Rensselaer Republican, Volume 12, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 September 1880 — Page 5

SPEECH OF HON. JOHN M. BUTLER DELIVERED AT Crawfor dsville, Ind., Sept. 6.

Frllov<*ltlte n r. Twenty tbe WetSbwtoitM to* Nstieß ■ Btxfls BBpraeeaey ooA team* <taverj. Ito ereoAkoe ever kaes "ftoßepeqefc. freo bmw tow Stout. bbA toe Battonal Rag sopteesa,’* la Ito«M preefdewriol watoat tkto saw party vsadatoatoCaaA too DiawMtto »Mto ilirtot James Batoaam. tea tost FrMtoat the loot ttotowaaortototee. Bertas tbs Ruttes *• ato -totatotnteioa. so Maatraes were the demands aoA attempt* at toe stave pewee tor toe porpetaatfos aad exteuato* at slavery, end a* turbulent and iatotaraet beeeraa the State-rights or araMttna etonseat, that toe mea of tbe Worth, at last thoroughly aroused, espoused tbe RepabHeaa reuse la each number* that tbe ymrog party became victorious in Its swead presidential contest, in tbe election of Abrohoas Uaaela. The mam Unde and velne of that five! rietory caa sever be computed. It will stand v> monumental marble to mark the parasite of the eeoturtea tn tbe march of tone. For twenty years tbe Republics* party has aittninistered the Nattooal government, opposed by secret treason and open rebellion; through years of war. yeats of reerartr”«tlon. ami years of want and depression Induced by wgr, it hpa’ led with a steady baud, and to-day presents to the world tbe strongest, freest and most prosperous government known to men. Another presidential contest i’ upon ns. The people are again to ekneee their rulers. Thia power to eboose, while it i» the crowning glory of Anjeriean eltisenship, bring* with it grave personal resyooaibUity to each rotor. An Hi-Judged, ignorant hollot to a very dangerous raft#-'. In a gorsranient "Of the people, by the -people. for the people." a free, ieteHim-nt, sod well considered ballot is tbe only safegu ird Let us, therefore, as true lovers of our country and earnest co-workers for tts highest good, consider thoughtfully the merits and demerits of the different political parties asking to be entrusted with the control of our government In this investigation we will be materially aided by bringing oar minds

aowarety np to definite and distinct propositions. Permit inn then to ask you three <iu<-stions. all es which yon must answer by yoarbollot,, if you gcrniit reason and judgment to control that ' QUESTIONS TO VOTERS. L la there any reason why yon should vote against the Republican party! 2. Is there any reason why you should vote for the Democratic partyl 3. Is it expedient, is it safe, to entrust ths Democratic jmrty with the control of the government i If anv reason exists for voting against the Republican party, it Most be found either in its past history and achievements, or in tea present policy and eondnci of tbe government, or in its promtoes for tbe future, as foreshadowod bv the platform of priueiples adopted by Us resent National convention. , What page of toe history of toe Republican party would you blot out! What one of all of Its victories in war or in peace would youohange Into defeats What blighting, withering wrong against humanity has It ever uuheld and nourished! What great crime against the eonutry has it ever committed! What cankering error is there in it* present poliev aad conduct of lbs government that dmnands a change of parties! What danger tiweatens tee perpetuity of our instUutious, and tbe continued material. finaueial and commercial prosperity of our people, by adhering steadfastly to the policies, tbe method* and the prtoaipieaof that political party Which has led the country safely to this glad aad prosperous time! What principle or line of policy is announced in tbe Republican platform that foreshadows injury to any department of the government!

THINK BEFORE YOU .TOTE. If aay reason exists for voting for the Demo •vatic party, that reason, too, must be found •Ither to ita past history, its present purpose and policy, or in Us promises for the future. The history of the Democratic party for the last quarter of a century! What goad thing is there in it! What Democrat dare try to defend li! What proposition has it advocated that would not have resulted in the dishonor and ruin of the country! What crime against country and humanity is there known to history that is not disclosed by its leaves! What page of it would you not biot out! What promise of tasprovemsnt io purpose or principle can be discovered in its recent acta aad present declaratioM! It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the present we rubers of toe Democratic party is composed of men who were lately in aoilve rebellion against the government, or of men in party nyarpathy with traitors tn arms. If sudd nly deprived of the ballots of all the men w|» fought against the government In a terascoeble war. and es all ths men who were in political sympathy with those engaged in active rebellion. the Democratic party would not bone to carry a slagle State in the Union at the ap/Montant. re. formed, tmstwerthyl They declare tost they havoßoc repented,and do not propose to repent, re tory outbs seme plane as tbe war of 1779. On the sth of August of the present year, at a vouufon of Confederate-soldiers—now Demo33iSl%iS‘E n KUW.fi »SrISS: “This fa bo empty pageant, but a reuakra of men who,.after serving four years in war. have returned to their civic duties aad the purenits •f peace-mep who. while they mean to beVd to they live under, make no excuse for the past and score tbe huaatatlon of traitor and rebel. The flecMalties as too country required that toe war should come. There weiTiuisanderatimdinc* which finally led to the , North doing the Bomb great wrong. The Confederate war as well as thatof 1716, was waggTfsr an abstract principle. We of the South fa«bt for principle, and to resist eucronchmcnu u hjd out Institutions. * * * Let it be proclaftaed forever that Ho rrus Southern man ever a«ke« pardon for the part be i*orajn tbe armies of the Contatenev ** Tnjs is Democracy la ths year 1130. Think before yon vote.

