So much for principle. One word now as to why our Democratic

friends oppose it. I remember their opposing the extension of

suffrage once under circumstances that made many of us think they

were doing wrong. During the years 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864, I

was a citizen of the Fifteenth ward, in Cincinnati; I had lived

there ever since it was a ward. All the property I had in the world

was taxed there, real or personal; and there was a party in Ohio of

loyal Union men, who said I and others who were with me ought to

have a right to vote, although I was not in the Fifteenth ward, but

was serving the country in the field against the rebels. The

Democratic party in Ohio--these very peace men--said no. Why did

they say I should not vote? I never heard but one good reason, and

that was the apprehension they had that if the soldiers did vote,

they wouldn't vote the Democratic ticket. That's what's the matter.

Now, I suspect we have the same difficulty on this proposition; I

suspect that the real trouble is that they fear if the colored man

has a vote, they have dealt so hardly with him these last few years

that when he comes to vote he will vote against the Democratic

party. That's what's the matter. Why, for the sake of political

power, these Democrats of Ohio have not been unwilling to look

kindly toward the colored man. Do you remember we once had black

laws in Ohio which kept the colored men out of the State? Who

repealed those laws? Why did they do it? The Democratic party did

it, because they could get political power by it. I suspect that if

it were quite certain that the colored vote would elect Allen G.

Thurman Governor of Ohio, our Democratic friends would not object

to it at all. What, then, do I say to the Union men? This objection

may be very good for the Democrats, but it is not a wise one for

you.

I commend to you Union men who are a little weak on this question,

or perhaps I should say a little strong, the example of the Union

men of the country during the war. Abraham Lincoln thought, in

1862, it was wise to proclaim freedom to the slaves. Many good

Union men thought it was unwise--thought Mr. Lincoln was going too

far or too fast--but the sequel justified the wisdom of Abraham

Lincoln. Again, he thought it was wise that colored men should be

placed in our armies. There were good soldiers and good Union men

who thought it was unwise. They feared that Mr. Lincoln was going

too fast or too far, but events justified it. Now, everybody agrees

that in both cases Abraham Lincoln was right. Now, the example I

commend to our Union friends who are doubting on this great

question is the example of those Union men during the war who

doubted the wisdom of these other measures. Greatly as they were

opposed to the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, strongly as they

were opposed to the enlistment of colored soldiers, I say to you I

never heard of one good Union man, in the army or out of it, who

left his party because of that difference with Mr. Lincoln. I

commend that example to the Union men who now doubt about colored

suffrage. The truth is, that every step made in advance toward the

standard of the right has in the event always proved a safe and

wise step. Every step toward the right has proved a step toward the

expedient; in short, that in politics, in morals, in public and

private life, the right is always expedient.

I thank you, fellow-citizens, for your kind attention.

_Speech of_ GOVERNOR HAYES, _on his re-nomination, delivered June 23,

1869._

Twice since the organization of existing political parties the

people of Ohio have trusted the law-making power of the State in

the hands of the Democratic party. They first tried the experiment

twelve years ago, and such were the results that ten years elapsed

before they ventured upon a repetition of it. Two years ago, in a

time of reaction, which was general throughout the country, the

Democratic party, by a minority of the popular vote, having large

advantages in the apportionment, obtained complete control of the

legislature in both of its branches. They came into power,

proclaiming that the past ought to be forgotten; that old issues

and divisions should be laid aside; that new ideas and new measures

required attention; and they were particularly emphatic and earnest

in declaring that the enormous burdens of debt and taxation under

which the people were struggling made retrenchment and economy the

supreme duty of the hour.

These were their promises, and the manner in which they were kept

is now before the people for their judgment. Disregarding the

well-known and solemnly-expressed will of Ohio, they began the

business of their first session by passing fruitless resolutions to

rescind the ratification of the 14th amendment to the constitution

of the United States.

They placed on the statute book visible admixture bills, to deprive

citizens of the right of suffrage--a constitutional right long

enjoyed and perfectly well settled by repeated decisions of the

highest court having jurisdiction of the question.

They repealed the law allowing, after the usual residence, the

disabled veterans of the Union army to vote in the township in

which the National Soldiers' Home is situated; and enacted a law

designed to deprive of the right of suffrage a large number of

young men engaged in acquiring an education at "any school,

seminary, academy, college, university, or other institution of

learning." To prevent citizens who were deprived of their

constitutional rights by these acts from obtaining prompt relief in

the Supreme Court, they passed a law prohibiting that court from

taking up causes on its docket according to its own judgment of

what was demanded by public justice, in any case "except where the

person seeking relief had been convicted of murder in the first

degree, or of a crime the punishment of which was confinement in

the penitentiary."

