared, or had prepared, additional interrogatories, so as to bring the evidence in better shape before tbe Returning Board. The most remarkable testimony whlcb General Garfield assisted in preparing was that of Amy Mitchell, a colored woman whose husband was killed in West Feliciana Parish. He prepared the Interrogatories after a private interview with her, and her testimony went before the Returning Board In answers to the interrogatories. Bhe had before then made an affidavit, but he thought It was not sufficiently full. Her account of tbe murder was shocking Indeed, almost as horrible as the story told by Eliza Pinkston. But it turned out afterward that the greater part of It was untrue; and before a Committee of Congress, wben examined and cross examined, she herself wlthdrewit.de olarlpg the greater part to be untrue. Her testimony Is found on page 471, Document 31, part 3. In that inner room of the Custom House he spent days examining tbe election papers of West Feliciana, holding interviews with the witnesses and draughting, as he says, “interrogatories to draw out more fully from some of the witnesses the testimony whicn they had given either In brief, and some of the interrogatories which subsequently were appended to the testimony of these witnesses were of mv draughting.” The testimony so revised by Garfield went back to the Returning Board, and the result was that West Feliciano, with its Democratic majority, was rejected. All this preceded and was to oontrol the returns. That was hls work down there, but at Washington his vote was that Congress could not go behind the returns so made. As agent for his party be helped to make the returns by manipulating ti« evidence; and os juryman for the Nation, he held such returns conclusive and binding. l£to associates were occupied upon the otherFarishes, for he testifies that the work was distributed among them. After spending eighteen days In such labors he and his associates left for the North “In great anxiety as to what the result would Le.ashe says. Under oath he conceded that

when he got there the State had gone for th» Democrats, unless some votes were throwr eut, or some votes not oast were counted When he got there more than 6,000 market the difference, and the Hayes electors were that much behind But when they left the work was done though the result was not announced But two days had passed, and they were yet upon the cars, when a message overtook them that allayed their anxiety. It told them that the crime was consummated; that the elected were counted out and the defeated were, counted in. It then remained only to assertand maintain that the work of the Returning Board, brought about in part ao I have described, when covered by the Governor’s certificate, should bind Congress. The Commute settled that, and Garfield was upon tbe Commission, and voted upon it—one of the eight. Gentlemen, what think you of this? Ought he to have gone upon the Commission ? Not only with opinions formed and avowed, but with purposes determined upon, he took hls seat-tie took tbe oath! He took bis seat to decide not only the rights of the Nation, bat also the rights of the men who had been elected. In respect to the action of Congress upon this question I have thought and said that the wrongs done to individuals were swallowed up and lost in the greater wrong and- outrage upon the people and their Institutions. But in respect to James A. Garfield other considerations arise. He accepted (perhaps sought) aplaee upon a tribunal that was to decide, not only questions of public right, but also the olalms of individuals to great offioes. He did that when he had formed a purpose to decide against those whose claim was supported by the preponderance of the vote. He was disqualified by hls formed and avowed purpose, and also by his participation In the preparatory work. For that I challenge him before the bar of publio opinion; and I do this In the name of publio and private right; ‘in the name of justice of fair play and of universal law. When mentioned for tne position, it would have been grand and Roman-like if he had risen in his place in the House of Representatives, and announced that the services that hls party bad required of him had disqualified him, and that he could not accept and would not serve. Would either of you take a seat upon a jury with opinions already formed, without informing the Opart and parties, and asking to be exoused? X think the great body of the people now think and know that tbe incumoenta of the offices of P esldent and Vice President were not elected, out that they were Inaugurated without right. Are any of you willing to Indorse tbe great wrong? By your vote will you say that General Garfield did right,? Rhall It be made au honored precedent or a