Id seeking an answer to the vusstions pror>oun<led, It beeoiirao important to examine Uie Issues presented by the platforms yf the respect - Ire parties. The first point of difference to Which your attention is asked, is tie question of Till TARIFF. The declaration of tbs Republics* party is the same Übas always, been and to learned explicit: “We affirm the belief avowtd m 1876, that ths dalles levied for tlfe purposes! revenue should so discriminate as to favoi A merles n labor.” The Democratic platform d to lares far “a tariff for revenue only.” What dees this* meant It does not mean -free trade,* for it eB . prvesly declares that there must be sans sort •f a tariff Therefore there to nocomfirt in It for tbs believers in absolute -free trad. •- The uae of the word -only" explains tim natter The Democratic party stands oonuDittat to a tariff, but declares that that tariff must pr®. tect American industry and manufacture* The Democratidparty to hostile to the system, by means of which tbs RepuHkxn party, while providing an ampla revenue has aided home labor, stimulated home Wannfactnres. aad promoted s healthy divorml- of hone industries. But this hostility to oar presenttariff system, a system which Has pn>. ed •o beneficent, has a deeper significance t.an appears upon the surface of this fieffiihthn. The acta and votes of a majority at Democrat Mepresentstives and Senator* on many Jc eaaions, and the known elements which the party, prove that it reallr ■senna to make a far more radical change than he platform dares to propose The Democratic party. If it had the power would enact a tariff designed to restore, increase and perpetuate the former dependence of the oounVy uuon the South. The policy of the KT —St the expense of all ortSr interred Th£ want t» revive the cry 'Tott&a is Kiner and ■Mjtetolnxa. In a word, the Democrat!* party country. This is pfectoely the policy that h.is governed and inspired every attempt to chance the tartff since the Democratic party coined a majority in the tower house of Congress. A few months *Aco it was icnerany feared that oar people were baying abroad more than could be paid for. with our surplus products, and that aorcle • <n^ c ’? t !r partT so Co *«re* was trying ro cut

'taMTfcff wigar >MMrllß»dtoVtobace<teWaaMn< 'tores all pusnib* advantage- the NonJi predne inw *wt iHTte of uiijtov Ot tow, snodwets-tert wheat wv manofarvwred the kqw»» Ares au» predwra toere arty jgg wag* g»«r free trade nor protoetioit. to not a : a (Moy off oreatonal sei flabeevo aaA nag roe ABe mated '•oBtola to bbA always has beta Ma Dem nwiie ipiua, a»A toWORB wtfl bo ea A eeaI Boost taster VI tn—l MwEoatb, rcMdfoes at tixiBCfWSStS df ftes •MWtVF Bl ,a* tk® W>l y kind of a aver wttodoreeek Xnfo Ike aow.’Stehto b«ra fag Mirto roaga, NkepnMr at Ihtßißto Turn now and exomtnethe thsssy aad praeUcaa policy has always been to ee adjust the twit •» to produce toe needed remsts, and at SLsr.Jt. J 5 fair reward, aad fostering invention aihl luauu facturo, upon which tbe independence of our Nation must ofneoeasitv £*?£W£ St&S: arm. equip, and toed its armies, by its own skill and labor, qgt of Ito own reeourret, and tn time of peaee devise and construct tts own implements of husbandry and skilled labor. In ito adjustment of tbe tariff, the Republican party hag always kept three points in vlsw:

1. That tola to a Nation, and that all natloaal legi*lation should be framed la ths taterest of and for tbe benefit of the whole people. and bear so equally upon all as possible. A duty imposed upon ImwrUxl Iron and cotton wnd woolen fabrics tends to develop tbe natural reauurees, and stimulate needed Industries at the aoutb as well as in the North. Tbe South has vast beds of coal and Iren ore, and produces vast amounts es raw ootton and wool. Texas is now one of tbe chief wool-growing States. Is it not for the InkerMt of the Booth to open and transmute her beds of ore into iron and steel! Is it not for her interest to create a permanent home market for her raw cotton and wool by imposing aneh aUuty upon Imported cotton and woolen fabrics as will enable American manufacturers es like goods to sell them at such, prices as will secure for labor a Just reward! 2. To impose duties upon such imported products and manufaetnred articles as we can . weil produce and maanfacture here at home, and parmit free importation of ouch-articles and products as wa need and do not produce er manufacture. 3. To impose heavy duties upon luxuries and articles not deemed “necessaries sf life," and lighter duties upon articles and products essential to all coniNtions and classes of our people, thus placing the burden of this class of t*xea upon those most sble to bear tt. These principles are clearly in the interest of the laboring men of tbe country. While they tend to make tbe burden of National taxation rest lightly upon the necessities of life. which every laborer must have, they at the same time create a home market for tbe ernlo productions of agriculture and protect the mannfneturer, mechanic and miner from pitting ths price of his hours of toil against the pnuper labor and pauperising prices of the old world. Democrats who apeak and vote against protection should remsmber that fully one-fourth of all the laboring men of this couutry are now engaged in manufaolurM, mechanical trades and mining, and mast have protection 4f they are to receive fair pay for nonsst toll. Mistakes may exist in some ot the almost infinite details of our tariff laws, but the system is Jost, equitable and unsectional in principle, and lias proved benefieent in practice. Would a change to the Democratic plan be prudent or beneficial! Revenues must be raised each year to defray current expenses, and keep the faith of the Nation plighted to its pensioners and creditors. For these purooee-s, about #275,000,000 are needed annually. But three ways are open to the general government to raise these rev-