I believe it is the general judgment of the people of Ohio that the

passage of these measures, unconstitutional as some of them are,

and unjust as they all are, was mainly due to the fact that the

classes of citizens disfranchised by them do not commonly vote with

the Democratic party. The Republican party condemns all such

legislation, and demands its repeal.

On the important subject of suffrage, General Grant, in his

inaugural message, expresses the convictions of the Republican

party. He says: "The question of suffrage is one which is likely

to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citizens of the

Nation are excluded from its privileges in any State. It seems to

me very desirable that this question should be settled now, and I

entertain the hope and express the desire that it may be by the

ratification of the fifteenth amendment to the constitution."

During the canvass which resulted in the election of the late

Democratic legislature the Republicans were charged with having

used $800,000, raised for the relief of soldiers' families, to pay

the State debt, and this charge was insisted upon, notwithstanding

a majority of the Democratic members had supported the measure. The

idea was everywhere held out that if the Democratic party were

successful this money would be restored to the relief fund and

expended for the benefit of the soldiers. The failure to redeem

this pledge is aggravated by the fact that the legislature, by a

strictly party vote in the Senate, refused to provide for the

support of soldiers' destitute orphans at homes to be established

without expense to the State by the voluntary contributions of

patriotic and charitable people.

But of all the pledges upon which the Democratic party obtained

power in the last legislature, the most important, and those in

regard to which the just expectations of the people have been most

signally disappointed, are their pledges in relation to financial

affairs--to expenditure, to debt, and to taxation. Upon this

subject the people are compelled to feel a very deep interest. The

flush times of the war have been followed by a financial reaction,

and for the last three or four years the country has been on the

verge of a financial crisis. The burdens of taxation bear heavily

upon labor and upon capital. The Democratic party, profuse alike of

accusations against their adversaries, and of promises of

retrenchment and reform, were clothed with power to deal with the

heaviest part of these burdens, viz: with the expenditures, debts,

assessments, and taxes which are authorized by State legislation.

The results of their two years of power are now before the people.

They are contained in the 65th and 66th volumes of the Laws of

Ohio. Let any Republican diligently study these volumes, and he

will fully comprehend the meaning of Job when he said, "Oh, that

mine adversary had written a book." No intelligent man can read

carefully these volumes, and note the number and character of the

laws increasing the expenses and liabilities of the State and

authorizing additional debts and additional taxation for city and

village, for county and township purposes, without having the

conviction forced upon him that the gentlemen who enacted these

laws hold to the opinion that the way to increase wealth is to

increase taxation, and that public debts are public blessings.

When the late Democratic Legislature assembled they found the

revenue raised yearly in Ohio by taxation to pay the interest on

the State and local debts and for State and local expenditures was

$20,253,615.34. This is at the rate of almost forty dollars for

every vote cast in the State at the last election, and exceeds

seven dollars for each inhabitant of the State. Of this large sum

collected annually by direct taxation less than one-fifth or

$3,981,099.79 was for State purposes, and more than four-fifths or

$16,272,515.34 was for local purposes. The increase of taxation for

State purposes during the last few years has been small, but many

items of taxation for local purposes are increasing rapidly. The

taxation, for example, in the thirty-three cities of the State has

increased until, according to the report of the auditor of State,

"in several the rates of levy exceed three per cent, and the

average rate in all is but little short of three per cent." In this

condition of the financial affairs of the State, and in the

embarrassed and depressed condition of the business of the country,

the duty of the legislature was plain. They were to see that no

unnecessary additional burdens were imposed upon the people--that

all wholesome restraints and limitations upon the power of local

authorities to incur debts and levy taxes should be preserved and

enforced, and especially that no increase of liabilities should be

authorized except in cases of pressing necessity.

Now consider the facts. These gentlemen professed to be

scrupulously strict in their observance of the requirements of the

constitution. Yet under provisions which contemplate one

legislative session in two years they held two sessions in the same

year, and three sessions in their term of two years. They were in

session two hundred and sixty days--longer than was ever before

known in Ohio, and at an expense of $250,624.10--more than double

that of their Republican predecessors.

