Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 June 1884 — GUANO STATESMANSHIP. [ARTICLE]

GUANO STATESMANSHIP.

: Extracts from the Congressional Record of Candidate Blaine. ;His Voice Was For and His Vote Against Remonetizing Silver, .But He Was Not a “ Deadhead ’’ in the Interest of Subsidized Monopolies. Previous to the meeting of the National Republican Convention, the Daily News, of Chicago, predicted that, in the event of Blaine’s nomination for the Presidency, the advocates ■of the Kennebec man would be put upon the defensive, and be compelled to conduct a campaign of denial and explanation. The prediction has been verified, in a measure, as the Chicago Tribune, one of Blaine’s foremost ■champions, has already devoted some columns to a vindication of the ex-Sec-letary’s connection with the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway. Following are some extracts from the Daily News article with regard to course while in Congress: What He Will Have to Explain In Massa- . chusetts. On Jan. 22, 1878, Mr. Blaine made hie memorable attack upon Massachusetts in his remarks before the Senate in presenting the statue of William King, first Governor of Maine, as the .-gift of that State to the national statuary hall. He said William King was cnoeen to represent Maine in the national gallery, because first of .-all he was influential in erecting the district of Maine into a free State, and continued: “The connection of the district with Massachusetts had become exceedingly distasteful, I might say intolerable, to the majority of our’people, and a feeling amounting well • nigh to rancor and hatred could be satisfied witfc nothing less than .-separation. This dislike was mutual, and had been growing for years: was strongly inflamed by the war of 1812, and resulted in political ■differences. Massachusetts was deeply hostile to the war, and did all in her power to embarrass its prosecution. The majority of the people of Maine regarded the attitude of Massachusetts toward the General Government during that memorable struggle as thoroughly unpatriotic, if not treasonable.” The Chicago Tribune charged that Blaine made these remarks through a desire to obtain revenge, in the following editorial of Thursday, Jan. 24, 1878: Mr. Blaine, reinvigorated by the Hot Springs, .has once more besmeared his cheek with the ■war-paint and sallied forth from his wigwam in search of scalps. The setting up of a statue of William King, first Governor of Maine, in the national gallery supplied him with the opportunity. The refusal of Massachusetts to thank the commander of the Hornet for capturing the Peacock, her long refusal to consent to the partition of her old territory, and her refusal to vote for Mr. Blaine in the Cincinnati convention ■supplied him with a sufficiency of motives. In .reality, the motives were superfluous. Being in a belligerent mind, he simply placed a long ■chip on his shoulder and invited Massachusetts to knock it off, which Massachusetts proceeded -to do, regardless of the declaration of the late Mr. Webster that Massachusetts needs no defense. The unfortunate demise of Mr. Webster mad? it easier for Mr. Blaine than it otherwise -would have been, but still Mr. Hoar and Mr. Dawes may be credited-with having made a very -vigorous defense. How He Stood Astride the Silver Bill.

In January, 1878, Mr. Blaine introduced his .amendment to the silver bill then pending in the Senate. The object of his measure was to -enlarge the native weight of the silver dollar, to require that every legal tender above the amount ■of $5 should consist of one-half gold coin and -one-half silver dollars, and to provide for issuing treasury certificates for stamped gold and rsilver bars. In an editorial discussion of this bill the Chicago Tribune of Jan. 25,1878, says: No change in the standard value of the silver -dollar will be tolerated by the people who demand silver remonetization, because the demand is for the original dollar which was eliminated ■from the money system of the country without the consent of the people. ♦ * ♦ The proposition to reoulre that silver and gold ■coin shall be paid in equal proportions in order to constitute a legal tender is likewise subversive of the purpose of the movement for remonei tization. The essence and usefulness of the ■double standard require the option of paying in ■either metat * * • Mr. Blaine has made a mistake in introducing this bill unless he intended that it should serve •as a bridge to carry him over the silver men and away from the Wall street crowd. * » » Mr. Blaine's political strength lies among the Western people. , The Cincinnati convention demonstrated that. It is to the Middle, Western, and certain Southern sections that he must look for his future preferment outside of the contracted .sphere of a Maine representative. But the admiration, enthusiasm, and devotion of his friends in these sections will melt away if he shall array himself in an. agonism to their hopes »nd efforts in behalf of silver remonetization. They will never forgive any man who makes ■one of the one-third in the Senate that mav , eventually defeat the silver legislation in case of -a Presidential veto. Such a man will be in worse odor than the Credit Mobiler and salary--grab left behind them. On the morning of Saturday, Feb. 17, 1878, the ■silver bill passed the Senate. Mr. Blaine was .among the twenty-one Senators who voted against it. The Chicago Tribune of Sunday, Feb. 17, 1878, gives an editorial analysis of the vote, in which it says: “Mr. Blaine, with dramatic inconsistency, after declaring that the demonetization of silver -was clearly deliberately voted against the bill remonetizing silver." Feb. 28,1878, President Hayes vetoed the sil--ver bill. It was promptly passed over his veto by both houses of Congress. James G. Blaine, •of Maine, was among the nineteen Senators who -voted against its final passage.