enues. namely: 1. Doties imposed upon imports from foreign countries. This is called tariff or customs revenue. 2. Imposts and excise taxes levied upon home productions, manufactures, trades and callings. This is called internal revenue. 3. Direct taxes, which under tbe constitution can only be imposed by the National government upon the different States as such—the amount assesaed against each State to be proportioned to its population. This last method would bear with severe and ruinous weight upon the newer and undeveloped States, which are rich in population and material resources, but in whieb the great bulk of the property is not yet inceme-pronueing. Owing to the manifest inequity and hardship of this system of taxation tbe government baa very rarely resorted to tt, and then only under the pressure of some great necessity. At the close of the war of 1812, and during the war of the rebellion, tbe government assessed direct taxes for several years. From the foundation of the government down to the present time, it has snly eellooted in dinect taxes #27,648,725.73, over onehalf of which was and collected on account of the rebellion, while during the same period #4,252,441.362 80 have bean received from duties on imports, and #2*548.083,606 85 have been received from internal revenue taxation. The Republican party baa, by its present wy* tern of tariff and internal revenue, caiaed the vast revenues neeeasaiT to maintain the existence and Integrity of the Natiun during its eontest with treason; to largely reduce tbe indebtedness created by-the war, and -to piece the gov eminent credit upon a far higber plane than It ererattaiued under Densoosatlo rule. In the days of our National peril tits burden was heavy, but waa borne with the cheerful fortitude born of true patriotism. At one time some ae ven teen hundred articles, trades and oa Hings were subjected to internal revenue taxation. The Northern wing of tbe Democratic party resolved and re-resolved against these taxer, drew word-paintings of the Federal tax-gather-er hovering around the poor man’s home to setoe and appropriate the best part and lion’s share of his scanty store, and. by inflammatory partisan harangues, sought to embitter tee people against the government, and thus paralyse its power. But the people, under the lead of the Republican party, held steadily on. paid the heavy taxes, endnred the sacrifloes, and to-day are reaping rich rewards of peace, unusual prosperity aad a country redeemed from disunion and destruction. To-day but five articles remain upon tbe internal revenue list tor taxation—spirituous liquors, patent medicines matches, manufactured tobacco, and banka. The taxes upon spirits and tobacco have been greatly reduced, and yet those five articles have produced the governaieut., during the year ending June 30,1880. #116348,221, nearly one-half the entire amount now needed by the general govern meat to meet all its current obligations and expenses. At tbe close of the war, when our annual expenditures reached their maximum the government received from internal revenue taxes tn a single year #309.226.813.42, Tariff duties have bean taken entirely off from many articles, and greatly reduced npon many other articles as fast as the absolute requirements of tbe couutry would permit. During tee year ending June 30, 1879, the government nseedved from duties en imports #137,250.047 70, while in 1872 the revenue from this souroe amounted to #216,370,286.77. nearly double the present customs revenue- Would you have an ad valorem tariff so that a dollar’s worth ot silk, or velvet, or flue laoe shall only pay ths same duty asa dollar's worth of Hoe, salt, sugar, drugs or leather! That would he a tariff for "revenue only.” Would that be la tbe interest of the laboring man! Would you fritter away tbe tariff revenue and continue to reduce tbe tateraal revenue taxes on spirits and tobacco, as the Democracy are continually trying to do, and thereby be driven to direct taxation! Think for a moment hew that would affect the rrsst Northwest. Let ns compare Indiana and Massachusetts. Remember, direct taxes must be assessed against the States in proportion to populattea—not property. In 187 D-tho MW oeasus is not yet available—lndiana had • xopulattoß of 1.680,637, wbfle Wimsanhnonng had only 1X57351. But the property es Massachusetts wm worth #2432,148,741, while tlw property of ladtaaa was worth only #1,268,-1-9.543. Therefore latiana would have mere 'SHTKSUfWSX ftij property of Indiana as ft would bo upon the property of Maseaehuootta. Are you ia love with the Democratic theory of tariff and government revenues! Is the RepubWedb spawn es tariff aad tatarnal revenM just and njht! Hasft rectot well tor the country! Button*, tnrtfff Tawvy Mn« mnf rr—rt- 1-t npen qoeMton! ' SHIPPING AND COMMERCE. At the wet De tn nor ratification re initial faMlew YoM. J«IF RtfTSSO, Baa. ftamnil J. Ragriall. pregent Of ertiw W tbe Hooreef BepMMtetiret in dwgreoe. la his attempt io shook! be tkfa . ha/it IaST We •rereedy to .newer start question. “Ovr

SUPPLEMENT.

rapidtoy, fa IKWQ it van pX cugM^orito^weßMmP^t^WirteapMßm Asm fat--30.1330.(he lawneSoaot JnaocMsfi re«nr.«n->neUde mmwi nah i,,,i4 aaa jtjb: •‘sf.trss! eeqae,. I.prSMnn aao Seear or eoauaeml Bupaye r.otew OoaMaUM. Whal stripes from ships belonging to onr navy, sa’tt'iftsisyEtj inerce, glorying tn the devastation and destrucporta to eripple and destroy "our shipping interests;’’ wheh gunboats, ironclad* and torpedoes Were constructed in our Southern waters and launched against our navy faith hostile intent. It is a fSlff question, easily answered. ▼Meh party has done the moat to build nj and nourish “our snipping Interests.” How will If party, in ita National platFREE BALLOT.