condemned crime? I have but one more suggestion connected with this subject for your consideration. The Administration and the party have rewarded with public offices all the parties directly connected with the fraud. I" say all, because the exceptions are but one, two or three. The members of the Returning Boards, their clerks, sons and brothers, electors, supervisors and vitlting statesmen, almost all lip.ve lucrative public employment. They number a full hundred, and their compensation to estimated at more than >250,000 per year, and above >1,800,009 during the tour years of the Administration—half of the cost of our new State House, and the full cost of the State administration for one year. I "l- not comment upon the wrong and inde'spcy of making snch a use or the President’s patronage. Surely we all understand that the people’s offices ought not to be given in payment for such services. If Mr. Haycr; _ desired to compensate the men who put him in offt.ee, he should have done so out of his own estate. Are you wlllingtbat they shall stay in? Shall they become pensioners—Wells and hto two sons, and the rest of the hundred? General Garfield, if elected, can not and will not turn them out, for he was with them and cl them. Gentlemen, will your balloto go to indorse what was done, and the men who did it? In our platforms, State and National, wo have declared our opposition tc centralization., and our purpose to stand with all our might by the constitutional rights and powerr of tho United States, and with equal fidelity by the rights and powers of the Statoo as rcservod to them in the Constitution. Tho purpose and policy of the Republican party has ocon to weaken the States and to strengthen the Federal authority. General Garfield to In strong sympathy with his party in that respect. He has favored legislation having that tendency. And did you observe that in his speech in response to a serenade, the other evening, he made Alexander Hamilton the one great statesman and leader of thougnt In the Revolutionary jperiod? To him be attributed the. de< velopment of every germ in th« Constitution of the United States Without any reservation, I would do grtai honor to the exalted qualities of Alexandct Hamilton—to hls brilliant genius, his great accomplishments and hls exalted patriotism But in these times, when prlnolplss and hab its,to which the country has long been aecus tomed are pushed aside, and things new and striking are substituted; and wheu grandeui and power are the qualities ol government speofaliy admired, I would not support for an; important offloe any man whoso opinions and conduct aro likely to oome under the influence of the political principles of thegreal leader of the Federal party. I had not looked for it, that so careful a student as General Garfield should rank Alexander Hamilton aakhe statesman of hie day—tho great lead# ol thought, and the author of every germ of the Constitution of the United states. -

A very hasty examination of the plan of a constitution prepared by Mr. Hamilton in 1187, will discover the many important and leading features presented by blm, which Wore rejected from the Constitution. He proposed that the President and Senators should hold their offices for life, unless removed upon impeachment. He proposed to subordinate and subjugate the States to the United Stator; by this remarkable provision. Article 8, section 1, says: “Tho Governor or President of each State ahall be appointed under the authority of the United States, and shall have a right to negative all laws about to be passed in the State of which he shall be Governor or President, subject to such oualiflcations and regulations as the Legislature of tbe United States shall prescribe.” Ho proposed to define the legislativepower of the United States by these words: “The Legislature of the United States shall have power to pass all laws which they ahall judge necessary to the common defense and safety, and to the general welfare of the Union.” Under such a provision the limit of power would be the Judgment and pleasure of the Legislators. The preamble to the constitution, aa adopted, declares one of Its objects to be to “provide for the common defense,’ and to “promote the general welfare;” but it is not .made a definition of pctwer; and section Bof article 1 confers upon Congress the power to raise revenue for the purpose of providing “for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Then follows an express enumeration of the powers conferred upon Congress. Under Hamilton’s plan the powers would have been general, and almost without limit or restriction. In tbe constitution, as adopted and amended, the powers are delegated, el«o they are reserved to the States and the people. I can not now go furthfr In this comparison. X