They created between thirty and forty new offices at a cost to the

people for salaries, fees, and expenses of at least $75,000 per

annum. They added to the State liabilities for various purposes

about $1,500,000. In order to avoid an increase of taxes levied for

State purposes they diminished the sum levied to pay the State

debt, and increased the levy for other State purposes almost

$600,000.

The acts of the last legislature in relation to local debts and

local taxes are of the most extraordinary character. These acts

relate to raising money for county purposes, for township purposes,

for city and village purposes, and for special purposes. These

taxes or debts are levied or incurred under the direction of county

commissioners, township trustees, or of city or village councils,

who derive their authority exclusively from State legislation. The

State legislature has therefore the control of the whole matter.

Now, the general statement which I wish to make, and which I

believe is sustained by the facts, is, that the late Democratic

legislature authorized greater local pecuniary burdens to be

imposed upon the people of Ohio, without their consent, than were

ever before authorized by any General Assembly, either in peace or

war, since the organization of our State government.

Sixty or seventy different acts were passed authorizing debts to be

contracted, amounting in the aggregate to more than $25,000,000. A

large part of them bear eight per cent interest, and a very small

part bear less than seven and three-tenths per cent interest. And

they passed seventy or eighty acts by which additional taxes were

authorized to the amount of over $10,000,000.

Now it is to be hoped, as to a considerable part of the local debts

and local taxes authorized by the late Democratic legislature, that

the people will not be burdened with them. It is to be hoped that

county commissioners, city councils, and other local boards, will

show greater moderation and economy in the exercise of their

dangerous and oppressive powers under the laws than was exhibited

in their enactment. But in any event, nothing is more certain than

that the people of Ohio have great reason to apprehend that the

evil consequences of these laws will be felt in their swollen tax

bills for many years.

It is probable that many of the acts to which I have alluded,

creating additional offices, incurring State liabilities, and

authorizing local debts and taxes were required by sound policy.

But a candid investigation will show that the larger part of these

enormous burdens of expenditure, debt, and taxation could and ought

to have been avoided.

The last legislature afforded examples of many of the worst evils

to which legislative bodies are liable--long sessions, excessive

legislation, unnecessary expenditures, and recklessness in

authorizing local debts and local taxes. These evils "have

increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished." Let there

be reform as to all of them. Especially let the people of all

parties insist that the parent evil--long legislative

sessions--shall be reformed altogether. Let the bad precedent of

long sessions, set by the last legislature, be condemned, and the

practice of short sessions established. With the average rate of

taxation in the cities and large towns of the State--nearly three

per cent.--legitimate business and industry can not continue to

thrive, if the rate of taxation continues to increase. With the

rates of interest for public debts ranging from seven and

three-tenths per cent to eight per cent, the reckless increase of

such debts must stop, or will seriously affect the prosperity of

the State. These are subjects which deserve, and which, I trust,

will receive, the profound attention of the people in the pending

canvass.

It is said that one of the ablest Democratic members of the last

legislature declared at its close that "enough had been done to

keep the Democratic party out of power in Ohio for twenty years."

Let the Republican press and the Republican speakers see to it that

the history of the acts of that body be spread fully before the

people, and I entertain no doubt that the declaration will be

substantially made good.

It is probable that the discussions of the present canvass will

turn more upon State legislation and less upon National affairs

than those of any year since 1861. Neither senators nor

representatives in Congress are to be chosen. But it is an

important State election, and will be regarded as having a bearing

on National politics. The Republicans of Ohio heartily approve of

the principles of General Grant's inaugural message, and are

gratified by the manner in which he is dealing with the leading

questions of the first three months of his administration.

Under President Johnson, Secretary McCulloch hoarded millions of

gold, to enable him to maintain a wretched rivalry with the gold

gamblers of New York city. The Nation was defrauded of its just

dues, and the National debt increased from November 1, 1867, to

November 1, 1868, $35,625,102.82. General Grant began his financial

policy by revoking his predecessor's pardons of revenue robbers,

and by cutting down expenses in all directions; and Secretary

Boutwell disposes of surplus gold in the purchase of

interest-bearing bonds to the amount of two millions a week, and in

his first quarter reduces the National debt more than twenty

millions of dollars.

