Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 52, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 September 1884 — Page 10

ISSUES BEFORE THE PEOPLE

F - A Strong Argument Touching All Questions of National Importance. Words for the Bolting Republicans—Discussion of the Tariff and Pensions; with Something About the Candidates. On Saturday night. Aug. S 3, a Republican mass-meeting, held in the Park Theater, Indianapolis. was addressed by Senator Benjamin Harrison. who said: Fellow Citizens: The campaign will hardly produce a more felicitous and comprehensive do scription of the Democratic party than that given by George W. Curtis in the Republican National convention in Juno last. He said: W« »re confronted with the Democratic partv. very hungry, and, as you mss' well believe, very thirsty; a party without a -single definite principle; a party witbont any dietin'*? ye*-- 1 "* 1 p .11.-v which it - daws -to present to the aonntrv: a party which foil from power as a conspiracy against hitman rights, and . now attempts to sneat back to power as a conspiracy for plunder and spoils. Our Democratic friends now .very generally cohcur in the opinion that Mr. Curtis is a man —of great sagacity This fa vorable opinion vloes not perhaps rest v.noa the onotation I have made, but more probably upon the fact that Hfy Cntnrs has now become an active associate in the “conspiracy for plunder and spoiis.” Ido not und.-rstaud however that he has now another or a better opinion of the Democratic party. If he advocates the election of the Democratic candidates, it is not because they represent any “definite principle" or have avowed “any distinct natioual policy.” It is not because the party has ceased tp represent, “a conspiracy for plunder and spoils" —but because, in the language of the independent Republican platform—“the paramount, issue of the presidential election of this year is moral rattier than political.” Mr. Ourtbs and Jiis associates have concluded that public morals would be advanced and elevated by placing in the control of the government a party that he and they declare has no higher pur pose than “plunder and spoils.” The newspapers that have imputed to these geutlemen a difference with their party upon the subject of the protection of American industry, as the real motive of their organized bolt have done them a kindness—notwithstanding the .imputation involves a charge of insincerity. These independents, in their platform, say “we are very proud of the great, record and services of the Republican party, Amt not with our consent or connivance shall the record be disgraced;” and forthwith,to save the Republican party from disgrace, these gentlemen leave us and go into the Democratic party. It was not Our suggestion—we did not think it. was necessary—but perhaps they know best, I hope they will not make the mistake of supposing that all public and private viv tue went out of the Republican party when they opened the door; or the more fatal one. that the Democratic party will cease to Vie a “Conspiracy for plunder and spoils” by reason of the sanctifying power of their presence; I cannot but think that these gentlemen them selves regret that they refused to allow any issue to enter this campaign except that of the moral character of the candidates. Their course invited personalities, and there are always those who respond to such an invitation, The prayer of the’ Pharisee invites a comparison, and that may involveunpleasant consequences. But if the issues of the campaign are moral, do they necessarily have relation only to the candidates? Cannot morals be predicated of a party? A “conspiracy against human rights," cannot he converted" into a moral propaganda by the selection of any leader. If the captain of the “Morning Star” were to be chosen to command a pirate ship, you would not expect the passenger list to be made up of Missionaries or the cargo of Bibles. It would bo safer to sail in the “Morning Star," even if it was found that the captain had not received ordination. The ship's papers are right. There is not one of these independents who does not know, who has not in substance said, that the Republican party has an instinct for the right side —the moral side —of public questions. It may not always have come up ‘o the highest expression of the truth, hut it has been on the side of truth, and it has been progressive. There is not one of them who does not know, who has not in substance said, that the Democratic party Jias an infallible instinct for the wrong side—the immoral side—of public questions. If there has tieeu, or is. in this country an intrenched evil one that has votes—the Democratic party has never failed to enter into convention with it.

There is a party conscience and morality as well as an individual, and if the issue of this campaign is moral rather than political, we appeal again to the moral set,violent of the people in behalf of a party that lms illustrated m its history the virtues of philanthropy, patriotism and public honesty, and Against a party that iffts walked in friendship with slavery, treason afcd repudiation. These Cleveland Republicans affect to have discovered, since they made up their minds to support Mr. Cleveland, that the Democratic and Republican parties do not essentially differ upon questions of public policy. Mr. Curtis, Mr. Scliurz. and many of their associates, have been understood to be civil service reformers. Are they willing to have then sincerity judged by a comparison of the two platforms.upon the subject of the civil service! In the Republican platform I read: Reform of the civil service, auspiciously liesun under* Republican administration, should be completed by the further extension of the reform system ab'eady established by law. to ill! the grades of' the service to which it is applicable. The spirit and purpose of the reform should be observed in ail executive appointments. AH taws ntTurianee with the objects of existing reform legislation, should tie repealed, to the cud that the dangers to-trey ..institutions which lurk in the power of official patronage may be wisely and effectively avoided. In the Democratic platform I read: "We favor honest civil-service reform '—not a word more. TWO DECLARATIONS. Now these two declarations may not mnl;o what the lawyers would call an issue; but the one is a full, frank, candid indorsement of the civil-service law now os the statute book, and a pledge to extend the principle of that law till ?üblie office shall cease to be the spoils of party. 