have Bald enough to snow the important respects In which Ham - llton’s plan was not the plan adopted, and to show also, as I think, that he favored a system In which the States would have become Insignificant, almost contemptible, whilst the Federal Government would nave been aristocratic in its structure and dangerous inJis powers. It was not hlc thought nnder which the States retained the rights and prerogatives essential to the domestic safety and welfare of tho people. To other great statesmen of that period are we indebted for that system of Governmen t which has proved to be the best possible for a large population oc • cupying a country of vast extent and having diversified interests and great varieties of productions. For such a people it was essential to good government to preserve the Idea of the regulation of domestic Interests and the management of domestic matters by domestio authority—kwcS government for local interests. The contest of that day to renewed in oar day. It is now, aa then, the struggle between tbe aristocratic ted the democratic Idea of government. Now, as then, they tell tpi we must have a strong government, we agree to that; It must be tbe strongest in the world—not in standing armies and in the pomp and ceremony of an aristocratic establishment, bat strong in the support and devotion of a great people whose allegiance to intensified by love and gratitude for a just and oarelulproteotlon and preservation of their rights. Have we degenerated, and are we harder to govern than our fathers were, that stern and extraordinary powers must be invoked for our control? Why now most the voting places be surrounded by the military? why shall the partisan official lay In stealth for the voter? It was not so heretofore. The people of all opinions and parties came together, and with mutual respect and kindness preserved the peace and maintained the pans ty of the elections. We will go back again to the ways of the good old times. Why is it that under Federal laws the people

are required to respond at distant places to charges that shonld he heard at homer Oftentimes the defense followed by a qutttal is more ruinous to parties and tbeir families than con victlon would be athome. If you hold a note against a citizen you must sue him in the County in which he resides. If be have a defense he mus men make it at home. Bat If you assign that note to a National Bank, the.bank may sue him in the United States Court. There he earn not afford to defend. He most submit to Judgment—it may be to execution and ruin. I cite you these cases for illustration. The Republican candidate believes in these aggressions upon State authority; he believes In the aggrandizement of Federal power. I pray yon strike a blow on election day for tbe plain and efficient ways of the olden time. . I now oome to tne Inquiry, What does the nomination of General Hancock signify? He is a warrior of great distinction, in bat one respect does that circumstance commend him to our support for a civil office. The war of the rebellion is over. “Like the dew on the mountain,” the great armies are gone, “and, forever.” The earthworks that marked the fields where dreadful battles were fought have sunk away and disappeared. Nothing remains of the encampment, tne march and the battle to arrest the attention of the traveler. There are no battle soars upon the oarth’s face. But a restored Union remciac. and the integrity of * ih® country. There were deep and Dltter pension—distrust and hatred, bat with the years they were passing away. In that was the disappointment of party ambition. Sectional strife only could give assurance of Radical success. The men of tbe North were addressed in the language of malignant hatred to stand by the colors and the memories of the war. Hancock’s nomination defeats these appeals. Why, he fought in the war; be won battles- id® took prisoners; he fell wounded. What more could there he? Many of the men most eloquent in the pretense of anxiety about the honor of the soldier and the results of the war did not fight at all. Presented by two States of the South, and accepted by States of the North, Hancock's nomination means restoration and fraternity. When restoration and fraternity shall once more bind the sections together, the true purposes and results of the war are attained. His election and Bucoessful administration will complete a personal record of the greatest and rarest interest. In war he overcame physical resistance and compelled a recognition of publio authority, in peace he will overcome tbe malign Influences that distract and divide, and will place the sections in absolute harmony upon the Constitution and the laws. On hls shield will then be Inscribed: “Peace hath her victories, no less renowned than war.”