-Blaine’s Attitude Toward the Thurman Bill. During the winter of 1878 Thurman’s bill to •compel the subsidized Pacific Hailroads to proTide for the payment of the debt they owe the -Government was before Congress. There was a «trons lobby against the measure. In the Senate Mr. Blaine made a determined fight again-t it, and, according to an editorial in the Chicago Tribune of Thursday, April 11, 1878, offered an amendment providing that the Government surrender its rights to the railroads in -consideration of the bill.” The Tribune’s telegraphic account of the passage of the bill, Wednesday, April 10,1878, declared that Thurman's determined attack upon Blaine’s amendment, "as the most complete surrender of the public interests to the greed of the railroad companies that any man had ever been bold enough ■to propose in either house of Congress, and worse in its effect than the loss of all the money ■owed by the roads to the Government, made the weaker members hesitate to sanction it.” In this account of the debate the Tribune puts Blaine in the position of complimenting Jay Gould’s management of the roads. A few days later Mr. Blaine complained upon the floor of toe Senate that he had been misrepresented, which brought out the following editorial from the Tribune of Thursday, April 18, 1878: Mr. Blaine has taken the trouble to deny from This seat in the Senate the correctness of a dispatch printed in the Tribune, in which it was asserted that he had usedin debate lanauage complimentary to Jay Gould. We give Mr. Blaine the benefit of his denial. It concerns -an immaterial and trival question. The people ■do not care whether his language was complimentary to Jay Gould or not. The important point is that his vote was complimentary to Jay Gould; that he—a defeated aspirant to the Presidency, but still a claimant tor the Republican nomination—voted to continue the Pacific Railroad fraud upon the Government for twenty-two years. Mr. Blaine’s extraordinary conduct in the Senate when this bill was pending astonished and grieved his friends. It seemed to show that he was under some obligation to the railroads: that be was “not a deadhead in their «nterprise.”and that his obligation was so binding m its character as to force him to commit a serious indiscretion, from a political point of view. He straddled the bill with an amendment, -as he had straddled the silver bill before, and attempted in tiffs manner to defeat the plain and equitable adjustment proposed ■by Messrs. Thurman and Edmunds. His amendment ■agreed to surrender the Government's "right to amend or repeal.” Mr. Blaine pretended not to know what the fuM effect of this amendment was. He advocated It with a child-like and bland assu ance that there could be no objection to it, an I that its adoption would insure his support of the bill. Mr. Edmunds attempted to enlighten him, showing that the amendment would "•tie the Government up in a bag” for twentytwo veers, but this information was wasted on Mr Blaine. His amendment being rejected, as he knew it must be unless the Senate was com-

pcaed of knaves or idiots, he voted against the bid, making the loss of his amendment a pretext. We recite these circumstances yith the less pleasure because they are calculated to injure Mr. Blaine in public estimation, and he is already sunk low enough. Blaine and the Lumber Thieves. Occasional references have been made to Mr. Blaine's relations toward “lumber thieves. ” Exactly what is meant by these is shown by the following editorial, which appeared in the Chicago Tribune. March 8, 1878: The history of the pine-log bill, which the President has just returned to Congress without his approval, is curious and Instructive. It was avowedly designated to protect the interests of certain persons accused of stealing timber from the Government lands. The protection intended to be procured by it was two-fold—first, as against past offenses, and secondly, as a cover and authorization of future depredations. * The timber depredations have continued for a long term of years, and have resulted in an enormous loss to'the Government. Timber lands in the West are not subject, as arable lands are, to the homestead or pre-emption acts. There is no law providing for the sale of timber. The settler must take it or buy it from others who have taken it without|authority of law. In practice, the settlers have generally bought from companies engaged In cutting timber from Government lands. The object of Secretary Schurz has been to fine these companies a part of the profits they have derived from their sales.