'he other is evasive, reluctant, incomplete. It contains no indorsement of the existing law. and ' would not be crossed by its repeal. It is in the I very terms used by Democrats who opposed and ' ridiculed the existing law. Mr. Yoorhees hits used in public speech much the language of the platform, and.yet lie denounced the. civil-' service law in the Senate as an aggravation of existing evils, and voted against it. He advised the Southern senators to leap from the dome of the Capitol rather than vote for it His idea of an “honest civil service reform’’ was thus expressed: “If the Democratic party ascends to power, 1 believe it will be for ' the benefit of the service. It will purify it. give I new life and new blood by waking a thorough i and a radical change. " Mr. Hendricks, fresh from the convention, and one of its nominees, declares, in substance, that he knows of no way of testing the honesty of the present incumbents of the offices, except by turning them out aud putting in Democrats He is sure that at least 50,000 should go at once. There is not a civil-service reformer in the co.un try who does not know that the reform ho eher- i ishcb and which has made such cheering prog ress will be turned back to its spring, and the spring sealed up, if the men who framed the Democratic platform at Chicago eomo into power. I prophesied a year ago that Mr. Pendleton would becotae lonely by reason or the cornice tion of his name with the civil-service law—but 1 did uot then foresee how utter his loneliness would be. If civil-service reform is a minor is•ue, let those who have magnified it say so: but let them not part company with us on the pretense that there is uo issue between the parties on that subject. That there is a wide divergence in the plat forms of the, two parties upon the subject of the tariff. no ctfmlid man can deny. The issue pre sen ted upon this subject is emphasized and illus trutod by the history of the two parties, by' tks .legislation eoaetgd and proposed, and oy the public utterances of their leading men. They insist upon testing the nominees, not by party platforms, nor by individual professions, but By their lives. We dp not •brink from the test when applied to our cundi date*. We widen the inquiry, and ask you to look searchingly into the lives of tlm Democratic and Republican parties. The history of the

Democratic party for thirty years has been one of blunder, of retrogression, of prejudice, of ignorance. It has been an obstructive force in the flow of every rpform. Like a rolling stone in a mountain stream, it opposed but could not stay the movement of the waters, and made no progress except as it was pushed along by the forces which it resisted. An observing friend wrote -me recently that in his opinion Democrats were "like the lost tribes, Sieeking to reap where they did not sow.” There is. perhaps, some confusion in this scriptural metaphor, hut that helps rather tlian mars the likeness. Now. contrast with this the life of the Republicah party. It was patriotic when that virtue'involved sacrifice. It was honest when honesty involved the mo»t-oppressive tax burdens. It'has been the foe of slavery, of ignorance, of race prejudice. It hr. 3 emancipated a race from physical slavery and has sought to add the gifts -of- freedom of thought and action. It has voluntarily surrendered public patronage, and has' protected its official class from political assessments. Tt has been responsive to the most enlightened public sentiment, and has furnished from its own ranks the pioneer reformers whose earlier steps it has followed. All of these things are accepted as true by every' Republican who voted for Garfield in 1880 and have been more forcibly stated in speech and press by many of those who now propose to aid in turning the country over to the Democrats. Mr; Schurz has latgly liiade a suggestion intended to molify the grief Republicans would naturally feel in leaving their party. It is drawn from that fertile source of consolatory remark. “All flesh is grass.” lie reminded his hearers that the Republican party could not live althat .Hiiinetrioprrtr tnust, go util of power,— -After this sad thought had settled down upon the minds of his hearers he added: Well. then. 1 box you soberlv to consider whether, all things taken into account, the present time is not as propitious a one ns you can ever extract to find. This is almost as fine an illustration of a non aequitur as Hood’s picture of the man sitting in the vehicle from which his horse has become detached. Wo are not always justified in hastening what nature has made inevitable; That the Republican party must die in tlie course of nature does tiot. furnish a reason why its useful life should lie strangled by its friends. No patriotic man will help to destroy a party, or so put it out of power, except to subslitute a better one—one that averages better. The Democratic-par-ty has given no evidence that it has lost its aptitude for blundering. Its restoration to power is no less to day than in previous campaigns a menace to the business interests of the country. Its hostility to our currency system, especially to the national banks; its rude and.clumsy assaults upon our revenue system, and the saturnalia of spoils it would inaugurate are full, of peril to the commercial and industrial interests of the country, and to the orderly transaction of its public business. No ojio could tell what to expect, and a period of business unrest am! apprehension would inevitably aiTOTbpanyits accession to power. What would it do? Can Mr. Morrison tell us, or Mr. Randall? With a majority of about eighty in the I louse of Representatives it was unable, in a seven months’ session, to do anything thlit was useful, except tet pass the appropriation bills, and it was very slow about that. To have a party come into power that has “no definite principles” leaves every thing to chance.- Forecast is impossible. The time will not be “auspicious" for putting the Democratic party into power until that party discovers and adheres to some fixed principles; until the civil-service reform has been extended and luts become so rooted, that this “very hungry und very thirsty” party cannot tear.it up; until tho-Kouthern question has-been-settled and the electoral vote of the South is no longer counted before the ballots are cast. It may be that Congress is powerless to secure to our colored citizens in some of tlie Southern States the free exercises of their political rights, but when such bloody outrages aS those of Danville and Hazlehurst occur, it isrSomcthing to have the majority report” on the side of honest and peaceublo .elections. It would be well to wait until that party shows some willingness to forget and some capacity to learn; until it improves its rest from governing by some wise suggestion in legislation. The march of the ages Ys upward. The doajJL things of ti\o past are stepping stones to higher tilings— not lower —and an upward career will not lead the country into the Democratic camp. The suggestion of Mr. Schurz is premature —it belongs to some coming generation. It should be indefinitely postponed.