m his difficult position at New Orleans General Hancock displayed in a high degree the qualities of a civil ruler. He respected, enforced and obeyed the Constitution and the laws. From his youth he has been in the military service, yet he recognizes the supremacy of the civil over the military au thorlty. Hls letter to General Sherman, recently published, has given great satisfaction to the Democracy of tbe country, and I believe its sentiments are approved by many of the Republicans. As a candidate lam sure he Is hlgnly acceptable to the Democracy of Indiana, and 1 am confident he will carry the State. Mr. English, the nominee for Vice President, Is a native of this State. He has been much connected with publio affairs, and has shown the qualities ol deliberation, prudence and s rength. He Is not extravagant in hope or Srodlgal in promise, but he does what he an6Ttftk6S( The ticket is well received throughout the country, and I think will be elected. And, ni y countrymen, do you not think it ought to be eleoted ? Is it not time there should be a change? For twenty years the same party, and largely the same men, have been In power, controlling the offices, collecting and paying eut the public moneys, keeping the books and making the ieports. The tendency of legislation, until the Democrats obtained coutrol of the Home, was to extravagance and favoritism. Glass and party have governed. Proscription of all else has been remorseless and relentless. The offices of' the country have been used in pay for political servioes. Largely more than half the white people have been excluded from all positions of honor and emolument, because they are Democrats. The publio records should go Into new bands for examination. And the policies, habits and practices that have prevailed should be revised and approved. The Constitution forbids the re-election of our Governor at the close of hie term; a new man succeed?. Thus the affairs of our State are under constant examination and scrutiny. It is impossible to lose sight of or hide any wrong that may be done. The bitterest argument made Dy Carl Schurz in hls able speech at Indianapolis was that If successful the Democrats would seek the publio offices. And why may they not share tbe honors and profits of pnbllo employment? Are they not oltlzens, and do they not help to snpport publio authority? Are they not taxed to pay the salaries and other expenses of government, and do they not go forth in war? Are they not patriots? and have tbey not children whose welfare Is identified with the publio welfare? But hls argument went 4urther,«nd reached the proposition that tiSff public service is improved by retaining experienced officers. The oonolusion to that changes, exeept for cause, should not be made. I think he would not make that aTgnmentlf he and hls party were out and another party in. Hls argument does not rest upon American idea and habit. Our sentiment has been rotation in office: first, because it takes the publio service Ont of ruts and grooves and promotes its purity; and second,because it to fair play. In all countries it is esteemed an honor to be employed in the publio service. It Is an honor that should be open to all: qualifications and merit should be the test. I would not displace all. Faithful and efficient officers who attend to duty and not to politics might be retained. But the sentiment once in office always fn office to to be repudiated. Would you say t, the young men you need not hope? There are no ositlons for yon?, When those who are noiy n shall die their, sons are ready to take their places? It to politic M§ it is J ust,to say to all,merit shall he rewarded It is well that sometimes fresh blood shall flow Into the veins and arteries of the publio service. We now have the hope and prospect of good times again. The Republican leaders claim the credit for It. I will close my address by reading the devout and reverential acknowledgement of God s blessing upon our country made by the late Democratic Convention of this State: During the past few years our country has been blessed in a high degree with favorable seasons, and the production of our valuable staples has been enormously in excess of our own consumption. We have sold to foreign countries many hundred millions more than we have purchased from them: gold and silver has come to ns; business oonflaenoe has been restored, and we have the hope and promise of good times again. In all this we recognize the blessing of God upon oar ooantry, and we denounce It as false and blasphem* ous when partisan leaders claim that this is the work of their hands, and that the people should be thankful to them and not grateful to Heaven for our returning prosperity. The Indianapolis Correspondent of the Cincinnati Enquirer' says: “The records of the Justices of the Peace are being ransacked for the lists of ejectments brought by William H. English against non-paying tenants.” And he might have added that Republicans are visiting or writing to all persons with whom Mr. English has had business relations for tbe last forty years, hoping to fish up something against him. In some instances ignorant parties have been told that moflqy could be made out of Mr. English by the proceedings, the Republican attorney offering to undertake it on the shares, all at which is very contemptible, and will not lose Mr. English a single vote. He was born in the State, has lived in Indianapolis nearly twenty years, and everybody knows that any just claim could have been made off of him at any time. It is known he pays his debts promptly, and etacts payment of others, just as all men must do who are largely engaged in business. As for the rent business and ejectment suits, he has nob collected a cent of rent, or brought an ejectment suit for five years. His agent, a very worthy Republican, has exclusive charge of that business, and is entirely responsible for whatever is dene.—lndianapolis People.