The position of Secretary Schurz and the President being thus sound and jnst, it becomes an interesting inquiry, how did the pine log bill happen to pass. Its success in the House was due to the importunity of a number of Southern members, particularly those from Louisiana, who knew how to influence their Democratic colleagues in favor of the bill. In the Senate the bill owed its success to the personal efforts of Mr. Blaine. It was returned from the Judiciary Committee with an adverse report, but Mr. Blaine, having a grievance to air, spoke vehemently m its behalf, and described the hardships of certain hypothetical settlers in Montana in Slowing and pathetic language. He advocated le bill on personal grounds, because he had, or fancied he had, a just resentment against Secretary Schurz, who has long been his political adversary. Mr. Blaine’s Hatred of Carl Schurz. Throughout Mr. Blaine’s service in the Senate he never omitted an opportunity to be “aggressive ” toward any man who had ever stood in his light. Carl Schurz was especially an object of his dislike in connection with the latter’s action In regard to the Montana timber thieves. On this point we find the following in the Chicago Tribune of March 14.1884: Senator Blaine’s hostility to Secretary Schurz has placed him in the attitude of the especial champion and defender of the Montana timber thieves. It is charitable to presume that Mr. Blaine’s course is to be accounted for by the fact, not that he loves the timber thieves more, but the Secretary of the Interior less. At the same time it is a little awkward to feel constrained to apologize for larceny on a tremendous scale in order to gratify a political grudge. And again, on March 19, 1878: Mr. Blaine’s case against Secretary Schurz appears to be that Prussia isn't much of a country. Secretary Schurz is a native of Prussia; a reflection on that country is supposed to be a reflection upon him; and it is, in Mr. Blaine’s opinion, a great reproach upon Prussia that she contains fewer square miles than Montana. This disgraceful insufficiency of area of Mr. Schurz’s native land is esteemed by Mr. Blaine a complete rejoinder to the Secretary’s argument in the timber-land controversy and a vindication of the thieves. We do not agree with this opinion. And still again on March 25,1878: If Mr. James G. Blaine ever had any prospect of becoming the Republican nominee for President in 1880, he will most effectually destroy all such probabilities if he persists in his present course in making enemies among the prominent men of his own party. His recent assault upon Massachusetts was in exceeding bad taste, but not more so than his sneer at Secretary Schurz because of his foreign birth. Mr. Blaine not only publicly insulted a Cabinet officer, who is certainly the peer of the Senator from Maine in all the characteristics of a well-bred gentleman, but Mr. Schurz is the representative of a powerful and intelligent body of adopted citizens, who have always been a mighty factor of the Republican party in the West. When Mr. Blaine is in want of votes at the next nominating convention, as he was sorely in need of them at Cincinnati, he will not be likely to taunt any of the delegates with having been born in Prussia. Blaine and Steamship Subsidies. When the postoffice appropriation bill was before the Senate in 1878, Mr. Blaine supported an amendment establishing a sea service with Brazil. Senator Edmunds secured the defeat of the amendment, and was complimented in the following language by the Tribune of May 15, 1878: That solid old Roman, Senator Edmunds, of Vermont, who never lets an opportunity slip to expose a steal or unearth a fraud, got in a stunning blow at the subsidies yesterday, which demoralized the army of lobbyists waiting with breathless suspense in the ante-rooms of the Senate to learn the fate of their pet project—the proposed appropriation in aid of a steamship line between certain ports in the United States and Brazil. Of Mr. Blaine’s support of Roach’s Brazilian scheme, the same paper remarked April 25, 1878: Mr. Blaine seems to be owned by a steamship company as well as by a railroad. If he could induce a telegraph monopoly to invest in him he might be called the incarnation of modern progress.

Is He the Great North American Straddler? Among the measures before Congress during the session of the winter and spring of 1878 was one to revise the tariff laws, one to repeal the national bankruptcy act, and another to provide for the distribution of the Halifax fisheries award. According to the Tribune files covering that period, Mr. Blaine’s position upon all these propositions was equivocal and not such as would have been dictated by wise statesmanship. He opposed the first bill by introducing in the Senate a resolution declaring it inexpedient to legislate upon the tariff at that session, but spoke and voted for the repeal of the bankruptcy act. Soon after the Halifax award came before the Senate he introduced a resolution calling tor the correspondence relating to the appointment of Delfosse as the third Commissioner for the distribution of the fund. At that time he said it was unjust to pay the $5,500,000 required by the Washington treaty, and declared that the English Government evidently deceived the Government in securing Delfosse’s appointment. When the correspondence asked for came before the Senate Mr. Blaine declared, in a speech delivered March 26, that it was plain from this correspondence that Delfosse had been forced upon our Government. He would be willing, however, to pay the $5,500,000 demanded if that would burv the matter out of sight, but he found it was'only the beginning of the trouble. The entire subject was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which recommended that the Executive Department be authorized to pay the award, if, after correspondence with Great Britain, the President shall deem payment demanded by the honor and good faith of the nation. This report was adopted without objection from any one. In discussing Mr. Blaine’s position upon these and other questions the Tribune of May 14. 1878, says editorially: Mr. Blaine has now straddled: 1, The silver question; 2, the Halifax-award question; 3, the timber-stealing question; 4, the ta iff question; 5, the bankrupt-repeal question; 6, the Pacific Railroad question. There are several questions yet to hear from, and we feel authorized to say that Mr. Blslne will straddle them severally as they approach him. He is now engaged in meeting “ questions” in this manner; and, unless some mishap befalls him, he will clear the entire field of economies and politics before harvest. This conduct is supposed to be prudent and statesmanlike in a Presidential candidate. We feel, hpwever.that it is not just to the honorable State of Maine, which is entitled to have two thinking and voting members of the United States Senate. Mr. Blaine onght to stop straddling and resign for tills reason.