The Tarltf Question. Let its look a little into the details, and see what the Democratic party has done in that branch.of the government where i t has been -inpower. It liashad a majority in the House of Representatives since Dec. ISTo, with the ex capt.ion~of t.vvo.years ami during'the Forty-sixth Congress had a majority in the Senate also. At all the elections which returned these Democratic majorities the loudest professions and promises, of reform legislation were made to the people. The existing revenue system was denounced as a thieving oppression, and yet three whole Congresses and tlie long ui'i.i-.ion of another have passed, and nothing has been accomplished except some minor mbdiUca tion of the law in respect of the tax on whisky, tobacco and quinine. In a single Congress (Forty-seventh 1 the Republicans, with a very small majority in the House and a majority in the {Senate only by the Readjustor votes, constituted a tariff commission, received its report, and enacted a new tariff law, going over the entire schedule, item by item. Ido not say this law is wise and perfect in every detail: no tariff schedule ever Was. It may not have accomplished as great a reduction of revenue as was anticipated, but it was a sincere and intelligent effort in that direction. while maintaining tile principle of discrimination in favor of American industries. It appears from the latest, report of the Bureau of Statistics that our customs receipts for 1834 were 4 $20,000,0000 less than in ISB3. Before the operations of the law Of 1882 had been fairly tested, and while the manufacturing. and importing interests were still in the process of adjusting themselves to the new schedule, a Democratic House of” Representatives was organized by the election of _.n_five_tradeJS.mmkerTwlio organized the committee of ways ana means in the interest of what is called revenue reform. Three, -mouths of the session passed Before "any action was taken. Then the "Morrison bill" came forth. Its principal feature was a horizontal reduction of 20 per cent, of the existing duties. That is.one fifth of the duties fixed by the tariff law of 1883 was remitted to the importer. It was a confession of inahilitv to deal with the question intelligently and in detail. It was not only stupid but wicked, unless it was conceded that the existing duties were-, relatively equal, and that the conditions of life in all our industries were the same. Both of these things were denied. A Democratic campaign had been made and won in Ohio upon tilt proposition that the reduction of the duty on wool in the act of 1833 was out of proportion, to that on woolen goods, and yet the Morrison bill took no note ot this discrepancy, hut again reduced the duty on whol. it was a “revenue only" —I beg pardon, the phrase lias been changed-a “revenue exclusive ly’’ biil. The representatives of bu-rclabororgani-zations came before Mr. Morrison’s committee and protested against the bill as prejudicial, to their interest and to the interests of the country, hut their plea went unheeded. Two gentlemen—declared representatives of Now York and Brooklyn free trade eluliS —also came before the committee to give the sanction of their opinion and that of their clubs to the Morrison hill. Let me quote briefly from one of them, Mr. E. Ellery Anderqpn. He said: 1 have been instructed to come before ycu on behalf of the Free TradeClnb pf Xe,v York city. One of my associates who is with me represents the Free lYade lasagne and the Brooklyn Reform Club. and all of us together represent substantially the same intei-est; that is the interest of persons who. while they have not had to any great extent the advantage of actual and personal contact with business, have made the subject a matter of reflection and study. Thov have given much thought to it. and having re«< hoi the Conclusion that the general freedom _ of trade in all matters is the best for the interests of the whole community, they have felt compelled to come bes re you to say that they indorse tiie principles of the pending bill. A FRKK TRADE MEASURE. I have read this extract for two purposes: First, to show that the Morrison bill was accepted by those clubs as a free-trade measure: and second, as containing * most frank confession of the fact that the gentlemen tor whom Mi-. E. Ellery Anderson spoke, had been mostly

S UP P L E M E H" T.

so fortunate as to escape any "personal contact with business.” 1 need not say that Mr. Anderson rejected altogether what ho called the “sentimental view of American labor. He further said: This brings me to discussing other questions as to the effect of this bill upon the general industries; for while I might admit the proposition that some of these people would shut np shop, certain it is that the number of persons who would be thereby thrown out of employment would find something else to do. As to tho industries themselves, in the next place, I say that hardly any of them or none at all would go out of existence. I call the attention- of tho committee first te this law, that the reduction of the tariff will immediately .raise the, prices of the articles that come from abroad, and that that rise in prices will in part offset the fall of prices that might occur in this country. Take any manu,, factored article, lind reduce the tariff on it by 20 per cent., and the immediate effect of that reduction will be to raise the price of'that article abroad.* * * * The result of this is to ease up the difficulty very much. Men are not compelled to face she whole reduction. but, only a part of it. With what composure these free-trade gentle, men, who have never had any “personal contact with business;” contemplate'' the shutting" 'tipTpf shops and the extinction of industries, and how easy it is, in their fancy, for the displaced operativps to “find something else to do!” But the most noticeable thing about this statement is, that this official representative of the New York Free Trade Club.attemptsto ease down our manufacturers by an argument and a statement of fact that completely overturn the stock argument of the anti protectionists. Here, in Indiana, Mr. McDonald has been telling us that the.tariff duty was. added to the cost to the cot; sniper,ol_the impnrted.mrihrie t the (fc>st of the competing domestic article. The prices of goods in Canada were quoted, and we were told that but for the tariff we would gfet them at the same prices here. Now, Mr. Anderson says that when the foreign maker of a fabric is kindly relieved, by the Morrison bill, of “0 per cent, of the duty, he will add as much of it as he can to the price of his goods. If we get his goods any cheaper than before, it will be because this legislation has not gone so far as to utterly destroy home competition,. Upon Mr. Anderson's admission, the benefits to accrue to the English manufacturer from tho Morrison hill were very direct and clear. It, relieved him of a tax which he.was paying into our treasury and gave him an increased profit on his goods. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson admits that the bill might close some American shops and extinguish some American industries, sending tins ojierattves to find other employment if they could, while the consumer, in whose interest the experiment is made, must take the chance of having to pay as much for his. goods as before. The fate of this bill is known to you all. On motion of Mr. Converse, of Ohio, a Democrat, the enacting clause was stricken out. The Dein ocratic members from this State all voted against tho motion of Mr. Converse, except Mr. Wood, who was absent. ATTITUDE OF THE PAItTTKS. It is not my intention to discuss the tariff question at this time, further than to show the attitude of the parties. The weight of opinion in tho Democratic party is for “a tariff for revenue only"—oue in the framing of which no account shall be taken of its effect upon our Amercan industries and American workmen. It may not be able to pass any tariff bill, probably not,, for tlie protective sentimeht'is spreading in the new South —but ns long as it has a majority it will continue to attempt the nice work of a surgeon with"the tools, of a carpenter. ‘ Some concessions will be made in platform phraseology to save hero a senator and there a member of Congress—by misleading the laboring men. They may change, to piease Carter Harrison, “the juxtaposition of the word ‘only,’’’ or quiet Mr. Voorhees's fears by the substitution of the word “exclusively," but when’ the caucus assembles and a bill is to, be framed it is one that the free-trade league approves. Th.e Republican party, on the other hand, holds to the doctrine that in fixing tariff rates tho effect of the rate proposed upon American industries and upon the wages of American . work men shouldhe carefully ami kihdly-etmsid-ered. We do not think that the shutting up of shops' or the extinguishment of industries is4v pleasant work. We have not reached the plane of that cold philosophy which refuses to recognize a closer relationship and a higher duty to the American workman and his family than to the English. The foundations of our national security and life are not of stone—tho good will and good conscience of our voting population support the stately fabric. Contentment is a condition of good will, and has an important relation to a good conscience. Good wages promote contentment. The cry of the free trader is for a cheaper coat, an English coat, and lie does not seem to care that this involves a cheap; 1 pinna of the men and women wlio spin,'and weave, and cut, and stitch. He may even deny this. But let one of these gentlemen whose lives have been so favored that they have never had any "personal contact with business” go into any great manufacturing establishment and tell the grimy w irkmen that the product of their work is to be reduced 23 per cent, in the market. He will see that the men who have had a very rough “personal contact with business" at once understand that the hope of better wages is~ com*, aud that lower wages are imminent—lt is no answer to say that the manufacturer ought to stand the reduction himself. Perhaps in some eases lie ought. In other cases lie could not without, producing his goods at a loss. I may admit that selfishness,is the genius that presides in the mill office, but even this evil genius can bo made to serve the workman when the product of the mill is in demand at good prices. Ido not say that our American workman gets al! the benefit he ought to enjoy from a protective tariff, but I do believe that his condition and that of his family is vastly better than it would,be under a free-trade or tariff-for revenueonly policy. If is noticeable that even the McDonald school of Democrats take great comfort in what they call the "incidental protection." which a tariff for revenue, will afford to our industries and to our workmen. They admit the benefit of-proteetion. but insist that it must be an accident As I said once before, we, on the other baud, prefer that the good shall be designed, and so, intelligert But4f I speak to Republicans who differ with me and with their party on this subject, there is still common ground; First, in our common belief that the Democratic party is an incapable instrument of any reform; se< <nid, hr our conviction, drawn from, history, iluitjmr party faces the dawn always—if the light is with you, do not run away with its and, thirdly, in- our common belief "that the reform of the civil service, so auspiciously begun, must be kept iu friendly hands. To those who.must go we give the salutation of Wamba. “Pax vobisoum,” which he said might be used either for bau or blessing, and turn ourseK os to receive a multitude of those who have had personal contact with the business of life in the shop and oil the farm; of those who do not believe that the acme of American statesmanship is reached in legislation that enhances the price of British goods and reduces tho wages of American workmen. Rut the incapacity of a Democratic House of Representatives did not exhaust itself in the attempted tariff legislation. Rebuilding Hie Navy.The building of a navy (for we have practically no navy I was another question that uncovered the utter lack of capacity, patriotism or statesmanship of a Democratic House of Representatives. It is one that involves not only the national honor and influence, but the safety of our seaboard cit : The highest military and naval authorities of the pouutry have again and again, in official reports to Congress, declared that we are without a navy, and that our seacoast defenses are not worthy of the name. We have uo guns for our ships, none for our coast fortifications We have one first-el ass wooden ship of war —the Tennessee —but she is making her last cruise. A law of Congress pro vides that when the repairs of a wooden vessel shall equal 30 per cent, of her value, she shall be sold or broken up. We have eleven wooden vessels of the second class, and five of them will not again be repaired. Iu his testimony before the national committee .iu February last, Admiral Porter said: Iha to been locking over the list. All these matters of the survey and inspection of ships come under my supervision, and therefore I can see by looking , over the list of ships exactly what vessels are going to be retired. Here is the Tennessee—one of the largest> vessels we have—she has only two years to go. Some may last a little longer than' that, but under the present law we shall really have nothing in four years that we can send to sea. What a pitiable exhibit for a country like this