The two Democratic Johnsons, Andrew and Reverdy, furnished their

ideas of a foreign policy in the Johnson-Clarendon treaty. They

undertook to settle the American claims against England on account

of the Alabama outrage by the award of a Commission, one-half of

whose members were to be chosen by England and the other half by

the United States; and, in case of a disagreement, an umpire was to

be chosen by lot. That is to say, a great National controversy,

involving grave questions of international law, and claims of

undoubted validity, amounting to millions of money, was to be

decided by the toss of a copper! The administration of General

Grant crushed the disgraceful treaty, and proposes to deal with

England on the principle laid down in General Grant's inaugural.

The United States will treat all other Nations "as equitable law

requires individuals to deal with each other;" but, "if others

depart from this rule in their dealings with us, we may be

compelled to follow their precedent."

On the great question of reconstruction, in what a masterly way and

with what marked success has General Grant's administration begun.

Congress had fixed its day of adjournment, and all plans for

reconstructing the three unrepresented States had been postponed

until next December. At this junction General Grant, on the 7th of

April last, sent to Congress a special message recommending that

before its adjournment it take the necessary steps for the

restoration of the State of Virginia to its proper relations to the

Union. As the ground of his recommendation he said: "I am led to

make this recommendation from the confident hope and belief that

the people of that State are now ready to co-operate with the

National government in bringing it again into such relations to the

Union as it ought as soon as possible to establish and maintain,

and to give to all its people those equal rights under the law

which were asserted in the declaration of independence, in the

words of one of the most illustrious of its sons."

The message of the president was referred, in the House of

Representatives, to the Committee on Reconstruction. That committee

the next day reported a bill for the reconstruction of Virginia,

and also of Mississippi and Texas. The character of the bill

sufficiently appears by the first two sections relating to

Virginia:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the President

of the United States, at such time as he may deem best for the

public interest, may submit the constitution which was framed by

the convention which met in Richmond, Virginia, on Tuesday, the 3d

day of December, 1867, to the registered voters of said State, for

ratification or rejection; and may also submit to a separate vote

such provisions of said constitution as he may deem best.

"SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That at the same election the

voters of said State may vote for and elect members of the General

Assembly of said State and all the officers of said State provided

for by the said constitution, and for members of Congress; and the

officer commanding the district of Virginia shall cause the lists

of registered voters of said State to be revised and corrected

prior to such election, and for that purpose may appoint such

registrars as he may deem necessary. And said election shall be

held and returns thereof made in the manner provided by the

election ordinance adopted by the convention which framed said

constitution."

It will be seen that by this bill the people of Virginia were to

proceed in the work of reconstruction at such time as the president

might deem best, and that such reconstruction in all its parts was

to be on the basis of equal political rights. The constitution to

be submitted was framed by a convention, in the election of which

colored citizens participated, and of which colored men were

members. The "registered voters" who are to vote on its

ratification or rejection, and also for members of the General

Assembly, for State officers and for members of Congress, include

the colored men of Virginia; and if the constitution is adopted, it

secures to them equal political rights in that State. The

remaining sections of the bill provide for the reconstruction of

Mississippi and Texas on the same principles, and left the time and

manner to the discretion of the president.

This bill was reported to the House of Representatives and

unanimously agreed upon by a committee, of which four members were

Democrats. The most distinguished Democratic representatives of the

States of New York and Pennsylvania advocated its passage. Out of

about seventy Democratic members of the House, only twenty-five

voted against it, and the only Democratic members from Ohio who

voted on the passage of the bill, voted for it.

It thus appears that upon the recommendation of General Grant even

the Democratic party of Ohio, by their representatives in Congress,

voted for equal political rights in Virginia, Mississippi, and

Texas! And to-day the great body of the people of those States,

Democrats and Conservatives as well as Republicans, have yielded

assent to that great principle. In view of these facts I submit

that I am fully warranted in saying that General Grant has begun

the work of reconstruction in a masterly way and with marked

success.

Again thanking you for the honor you have done me, I repeat, in

conclusion, what I said two years ago. The people represented in

this convention mean that the State of Ohio in the great progress,

"whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift

artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of

laudable pursuits for all, and to afford all an unfettered start

and a fair chance in the race of life," shall tread no more steps

backward. I shall enter upon my part of the labors of the canvass

believing that the Union Republican party is battling for the

right, and with undoubting confidence that the goodness of the

cause will supply the weakness of its advocates, and command in the

result that triumphant success which it deserves.