“The right to a tree ballot is the right preservative of all rights, and must and shall be maintained in every part of the United States.” Bo reads their platform. They forgot to mention the matter of a “fair count,” but General Hancock, in his letter of acceptanee, has supplied tbe deficiency. He •ays: "It is only bv a full vote, free ballot, and a fair count that the people can rule in fact, as required by the theory of onr government” The words are brate, true words; but they sound like a studied attempt at wit and irony, when read in connection with the current history of the acts and accomplishments of the Democratic party. But—to borrow a classic phrase from the letter of acceptance of Hon. William H. English— “a discriminating public will, ho dobt, read between the lines,” and discover that this ringing declaration, when warmed by the fervent heat of Democratic patriotism, palea and fades quite away, and “between the lines” oo ’ n ® t ,. ““ blaok *ofcfis: “The power to mw‘tissue ballots, shotgun policies, Mlsaiaslppiplans, Maine steals, ana cipher dispatches, is the only power preservative of Democratic supremacy, and must and shall be maintained in every part of the United Bfotaa where the Democrats ace in Urn ascendency." T ' . . No intelligent and honest man, b« be Democrat or Republican, believes tai a moment that there la, or baa been for years, a •‘free ballot” or a “fair count" in a.maionty of the Southern Btates. Democratic leaders and Democratic papers of the South, without a blush, openly declare that they do not intend to permit a “free ballot and a fair count,” -and their acts In years past, as abundantly proved by the records and by Democratic Investigating committees, prove that their infamous declarations bo* earnest statements of deliberate determination to get aside and disregard the law for the purposeof retaining Dem ocratic supremacy. A late number of the Memphis Avalanche contains the following, with much more of the same tenor: “We must have but <me party, and that tbe Demo ratio party. White men who dare to avow themselves here as Republicans, should be promptly branded as the bitter and malignant enemies es the South. * * A« tor the negroes, let them aiuuse tbemseivea. If they win, by voting tbe Radical ticket. We have the count. We nave a thousand good and true men whose brave ballots will be found equal to those of five thousand vile Radicals."- A succeeding number of the same paper publishes an article even more bitter than the one jnst quoted, aad publicly calls for tbe revival of the “Mtaatoelppi plan’’—• plan of mutilation, intlmidauen and murder. Representative De La Matyr and General Weaver, late missionaries to Alabama in behalf of the Greenback cause, report that the Democrats of that State freely and repeatedly told them that it is their deliberate purpose “to so count the votes as to Insure • Democratic mqiority.” Let us look at the record for a moment and see if it defes not fully sustain the truth of these lawless declarations. Take the State of Alabama as the first example. Ths vote for the four elections preceding that at the present year stood as follows: Dem. Rep. 1872 90,272 1878 102,002 68.230 1878 89,371 00,000. From this table we see that while tn 1872 there were 90,272 Republican votes, tn 1878 there were no RepubUoan votes, although tbe total DetMcreUc voteef 1878 waa only 10,127 larger than in 1872. And thia present year 11 "• Bn Ul-enppressed ehaekle of delight, that their majority is over 60,000 votea; why not call it 100,000! The Democrats know that there has been no election in Alabama—etootien mewis ctooiee. They know that the voters of that State—the men who, under the constitution and tbe laws, have the right to chooMthelr rulers— have not been permitted to exercise the right of choice. Yet this is Democratic "free ballot and fair count!" My country, men, it to a grave crime; instead of an election, 'a crime againat country, against humanity, against the tost, best hope erf the world—free geveraaient. Take the Blate of Mississippi. Tbe vote at the three last State elections in this State—-the author of tbe ‘■Mmcf-wlrmi plan" to achieve success, stood thus:

IfZ*- - A study of these figures shows ths workings of tissue ballots, bull-whips, and masked kuklux ansssstos in aid of a “free ballot and fair count.” Take Booth Carolina, where only four years ago the parties were m evenly divided that it took months to determine the vote of the State, and compare the votes at 1878 and 1878— IfX® fee 91*5’80 This to the result of “rifle etabs.” the “shotgun plan” Inaugurated, at the Hartsburg massacre. You will notice that the Republican vote has decreased just 91.587, while the Demnoratlo vote—tissue - ballots included—has only increased 28,654 votes. Even if ware claimed that all of this Increase of Democratic votes came from sonverfdons from the Republican to the Democratic ranks, still there ere 62,913 Republican votes tn that little State unaccounted for tai any way except'that they have been, by force and intimidation, kept away from the ballot-box. In 1872 the Republican vote in Arkansas was Ind inis™ t. Louisians was 75,185, in 1879 it was only 26,611, while tbs Democratic vote decreased rather than Increased during the same period Similar enoT parisons might ba made in other States, bat straatioas to Demecnrtte otabs, Issued In Leutffiana pending their tost election, contained this steteMtmt: *Wb recommend that in twhveftaSSSStftt tfMMSSJK tbs election, wad intend to use them.” General ?£“ta£££ y<« » d he,pM to brook that to start! *te this Union. But D enmesaxalnM a-free baHot and a fair count” are wto confined to the South. The same reckless and shameless dterogsrd of law and right has manifested ttself in the North. How •h*“ttoe Democracy th the State Of Hat nr. and titelr erimieal Jtooder, Dr. Garoelonl What Democrat now attempts to defend that atroctoas attempt to steal a State govffifenrentl Owe 7«*S'W» De - the Democratic Govern or of Mates*, aided by other Dessoeratts leaders and backed in the infamous business by the whole Democrats party of tbs Stats at M-fr"