is the report of the chief of engineers of the army, who states: Not one of onr ports has any defense against even an enemy of very inferior character. I know this to be the case from mv own observation. There is not a harbor in the country where an ordinary iron clad could not pass the batteries, choosing its own time for so doing. The utter helplessness and nakedness of our country in the matter of ships and coast defenses is conceded by every American, and known in every foreign court It is a subject of amazement and mortification that, with abundant resources, this Nation should consent to occupy sp contemptible a position ainong tlie maratirpe riations of the world. There is more than one South American government that has a, navy with which ours cotild not cope. It has been said upon the highest authority that Chili has armored ships that could sail into the harbor of San Francisco and put that great city uudor contribution at pleasure. Several years ag9 Congress constituted a naval advisory board, composed of the most skillful officers in the navy and the most experienced naval constructors from civil life, to devise a scheme for building a navyr This board- made its report and in me Forty seventh Congress, which, asyou recollect, was Republican in both branches, a till was passed providing for the Construction of four steel cruisers, and for the Completion of the four monitors, the construction of which had been suspended. At the last session of Congress the Senate passed a bill providing for the construction of additional vessels; three of them to be substantially' like those now building; two heavy-armed gunboats. two light gunboats, one steel ram, one cruising torpedo boat and two harbor torpedo boats. Tiiis bill not having received favorable action in the House, was adopted as an amendment to the naval appropriation bill when that bill came to the Senate. The House had' refused even to make an appropriation for,;the armament of the vessels that were in process of construction. An amendment providing means for completing this armament was-aiso put upon the bill m the Senate When the bill, thus amended, was returned to the House the Senate amendment providing for the armament of these vessels was concurred in by the House, over the opposition of Mr. Raudall and liis Democratic associates on the committee of appropriations, forty-nine Democrats voting with the Republicans, against their party, in favor of the amendment. —-The (Senate amendment- providing for the construction of additional cruisers was rejected by the House. The conference ootnmittee being unable to agree, the expedient of continuing the naval appropriations of last year for six months was resorted to, and to get the consent of the House to this we were forced to consent to a provision repealing ail appropriation made by the last Congress for the completion of the monitor Mouadnoek at San Francisco. ■ ant, voorhees’s idea of a navy.

'With soma honorable'exceptions, there was great unanimity among the Democrats in opposing this effort to put afloat some ships over which our flag might float without shame. Mr. Toorhees, when the bill for the construction of these cruisers was before the Senate, had something to - say- upon the subject. His argument wss that there was no need of building seven Vessels, because that would-not be enough to enable us to engage the British navy. He said: I would like to ask," what "good can rejmlt from keepiug afloat, seven, vessels/ If seven me -needed, 100 are needed. If 100 ate not needed, seven are not needed. He then proceeded to show the naval strength of the great powers of the world, and triumphantly concluded that seven vessels- would he entirely inadequate to cope with any one of them. The law of growth seems to have been lost sight of by Mr. Yoorhees. He was not willing to begin building a navy, but wan ted to build it all at once. If he had applied the same philosophy to his infant studies, lie would never have acquired the alphabet, for ho might have said.with equal logic and triumph: “What is the use of learning the first letter, as it will be an insufficient outfit for a spelling-bee?’' "If war was imminent,” he said, “I would vote to build 100 ships. 1 would vote to mount 1,000 guns." I wonder how long ho thinks war will remain imminent before it becomes overt Where will he find t-lie yards in which to set up his 100 ships, sufficiently remote from deep water to make it certain that he will get the first plate on their rilfs before some iron-clad throws a 2,000puuud projectile into the yard? In the same speecli Mr. Yoorhees gives this account of our-re-lations with England: “We have," lie said, “some altercations occasionally with England. She confines our citizens lu llin'jails whenever she pleases,- she hangs them without .much respect for the authority of this government; she holds them as long as she pleases, and liberates them only as she choosos. 1 have thought sometimes it would be difficult to kick or coerce this government into a war with England.” Is it not past understanding how a senator who can thus describe his own government as submitting tamely to outrages upon her citizens, can at the some time oppose the building of additional vessels of war that might enable us to make our diplomatic interventions in behalf of our citizens efficient? Must not diplomacy always be timid and halting when the relative condition of the two nations is such as he described? Is it not plain that it would require a good deal of kicking to induce any administra-, tion to engage in a war with any of the great powers while our navy remains in its present contemptible condition? Does lie hope, or does anyone hope that this government can exercise its’fuHest power in the protection of citizens who may have a temporary domicile in other countries without any war ships upon the sea? Senator Jones, of Florida, himself an Irishman. and an American as well as an Irish patriot, understood this matter better than Mr. Voorheeas, I think. He said; In niy position oil the naval committee I have had ail opportunity, as I stated before, of ascertaining the necessities of this branch of the public service, and I made up my mind that in any way that I could vbte to add a new ship to the navy I would do it. * * * We have had a recent illustration in the case of one of the American governments of the relation of a navy to diplomacy. Mr. John E. Wheeloek, a citizen of the United States, in the year 1879 was arrested by a civil officer of the Venezuelan government upon the charge of theft, of which he was afterwards fully exonerated. In order to extort a'confession from him he was subjected to .the most savage tortures; suspended by the arms and afterwards hung up by the legs head downward. He applied to our government for indemnity. and in pressing his claim addressed numerous letters to members of Congress, amoug Others to Mr. Abram S., Hewitt, a Democratic Representative from New York. In his reply, dated House of Representatives of the United States, Dec. 9, 1833, Mr. Hewitt said: In order to secure prompt redress you must be awaie. however, that when a foreign nation refuses indemnity there is but one alternative, which is to institute reprisals and, ultimately, go to war. Much as you have suffered. I presume you would scarcely be willing to plunge the two governments into the actual condition ot‘ warfare, and it is a humiliating fact that we could not hope to succeed in such a contest because we have no r.avy. and Venezuela could issue letters of marque under which our commerce could be destroyed. Mr. Wheeloek says: When these wnnctU are published in Spanish in every South American State, with Hewitt's admissions, they will■eousiilute a carte blanche for "the robbery us every American citizen in those countries. No American should think of traveling there without first protecting himself by assuming to be a British subject. Is it not humilitating beyond expression that a prominent Democratic representative should thus declare the inability of the government to obtain redress from an inferior power for outrages upon an American citizen, and that his party associates should at the same time be voting to withhold the necessary appropriation to arm the .four vessels we are building and against adding another to . thoir nuraberl It is not proposed by the Republican party to put afloat a navy which, assembledin one squadron, could do successful battle with the fleets of some of tho great European powers, but wy do propose, ana such was the view of the naval advisory board, to build, at once, a sufficient number of fast-sailing steel cruisers to constitute a bond for good behavior and fair treatment on the part of the other maritime nations of the world, and to construct for coast , and harbor defenses such armored ships and torpedo boats as will protect our great commercial cities of the seaboard. The occasional visit to foreign portsof a modern and well-equipped ship, bearing the flag of our Nation, challenges respect