_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Zanesville, Ohio,

Thursday, August 24, 1871._

The change of principles which a majority of the late Democratic

State Convention at Columbus decided to make, commonly called the

new departure, lends to the pending political contest in Ohio its

chief interest. Indeed, there is no other salient feature in the

Democratic platform. Resolutions in the usual form were adopted on

several other political topics; but the main discussion, and the

absorbing interest of the convention, was on the question of

accepting as a finality the series of Republican measures which is

generally regarded as the natural and legitimate result of the

overthrow of the rebellion, and which is embodied in the last three

amendments to the constitution.

Certain influential Democratic leaders in Ohio had become satisfied

by the repeated defeats of their party that no considerable number

of Republicans would ever aid the Democratic party to obtain power

until it fully and explicitly accepted in good faith, as a final

settlement of the questions involved, the leading Republican

measures resulting from the war. They were convinced that

Republicans generally regarded these measures of such vital

importance that, until they were irrevocably established, other and

minor questions would not be allowed to divide that great body of

patriotic people who rallied together in support of the government

during its struggle for existence. The important principles which

Republicans claim should be accepted as settled are:

1. That the National power is the Supreme power of the land, and

that the doctrine that the States are in any proper sense

sovereign, including as it does the right of nullification and

secession, is no longer to be maintained.

2. That all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens thereof, and entitled

to equal rights, civil and political, without regard to race,

color, or condition.

3. That the public debt resulting from the war is of binding

obligation, and must be fully and honestly paid.

Mr. Vallandigham, with that boldness and energy for which he was

distinguished, undertook the task of forcing his party to take the

position required to make success possible in Ohio. In this work,

he was encouraged, and probably aided, by the counsel and advice of

that other eminent Democratic leader, Chief Justice Chase. The

first authentic announcement of the new movement in Ohio was made

by the Montgomery County Democratic Convention, held at Dayton, on

the 18th day of May last. The speech and resolutions of Mr.

Vallandigham in that body contained much sound Republicanism. He

still clung to a general assertion of the State rights heresy, but

accepted the last three constitutional amendments "as a settlement,

in fact, of all the issues of the war," and "pledged" the

Democratic party to the faithful and absolute enforcement of the

constitution as it now is, "so as to secure equal rights to all

persons, without distinction of race, color, or condition." On the

subject of the National debt, and of currency, he was equally

explicit. He declared "in favor of the payment of the public debt

at the earliest practicable moment consistent with moderate

taxation; that specie is the basis of all sound currency; and that

true policy requires a speedy return to that basis as soon as

practicable without distress to the debtor class of people."

Surely, here was a long stride away from the Democracy of the last

ten years, and toward wholesome Republican ideas. If a Democratic

victory could be gained by adopting Republican principles, the

framer of the Dayton platform was not lacking in political

sagacity. Unfortunately for the success of the scheme, no Ohio

Democrat of conspicuous position, except Mr. Chase, is known to

have approved Mr. Vallandigham's resolutions as a whole. The chief

justice wrote to Mr. Vallandigham the well-known letter of May 20,

in which he warmly congratulated him on the movement which was to

return "the Democratic party to its ancient platform of progress

and reform."

This was perfectly consistent with the previous opinions and public

conduct of Mr. Chase. He had supported the three amendments to the

constitution, and notwithstanding the censure of his Democratic

associates, he had been signally active and influential in

procuring the ratification by Ohio of the fifteenth amendment. In

addition to this, he was probably the only prominent Western

Democrat who was for the payment of the public debt in coin, and

in favor of a speedy return to specie payments.

When the convention assembled, on the first of June, neither the

talents and energy of Mr. Vallandigham nor the great name and

authority of the chief justice were sufficient to carry through, in

all its parts, the Dayton programme. The financial resolutions were

stricken out and the oft-defeated greenback theory, slightly

modified, was inserted in its place. Other important paragraphs of

Mr. Vallandigham were also omitted, in which "secession, slavery,

inequality before the law, and political inequality" were described

as "belonging to the dead past" and "buried out of sight." This

left as the new departure two resolutions, which were adopted only

after strong opposition.

"1. _Resolved, by the Democracy of Ohio_, That denouncing the

extraordinary means by which they were brought about, we recognize

as accomplished facts the three several amendments to the

constitution, recently adopted, and regard the same as no longer

political issues before the country.

"2.... The Democratic party pledges itself to the full, faithful,

and absolute enforcement of the constitution as it now is, so as to

secure equal rights to all persons under it, without distinction of

race, color, or condition."