efibred fly J> Ry mt DwsbtoW land. anS addeA to tbeit latite Utas' esnAsMß wsSFdSSSLee Ufa eriteaaaatost th* right pssswwßttte s* att oawtrary, th* M L>®u*oeratio ii©ro©a. Uva* t.lMh Denio* erMy haateood to avow Ua most oesduslwyaapsv “F with this lawlem *«tragaa»<l ita perosera tOHk Toe leading Deiaocraiin elnb of the State, foe club to whict Hon. Wm. H. Kngitoh. Hou. Frantata fayders. Son- TRow* A-Mendrieke. Hon. M. D. Manson, and many other leaders of tae Indiana Democracy belonged, oa January 7,1880, sent a telegram to Dr. Garcelon eongratulating him upon the then apparently suoceetful accomplishment of his viUalny, and declared that the Indiana Democracy admire fibovo an things, backbone,—a bow name for grand larceny. People are wont to admire much the thln« they most lack; hence ft caa scarcely be matter for wonder that a Hendricks dob should admire, backbone. But here to the telegram: “To Governor Garcelon. Augusta, Me.: "We congratulate you upon yonr auoeees in the legal and peaceful organization of the islatnreof your State, and the triumph as taw and order nnfier your administration. Iw Indi ana. we adnrtrs, above all thlngm Backbone. ' ’ "(Signoo) K.C. Bomxx. “Vice-president Hendrleks Cub.” Yet this Democratic party declares ta tbe lengthiest plank of its platform thus the iMBo in 1880. “that precedes and dwarf* every other,” to the issue of FRAUD. , - ' If the Demoeratle party had believed in the cry of “fraud" they have been croaking for these last years, they would have renominated the old ticket, and gone to the country upon that Issue. They did net dare to do ft. The brilliant and caustic Watterson never told his party leaders a truer thing than when be aaid in 1-aper; “The Democratic party must take Tilden and Hendricks, with fraud as -the;issue, or any other ticket, witbout that issue. The rejection of Tilden eliminates fraud m m tosue tn the campaign.” They all knew tide to be true. They also well knew that Tilden was ready, willing and waiting. Every delegate to the Cincinnati convention knows perfectly that She letter of Tilden read to that convention was really a final and agonised appeal for renomination. The greatest ana bit tercet political fraud Samuel J. Tilden ever had perpetrated upon him was perpetrated by (he Cincinnati convention in deliberately forcing upon that letter a const ruction its author never intended. Tilden at the head of tbe Democratic ticket would have S resented an tosue the Democratic party did not are to meet. It would have bees on tosue of fraud, too, but the Democratic party would -Rtrnwe stood as defendant to the l«ue. We remember too well the Oregon swindle, by which the Democratic* party sought to thwart the wellknown will of the majority of the people of Oregon, by calling Cronin an elector, although he had been fairly beaten by “a full vote, a free ballot and a fair count," and, by counting his vote for Tilden and Hendricks, procure for them, In defiance of the will of the people and the law of tbe land, the one vote needed to determine th* election. Oregon was entitled to three electoral votes. The Republican ticket was elected by a clear and undisputed majority, but it was" claimed one of the electors voted for and elected by the Republicans was ineligible by reason of the fact that he held at the time a petty office. This, if trae, mads bis election voidable, but not void. The law provided a method for supplying apy vacancy in the electoral college by the choice of the electors themselves. In the face of this law, and knowing that he had been fairly beaten, Cronin, who nad been a candidate for elector upon the Democratic ticket, sought to thrust himself into tbe electoral college, and claimed the right to vote as an elector on the ground that his competitor, who had beaten him, was ineligible, and that therefore the votes east for him should not be counted, and that he. Cronin, should be declared elected. In order to aid Cronin in his attempted usurpation, a deliberate attempt was made to bribe with money one of the Republican electors and induce him to accept 'Cronin as a member of the electoral college. In this rascally business ths whole Democratic party backed the swindlers and anpiauded them to the echo—except Che Democratic members of the electoral aommissfon. To their credit be it remembered that upon the Oregon swindle the vote of the cownnission did not stand Bto 7. The fraud was too plain and palpable. The learning and eloquence of Judge Hoadly could not redeem or hade it. The vote of the electoral commisaiou on the rejection of Cronin as an elector stood 15 toO.