and gives a sense of security to our citizens dwelling abroad. 1/like the resolution in our national platform upon this subject; We demand the restoration of Onr navy to its oldtime strength and efficiency, that it may, in any sea, protect the rights of American citizeps and the interests of- American commerce; and we call upon Congress to remove the burdens under which American shipping has been depressed, so that it may again be truo that we have a commerce which loaves no sea unexplored aud a navy which takes no law from superior force, WHAT DEMOCRATIC SECRETARIES HAVE DONE. The pretenses urged by Democrats against the bill to increase the navy were frivolous and evasive. Ido not intend to enter into any of Mr. Chandier against mere suspicions. It is enough to say that,the contracts let by him for the four ships ordered by the last Congress have not been challenged by any one for favoritism or corruption. I believe lie has administered his office with integrity and a patriotic pride in the speedy and economical construction of the ships which have been ordered. The frauds of a subordinate in the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were promptly' exposed and the guilty' parties arrested. We have had no recent experience as to what a Democratic Secretary of the Navy might do, but we have not altogether forgotten what one did, under the last Democratic administration. In 18G0 an inquiry was made by a committee of the House of Representatives into the abuses in the Navy Departmant. Favoritism in awarding contracts was shown to have pervaded the department.'amd there was unearthed from its rec ords a series 6f letters relating to the letting of contracts and the management of the navyyards of the most disgraceful character. Let me furnish a specimen or two. Take the following, which is shown by the indorsement to have been brought to the perspnal attention of the President, Mr. Buchanan; Philadelphia. Sept. 13, 1838. Dear Sir— l venture to . suggest to you the importance, of awarding the contracts for the machinery of the sloop now building at the navy-yard at this time, and if it cgn be done without prejudice to the public service; to Merrick & Sons. Theirs is the only establishment in the First district which employs a large number of mechanics; at this time, 390; when iu full work, -150. The managing partners (Mr. M., si., being absent, iii bad health) are full of energy, straining every nerve to keep their force during this depression, and, in so far as I know, the Only old Whigs of any influence in that district who are in favor of the re-election of Colonel Florence. . I know, from former experience, the value of that influence, and feel persuaded that it is the interest of the Demi -‘ratio party so increase it. The First district will, I hope, bo carried iti any event, but with that shop at work, full-handed, two . weeks prior to the election, the result would, I think, ~ be placed beyond all doubt. With much respect, W. 0. Patterson. Thfe President. This letter was sent to the Secretary .of thoNavy bv the President, with this indorsement: September 15, 1858. The inclosed letter from Col. Patterson, of Philadelphia, is submitted to the attention of the Secretary of the Navy. j, B. The machinery for a ship was to be let by contract, and on the 2d of -September, 1858, a Mr. Norris, one of the bidders, urged the acceptance of liis proposal in a letter to the Secretary thus: On the score of-‘polities, which I have never mentioned before. I have greater claims upon the government than my competitors. Our shop, at Bush Hill, -Philadelphia, was the first institution in this country that raised the banner of Buchauan and Breckinridge. The day after the nomination wo raised the standard, with full length portraits of the President ur.,l Vice president, am! at the election our shop furnished 7t!4 votes for them. Notwithstanding the present monetary depression, we gave 3.12 votes for the administration at the last election. We have supported the pair ty with material aid In' thousands of dollars, and worked hard, as any of the party in Philadelphia -will testify. . , A large mass of correspondence between members of Congress and the Secretary of the Navy, in relation to the employment of men in the navy-yard at Brooklyn, was unearthed by this committee. Hon. George Taylor writes to the Secretary of the Navy under date of Sept. 23, 1858: Dear Sir: I have been informed that Mr. Ward has consented to the removal of Mr. Kennedy, master stone-cutter iu the navy- yard. If this is true, let me beg you to appoint Mr. Jones, ito is one of the best mechanics in the State, and a perfect gentleman, and his appointment would increase my vote at least 20<> votes. I will require all the aid and the power of the administration, and this I ought to have, These are specimens, and only that, of the corrupt and partisan management that characterized the Navy Department under the last Democratic administration. These incidents are ancient, it is true, but they are, fortunately for the country',-the most recent history of Democratic administration. And whenever a Democrat indulges in history, he is sure to go still further back. He leaps over the gulf of treason and - corruption which lies between and talks about the purchase of Florida and Louisiana. I am not one of those who believe that personal integrity abides only in one party. The civil service of the country has been lifted up since the Republican party' has been in control, and its tendency was downward under Democratic control. When Mr. Hendricks denounces the prostitution of public office to party purposes 1 remind him that under the last Democratic administration no office or employment, from a Cabinet portfolio to a blacksmith’s forge, was giveu out until its relation to the success of the Farty in the next election had been considered. remind him, also, that several witnesses, on oath, before a House committee, have sworn that he himself, when Commissioner of the General was privy to an assessment of the clerks in his bureau to pay off a Democratic campaign debt in Pennsylvania. I remind him of these things, not to cool his indignation against the wrong, but only to suggest that when speaking of these things he say “mea culpa,” and that ho does not