Blaine’s Chili-Peru Guano Statesmanship. Mr. Blaine’s connection with the Landreau guano claim is of such recent date that all must remember it. In that matter he was pursuing the ” vigorous foreign policy” which his friends now wish to foist upon the country again. When Mr. Blaine became Secretary of State he was waited upon by the representatives of these interests claiming the right to large guano fields in Pera. The first was presented by Jacob R. Shipherd, as the representative of the Peruvian company, which claimed to act under a charter from the State of Georgia, and to own by right of assignment the interest of Gelacio Cochet. This person was the illegitimate son of Alexander Cochet, a subject of France, who discovered the uses of guano tor fertilizing in 1840, and by right of those discoveries claimed he was entitled to one-third interest of the guano of Peru, valhed at $500,000,000. Cochet’s case was investigated by a commission of French and Peruvian citizens in 1861 and decided adversely to him. The second claim was made by Jean Theophile and J. C. Landreau, the former a Frenchman and the latter claiming to be a citizen of this country. They also alleged that they had discovered new deposits of nitrates and guano in Peru about 1844, valued at $400,000,060. Un ter the law of Peru they contended that they w re entitled to a one third interest, but before making the dis -overy k own agreement w.is made with t o Peruvian Government by which they were to receive 10 per cent, of the net proceeds of the guano discovered. After unsuccessful efforts to enforce the cbim through the Peruvian

and French Governments, the matter was brought-before Secretaries Fish and Evarts, bnt neither of them would consent to any official intervention on the p rt of the American Minister. The third interest was owned bv the Credit Industrie!. a French company which h'ld a large quantity of Peruvian bonds, and the company was anxious to prevent Chili, wh ch was then at war with Peru, irom absorbing Peruvian territory.

When Shiperd called upon Blatne as the representative of the owners of Cochet’s alleged claim he told him he would like to have him notify Peru and Chili that there mu»t be no settlement without the leoognition of these American rights. Shiperd a' so spoke a good w<rd for the Landreau claim, and left the Secretary of State with the assurance that he should get what he wanted. In the meantime Gen. Hurlbut was appointed Minister to Peru, and s Red lor Lima, July 2, 1881, the day of President Garfield's assassination. While at Lima waiting for the full particulars of Gultean’s crime he received Blaine's celebrated letter, in which he was instructed to say that the Government of the United States will expect some adequate and proper means to be provided by which Laudreau can obtain a judicial decision upon his rights." If Peru is compelled to surrender any of the guano deposits to Chili Mr. Hu. Ibut is instructed to say that the Government should stipulate in the treaty “for the pieservation and payment to Landreau of the amount due under his contract," and to notify both Governments of the character and status of the claim in order that “no definite treaty of peace shall be made in disregard of the right ■ which Landreau mav be found to possess." The testimony taken by the Congressional committee t-hows that Blaine was using his position to secure the payment of private claims, in which the Government had no interest, and that his later policy was not in accord with his first instructions to our Minister or the views of President Garfield. All in the Blaine Family. Some curiosity has always existed as to the reason for Gail Hamilton's attack on Mr. Medill when she posted him in her “rogues' gallery" in the New York Tribune. It is to be found in the following squib which appeared in the Chicago Tribune April 25, 1878: “ Gail Hamilton’’ and Mrs. Blatne were said last year to have traveled on a railroad pass for Mr. Blaine and wife—the artful Dodge declaring to the puzzled conductor that she was Mr. Blaine. Since Mr. Blaine has come out in favor of subsidies for steamships, we infer that it won’t cost the family a cent to go to the Paris Exposition this summer.