The Democratic cipher dispatches, disclosing and ooncinslvely proving such corruption, bribery, and fraud as never before disgraced and debauched American politics, are fresh In memory. When the Democratic leaders came to review the situation after the returns of the election of 1876 were all tn, they found that Haves and Wheeler were elected, unless they could accomplish one of the three following things: 1. Induce the returningboards of Louisiana 2PA. F . ,o ?. d ? the tows of those States riith Judicial functions amounting to plenary and absolute power—to disregard flagrant acta of fraud and violence, and count the tainted retprnsjuat as they stood. 2. Induce the returning board of South Carolina to take the opposite course and make un J B. Induce one of the Repunllcan electors in Oregon to recognlxe Cronin, Ihstead of Watts, and organise with Cronin an electoral college that would east one vote for Tlldan and Handrlcks. , The discovery and interpretation of the cipher dispatches prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Democracy -attempted all three of these tasks, and that bribery was the means deliberately resorted to tn each ofthe three nefarfoi enterprises. This Democratic conspiracy by ■usurper,” was “the great fraud of 1876.” It was the disclosure of this great fraud that made it impossible for the Democracv to renominate the old ticket, as they would have been morally Bound to do if they had bsTiSved there was any .truth m their charges of fraud. It was these cipher dispute lies which made Tilden a dreaded incubus upon the ifemocratlc convent!on and renominatlon into a deelln&tion Indiana hM not forgotten that her “free ballot and fair count” were interfered with in 1876 by Democrotio bribers whose corruption fund wm (tapplled from Democratic headquarters. Tne memorable telegram of Senator Barnum, chairman of the Democratic National committeeB * V *P mulea,” which meant “Use 87,<XX>morelnbribinglndianavoters.’was only one of an unknown multitude of the dame character and Intent. And so it usurpation, theft and bribery in the Nbrth; Democratic tissue-ballots, intimidation and murder in the South. Ths electoral commission was oreated by Demterat io votes. Th the Senate, 26Democrats and 21 Republicans voted 16 RepubUeahs and 1 Democrat voted against S^Tg&Xl. 8 SW.’SU 1 ® houses stwo Democrate Voting for tha bitt 184 b3SSIX'^^L , % I “:::::: ; : ■••• JJ it, its decision was judicial, absolute, had final It decided that President Hayes was duly and legally elected, and from that day to this the Democratic party. wiAtts Usual Punie faith, has been unmeasured in its a*use of the court ths Democratic leaders to attract tetentien away from thsir own frauds and crimes sham-fraud.” There is aot a true lover of his country in this that R^her7orrl’ < B. IHaye. 1 Haye. ymrdsndm alatate’SSspStty Tn?" Ibeoteetive ftmthil Ths recent tecitina at

COMBIIZOTitAIAI. AXWKDXnTB* to aMtnißitaaiUß off MR spirit, prinsipls* pure I sus sT the Dokboenwy, bbA stoMtid arenae sorpaoiAa tathetaflxft* parfto that wmM flolißwDMMcrafltefitaßMßßvßk MrVottaaa aAMfitosfU rarommemted suSi^atoßAaMMßflßtM toostnifttonaß wmM psnsft amfi wspportHte needed legislation. In 1873 Governor Hrataicks aa strongiy iyoiameoAed the same 1877 Governor Hendddks again I*M to the Legislature: “Tbe laws regulating our elections ately amended sqmito give the needed protection. Her% then, we have the clear avowal by a Republican Governor and by a Democratic Governor that tbe election law* are imperfect; I appeal to the Legislature to amend the constitution, Governor Hendrick* says: “Our elections joust not become a reproach”—a sentence that danger pf furthbr Oetay. In 1877 the Deutaiature proposed and passed Seven amendments. In obedience to the constitution of Indiana these amendments remained before the people, for examination and criticism, two year*. Whfls touspending, a new Legislature was elected by tne people, with a full knowledge that this new Legislature would be called upon to either adopt or reject these amendments. This n*w Legislature, in 1879, after full discussion, repassed and adopted these amendments a*d passed a law submitting them

to the vote of the people for final ratification. Has there been any indecent haste about this, matter! Is there need for more time for consideration, a* suggested by this same Governor 'Hendricks in his recent lame attempt to defend the partisan decision of the majority of the Supreme Court! What are these amendments! Let us see if they are good, and worthy the support of men who desire the good of the State above party advantage. 7/ ' ’ Amendment No. 1. To protect the ballot-box by preaeriblng th* qualifications and residence of voters. Nos. 2 and A To conform the constitution of the State to that of the United States in relation to colored persons. No. 3. To change the time of holding general elections from October to November, and to provide fdr separate elections for Judge* of courts. N 0.5 Tograde or equalise fees and salaries, of nubile officers. Ho. 6. To confer upon the Legislature power to establish additional courts when needed. - No. 7. To limit the indebtedness of all munieipal corporations to two per cent- on taxable property. Are not these amendments needed! Are they not good, and calculated to advance tbe best interests of the State! No Democrat will dare to deny either preposition. By a careful estimate it has been ascertained that these amendments, if they bad not been overthrown by the court, would have saved annually to the taxpayers of Indiana in dollars and cents not less than #1.000,000. Yet no sooner had tbe time for voting on them been fixed than ttae Democratic leaders, with a few honorable exceptions, began to anwy the party against them, and strive to defeat them. Their ratification or rejection was made a party issue all over the State, and tbe party machinery, even to the party lash, waa used to compass their defeat at tbe polls. But the people saw through the partisan trickery, bad faith and evil intent of the Democratic leaders, and condemned them by an overwhelming majority in favor of every one of the seven amendments. By the law a special election was called for Anril sth, 1880, the sole object of which was to vote for or against each of these amendments separately. It was a distinct aad separate election, in no manner connected with the usual township election, which occurred on the same day. The ballots, ballot-boxes pud returns of the election on tbe amendment* were entirely separate and distinct from those of the township election. For convenience, and to save expense and loss of time, this special election wa* fixed for the same day as the township election. On April 5, 1880. §21,842 voters of Indiana attended this special election, and by their ballets expressed their will regarding these amendments. The strong fight of the Democratic party waa directed against the - amendment to protect the ballot-box, consequently that amendment received the smallest majority of any of the seven, but even that amendment was carried by 17,116 majority. The highest majority gained was on the amendment to grade or equalize fees and salaries, aad was 45,710. Thia waa a grand triumph of the people over the Democratic leaders, and it cut them to the quick. The good citizens of Indiana breathed freer and felt safer after that triumph. But the Democratic leaders could not abide the fate they saw inevitable, if honest elections were to