forget that a practice which his "party usage justified when he was Commissioner of the Land-office has been made a felony by a Republican Congress. Tlie Question of Pensions. The subject of enlarged relief to tlie soldiers of the late war and their widows was much pressed upon the attention of Congress at the lat-e session. In March last five soldiers, representing the Grand Army of the Republic, as a committee - on pensions, appeared before the pension committee of the Senate and sabmitted their views, as the representatives Of 220,000 veteran soldiers and sailors. They expressed their opposition to the propositions to distribute land warrants to soldiers, to equalize his pay with gold, and to pension all survivors of the war, without regard to disability or financial need. They recommended the pensioning of prisoners of war now sufering from disability; tlie extension of the arrears act to Jan. 1, 1885; tho inereaso of the pensions of widows froip $8 to sl2 per month; that the acceptance of a soldier should be prima fncie evidence of soundness; the continuance of a soldier’s pension to his widow without proof that he died from the disability for which he had been pensioned, and the granting of pensions to all honorably discharged Soldiers and sailors who aro now disabled and dependent upon their own labor for support, or who aro sixt.v-five years of age, without rerequiring proof that the disability arose from tho service. They also recommended an increase of pensions in certain other specified cases. Before the pension committee of the Senate had reported any bill upon the subject of pensions to the soldiers of the late war. the Mexican pension bill was passed by the House, March 3, 1884, and came to the Senate, where it was favorably reported, with some amendments, relating strictly to Mexican war pensions. This bill provided for a service pension of eight dollars per month to all the surviving officers and enlisted men who served sixty days during the Mexican war, or actually served with the army or navy (if only for one day) in Mexico, or were engaged in a battle, aud to their surviving widows. No exception was made of those who had afterwards served in the army pf the rebellion, and the bill, as it passed tho House, would have given to an officer or soldier who. having landed with our army at Vera Cruz immediately returned home, and who afterward fought four years against his country in the war of the rebellion,"a pensionof eight dollars a month during his life. It would also hare included soldiers and sailors who, though in the army or navy during the war with Mexico, never so much as started in the direction of the seat of war. Some amendments to this bill, proposed in the Senate, met wjtli strenuous opposition, especially from Democratic senators. ;/ It was admitted that some of the amendments were proper, but it was insisted that any amendment would result in the defeat of the bill, as action in the House could not be procured upon the amendments. After this notice was served upon- them

the Republican senators concluded that there, was little prospect of securing attention in (the House to legislation in behalf of the soldiers of the late war, unless that legislation was placed upon the Mexican pension bill. This bill was held in great favor by the Southern Democrats. This interest is readily accounted for .when we remember that it is about the only pension bill that will distribute much money in the South, and the only one that will bring relief to a class of disabled confederate soldiers. THE BILL AS AMENDED. The bill was, on motion of different Republican senators, amended as follows: First—Pensions to Mexican soldiers were limited to those,who had attained the age of sixty-two years or who wei-e now disabled (provided tlie disability did Dot originate in service against our flag) or dependent. Second—Every soldier or sailor who served in the army or the navy of the United States for the period of three months in the war of the rebellion and was honorably discharged, and who is now disabled from any cause, not the result of his own carelessness, disreputable conduct, or vicious habits, and is dependent on liis own labor for support, was given a pension upon the basis of twenty-four dollars per month for a totisl disability. Thjrd—Widows now receiving eight dollars per mouth were given twelve dollars. Fourth—lt was provided that when a pensioner died the widow or minor children should be entitled tot-a pension without proof that the death of the pensioner was duo to his military or naval service. Fifth—That pensions granted to minor children should be continued without limit as to age, when they are of unsound mind or so physically helpless as to render them incapable of earning a living. Sixth—That the acceptance of the soldier into the military service should be taken as prima facie evi-, lienee of hirt physical soundness at that time. These six provisions were embodied in a single amendment offered by Senator Mitchell,of Pennsylvania, and were voted upon together. The vote was, yeas 31, nays 27. Every Republican Senator present voted for the amendment, and every Democrat present against it. The bill as thus amended passed the Senate on the 24th day of June, 1884. by the following vote: Yeas 37, nays 27 thirty-three Republicans and four Democrats voting in the affirmative, and twentyfive Democrats and two Republicans voting in the negative. An amendment proposed by Senator Ingalls, to extend the benefit of the arrearage act to the Ist day of October, 1884, was defeated in the Senate, thirty-three Democrats and six Republicans voting against it and twenty six Republicans voting for it. In February I introduced a bill embodying the principal-features of the Senate amendment. I believed then, and believe now, that the measure adopted by the Senate, placed this subject of pensions upon a true* basis- It proposed to take care of all those soldiers and sailors who, having served their country faithfully in the time of its exigency, are now disabled froth any cause except their own carelessness or vicious habits and are dependent on their own labor for support Tt will, I believe, Be accepted by the true soldiers of tlie country as a substitute for many other measures of relief which were being urged by them. It enables us to say. and it is a proud thing to say. that every disabled and dependent soldier is cared for by the bounty of the government which he saved. It will bring out from our poor houses the disabled veterans who in their distress have found no other shelter. Tt will -cover the eases- of thousands of soldiers whose disability undoubtedly originated in the service, but who are now unable to establish that factri-men who made no hospital record. The rate of pension proposed was moderate", and, in the nature of "things, could not involve arrears. The soldier who still retains health and strength will proudly care-for himself; will bear liis own burdens and march in his place in the column of life with the same brave spirit that animated him in the field; but he wants to know that, his disabled comrades are in the ambulance and that there is a place there for him when he is stricken down in the course of nature.