be the rule, and instantly began to plot for the overthrow of the express will or the people, as recorded by their votes. Their only way to escape the result they so much dreaded was to resort to a Democratic Supreme Court. To that court they hastened with a carefully “cooked dp” case. The tims was short. The Democratic emergency was greet. The Cincinnati convention was rapidly-approaching. The “favorite son” Was—or thought he was—a candidate for the presidency. The “favorite son,” and he alone, could carry Indiana. To give him importance as a presidential candidate, it must be made apparent that the “one thing needful” for Democratic success to to carty Indiana, Indiana could .not bo made important as the battle-ground of the campaign if It remained, a November State —where the adoption of the amendments placed it—hence Indians must be restored to the list at October States. That could only, bo dene by overthrowing and trampling upon the righto and the expressed will efthe people by annulling the amendments. What mattered that to the Dsmocracyl What cared they for the interests of the people, when those interests clashed with the interests of the Democratic party 1 The evidently prearranged rejection ofa Demoocatic vote, on the ground of lack of sixty days residence as required by the amendments, by a Democratic inspector at the city election la Now Albany, on May A 1880, was the foundation oi the made-up suit. The inspector was immediately indicted by • grand jury, tried by a Democratic Circuit Court and acquitted—th» Democratic circuit judge holding correctly that the amendments were legally adopted and were in full force. That ended the case forever so £ ar v*^ t S e De . rn . (x ' I rwtt s was concerned: he had neon tried and acquitted, and could not be tried again. no matter what the Supreme Court might decide. 'The State took an appeal to the Supremo Court. The record was made out and filed la the SupretheCourt, the appeal perfected, the errors joined, the canse advanced on the docket and set down for oral argument all before the Slat of May—moat extraordinary and unheard of celerity. On May 31, counsel Sored the court to postpone the argument a w days to give time for preparation-. The court postponed the cause until June 15. On thatdM’the oral argumeot began and ooto tinu<4 three days, staffing Thursday noon, Juns opintan ffi th*majority of the court overthrow* tag the ameadmento was rendered, fllad and made pa brie, although it was dearly physically <rf tea opinion--not to say anything about the ttaw required to oompoaa and put into shape buba Aft * amount of coroikwlflow, aad any‘do“nbtVhe R opi h n°ion Worths men courtesy and the Plata duty of every to it by eoanseli The answer la plain. The Democratic tians wure meeting at Cincinnati. The tassetatieapf Indiana’s “favorite son” were already on the field of battie-rtooou to become their Waterloo. They longed for news from the Supreme Court with whieh to start their Vote of three to two- They’d be glad to bear it.” That statesnent, made by one of the judges of the court to aa officer of the Democratic State central eommittee, aad the decision ft heralded Will certainly add nothing ta Mil honor and fair faeae of the highest court in Indiana. Talk about this not l*lng* Partisan oecision procured for the purpose at advanoing the intereata of the Democratic !S*?* >«* » ««ta »?to the matter ecto of a political party, and see if it has Jaw, precedent or reason in its support. The sonstitn-1 tion of Indiana declares (art. 16, see. 1): “It I shall be the duty of the General Assembly to