The Mexican pension bill, amended as I have indicated,' was returned to the House of Representatives on the 25th day of June, 1884. with the request that the House concur in the amendments adopted by the Senate. There was time for its consideration, and there can be no question that if it;had been returned to the House without these provisions for the benefit of the soldyers of the late war it would have received prompt attention. The bill was called up in the House on the 2d day of Jriily, and from that day until the close of tiie session efforts were made by its.friends to put the bill upon its passage. These efforts were resisted, almost to tho line of filibustering, and the bill failed to pass the House. The Electoral Count and Other Measures, The vital importance of regulating by law the counting of the electoral vote was impressed upon the country by the incidents of 1877. It is the belief of many thoughtful persons that the only serious danger of a renewal of civil war in tKis country grows out of possible dispu-teS over the electoral count. It was plainly a public duty —and that of the most pressing character —that Congress should, at the last session, by some clear legislation, settle the relation of the presiding officer of the Senate and of the two houses of Congress to the work of counting the electoral vote. A presidential election was to intervene before Congress reassembled, arid the shameful possibility of a strife over tho result was imminent. The Senate passed the Hoar bill early in January. Late in June it came back from the House with an amendment, in the nature of a substitute, and went to a conference, where it still rests. The Senate bill gave to each State the right to settle all disputes as to the selection of presidential electors for itself, by a tribunal of its own. In case of a double return from any State, the decision of this tribunal, if any, as to who were the legal electors, was final. If no such decision had been made, then the vote of that State could not be counted without the concurrent action of the two houses, acting separately. If the vote of a State presenting but a single return was challenged, it required the concurrent votes of the two houses to reject it. The House amendment omitted the section relating to State tribunals, and provided for submitting all disputed questions to the joint convention of the two houses —a majority to decide. Mr. Broadhead, of Missouri, an able lawyer, forcibly stated the objection to the House bill. He said it proposed to ignore the existence of the Senate and House of Representatives, as separate and distinct bodies, and to constitute a tribunal called n “joint convention,” comprised of members of the Senate and of the House. This was declared to l>e without precedent and without warrant im the Constitution. The Senate bill preserved tiie separate existence and equal authority of the two houses of Congress. Tiie House bill merged the smaller body in the larger and turned “the Congress” into a convention. I do not suppose any member of the House expected such a bill to pass the Senate. Bnt the large Democratic majority in the House must be made available, either to out vote the small Republican majority of the Senate in joint convention, or to seize the presidency as the result of an unfinished count by an election in the House. I have not time to speak in detail of all the important public measures which were passed by the Senate and left without action in the House. The Mormon bill, the bill regulating the presidential succession, the bankruptcy bill, the educational bill, the bill in relation to national banks, are among the most important, in addition to those already noticed. The abortive attempt to pass the Morrison bill so discouraged, distracted and divided the Democratic majority that they seemed to lose all leadership and all capacity for public business. A hopeful effort was made to draw the party together <. in the congenial work of restoring Fitz John Porter to the army and of unseating some Republican members, and with some success. The unseating of Mr. Peelle, of this district, was in most flagrant disregard of the law and of the evidence. Ho has made an appeal from this unrighteous judgment to the constituency he has so faithfully served, and I have no doubt you will sustain him I have thus hastily reviewed some of the more conspicuous acts and omissions of the Democratic House of Representatives in order that you might see how inauspicions the time, is for placing that party in full control of the government You no doubt know many honorable Democrats, as I do—sensible men, prudent- men, patriotic men—but can you give me an instance in the last quarter of a century of a Democratic Legislature, convention or Congress that illustrates any of these -virtues? Democrats of both factions have said that the last House of Representatives did not. The Candidates. Before closing yon trill expect me to say something about the candidates. Of Mr. Cleveland I shall say but little; if the whole story wer > told it would be brief. A Democrat without arecord upon any question of