11 mu l. Ttart to ratify thsa* ssveral fsita to the coMttUHte..\ mfijortv of aiMbe entitled to vote ta Indtaaao* April 5.18801 ZS *e that * mgfority of perils entitlS **• TOU< M 3. That notwithstanding th* rnmfilluTtaa provide* axpMeitlx for vote* agadMfi 'aawatt Ml the ha ata', U* 11 ““ Y**“ «•*•*•»- other election, held on the same day that araartß- ■»«»* fit* voted upon.HßMt ba east ta tire Bses-sssS "It must be prorated that other votes Om those for sad aguinatthe amendments were cm* at th* «ame time,” and upon this rrtminhllMl unsupported *y reason and rtteriy incapabMite This is, ta eflbot, giving to an unwarranted •■•* sumption the satae force and power that JwEo Biddle derives from the Judicial knowleZS, Tuts is tbe position ot Judges Worden m 3 Howk, If Judge Biddle UndeMM them. * . tt •;? ”33 each amendment shall determinetiS result. Tbe two sections consMoMA sss»S.Bsaperson* niltitei by law to vote, Mt personsaatually voting, just as the word "Sectors" ta Ufa second Motion evidently ffieans actual votere. !t would be absurd to provide for a neratiw vote, it every person not voting for is tote counted as voting against an amendmeafi. Again, no man or court ever did or can knew. Judicially or non-Judiclally, the number sons entitled to vote in Indiana on any gfv*B day. It ia an utter impossibility. How ; mi*Bp electors died on that day! How many eamosA s*?t.‘ :r^, ' her ’ rU6 become entitled to vote on ttw* day! How absurd the proposition! The arguments of counsel in support of theea amendment# proved conclusively that the tramers.of tbe constitution intended that a majority qf|he vofo* east should determine the retaat that both the legislative and executive d*ra2 meats of the government have construed it; that in analogous eases thifi'Mb - prems Court has so decided; that the court*' to England, the Supreme Court of the United was all of no avail. The funny part of this Ao<sl,lon I’ tty® l the court decidesin effect that tt Judicially Knows that a majority of the persoM entirlpd'to vote ta Indiana on April 8, IMA, did not vote for tbe ratification of these amendments. Three hundred and twenty-one tiMßsand eight hundred and forty-two votes ww oast, and the amendments were carried by nreJpritiea ranging from 17,000 to 45,000. How did this court find out judicially that 160.92 S was not a majority of the electors of Indiana w April 5, 1880! The record of tbe case tained no evidence on tbe subject. No State record contained the information. Vte Should the court Judicially presume that mom votes were cast at the township elections-3 which no returns ever reaeh the office of tta Secretary of State—than at the more important election called to pass upon changes of the <mbstltution! Courts take judicial knowledge off particular facts only when proved by comnatrad evidence In the case before them. But In thto case, Judge Worden, In the argument, suggeatoi the newspapers as a mine from which the Supreme Court* could dig judicial knowledge o< libitum. That settles all doubt- If the neito papers state that Indiana has a minion quottfled electors the Supreme Court will at ooea know, judically, that It will take 500,001 vote* to ratify a constitutional amendment. Tkta matter of judicial knowledge, a* Interpreted by the Indiana Supreme Court, has some curio* . gill of whisky is a less quantity than a quart of whisky! Boon after it decided, with equal aaIpninltF, that it could and would take indirita knowledge that cigars are a necessity, and tfanfi * therefore the sale ot them by a hotel-keeperew Sunday iaho violation of tbe Sunday law! Ab* bow fae have ft. taking judicial knowledge offs fact that Was not only not proved in the oase, but that could not by any possibility have beat proved, and all this in order to defeat the win of tiie people In attempting to protest the ballotbox from corruption and fraud. Does any lawyer attempt to defend this decision! Does anvhAfiy defend it except Democratic leader* and offiao£e man most deeply interested In the decision—ha*, tn ni* speech at Marion, on the 12th of Augtat. dome weakly and haltingly to ite defense. And what is his defense!

, He admits that ha rennmipendcd thejsliMifcmente, but says that the Legislature coupled with his proposition a registration law whichS did not recommend, and which he “deemed unfortunate.” Indeed! Indeed 11 This to defence number one, that the Legislature saw fit to an beyond the dictation of Thomas A. Hendrtoka. and therefore the court did right in inc the amendments. 2. Defense number two is. if possible, a weaker and more. cowardly defense, and lacks ths savor of fairness. Hear it: “Upon Um ctw tlons of law the Democratic judges Were equally divided, and the decision was pronounced Im Judge Biddle; who to not a Democrat, but ladwpendent in politics.” Magnanimous Hendrtekal The business has turned out badly, and H«» dricks, with amazing Ingratitude, tries to shield the prominent members of his party la tea court, and throw the odium of the derision upon poor old Judge Biddle, whw sold himself to the Democracy for a seat on the supreme bench. This to a noble defense at -the court, to it notf Biddle not a Democi2 He was nominated by the Democracy, stated by the Democracy, and has from that rima to this exhibited the symptoms aad manifest the natural instincts of Democracy. -s 3. number three, as offered tar Ife Hendricks, to more serious and plaees Um to ao very pleasant attitude. He says: “X thfaS the court was right. Are you willing that esw constitution and form of State governnseM shall be changed by less than half the peoptri * • * The constitution protests our mam nifleent school tana from any loss. Can rbitofr changed by toss than half the people! By earnstltutional provisions we are made secure IaUB our personal and domestic righto. Who d» mauds a modification unless full one-half tte people consenrf” Mr. Hendricks to a * n 18 7 3 ** ’’••i Governor .Ji oath to WPPOrt the fidelity ths laws. The binding obligation at Ma oath was even broader aad more <mmmsuhenrive than tills By it he was bound to’aais that the constitution aad laws wme execute! justly, truly and legally. He was etoeted Omeroor in October, 1872. At that State mmßm 977,700 electors voted in Indiana. Mr, Hemdrieks knew tbffMifignres well. In February. 1873, the constitutional emeadsneet foswv* JU. .«« only tLTES Sfi 159,130 votes to manv thousand votes Jess ttan one-half of 377,70), the nnmber enffi St the etectioa br which he was made GoverZ Itad yet M March 7, 1873, Mr. Hndricfea 3 Governor of Indiana, acting under oefih. srtK.£S?-Ei "X Tumcrs smsuwess 2? at least 30,450 tees than one-half nt CwW Do,on boliov, btm wboo be m,. SSWS acting as Governor, under oath, he issued a set preme Oourtf,. y