The Democratic managers claim that by this movement they have taken

such a position that, at least equally with the Republicans, they

are entitled to the confidence and support of the early and earnest

friends of the principles of the three recent constitutional

amendments. They claim at the same time, in the same breath, that

they are entitled also to the confidence of the Democratic people

whom they have hitherto taught that the amendments were ratified by

force and fraud; that they are revolutionary and void, and that

they are a dangerous departure from the principles of the fathers

of the republic, and destructive of all good government.

Now, the important question presented is, whether it is safe and

wise to trust these amendments for interpretation, construction,

and execution to the party which, from first to last, has fiercely

opposed them. The safe rule is, if you want a law fairly and

faithfully administered, entrust power only to its friends. It will

rarely have a fair trial at the hands of its enemies. These

amendments are no exception to this rule.

What the country most needs, and what good citizens most desire in

regard to these great measures is peace--repose. They wish to be

able to rest confidently in the belief that they are to be enforced

and obeyed. They do not want them overthrown by revolutionary

violence or defeated by fraud. They do not wish them repealed by

constitutional amendments, abrogated by judicial construction,

nullified by unfriendly legislation, State or National, or left a

dead letter by non-action on the part of law-makers or executive

officers. Has the time come when the country can afford to trust

the Democratic party on these questions? Consider the facts.

The new departure is by no means generally accepted by the

Democratic party, and where accepted the conversion is sudden and

recent, and against the protest of a large element of sincere and

inflexible Democrats.

The only State touching the borders of Ohio which has been reliably

Democratic for the last five years is Kentucky. She sends to

Congress an undivided Democratic delegation of two senators and

nine representatives. At the late election, notwithstanding the

heroic efforts of her Republicans under the splendid leadership of

General Harlan, the Democratic organs are able to rejoice that they

still hold the State by from thirty to forty thousand majority.

Where did the Democrats of Kentucky, in their canvass, stand on the

new departure? They marched in the old Democratic path. They turned

no back somersault to catch Republican votes. On the very day that

the Ohio Democracy were wrangling in convention over the bitter

dose, Governor Leslie, addressing the Democracy of Lewis county,

said: "As to the new amendments, I am out and out opposed to them.

I care not who in Indiana, Ohio, or elsewhere may be for them.

Those amendments were engrafted upon the constitution of the

country, and proclaimed to the country as part and parcel of the

constitution by force and by fraud, and not in the legitimate way

laid down in the constitution. Ten States of this Union were tied

hand and foot, and bayonets were presented to their breasts to make

them consent against their will to the passage of these amendments.

The procuring of these amendments was a fraud upon this people, and

upon the people of the whole United States, and having been thus

obtained, I hold that they ought to be repealed. There may be some

Democrats who are not for their repeal, but the great body of our

party is for it."

The Democratic candidate for lieutenant-governor, Mr. Carlisle, was

equally decided. Said he: "In the first place, I do not think that

the resolution passed by the Ohio Democracy, declaring that these

constitutional amendments are no longer political issues before the

country, will have the effect which they appear to have supposed it

would.

"Instead of withdrawing them as subjects of political discussion,

it will give them far more prominence than they ever had

heretofore, and they will be confronted with them throughout the

entire canvass. The only way in which any question can be withdrawn

from the arena of political discussion is for both parties to

ignore it altogether.

"This can not be done as to these amendments, because they present

real living issues, in which the people feel a very deep interest.

They are not dead issues, and politicians can not kill them by

resolutions. The Ohio Democrats seem to recognize this to some

extent at least, for they have simply attempted to turn the

discussion away from the validity and merits of the amendments

themselves to the question of their construction. In this I think

they have made a grievous mistake."

In Indiana, the last authoritative Democratic utterance on this

subject, was the passage, in January last, by the Senate of that

State, of the following resolution, offered by Mr. Hughes, every

Democrat supporting it:

"_Resolved_, That Congress has no lawful power derived from the

constitution of the United States, nor from any other source

whatever, to require any State of the Union to ratify an amendment

proposed to the constitution of the United States as a condition

precedent to representation in Congress; that all such acts of

ratification are null and void, and the votes so obtained ought not

to be counted to affect the rights of the people and the States of

the whole Union, and that the State of Indiana protests and

solemnly declares that the so-called fifteenth amendment is not

this day, nor never has been in law, a part of the constitution of

the United States."

It is not necessary to go to neighboring States for Democratic

authorities, to show how far the new departure is from modern

Democracy.

When this question was last debated before the people of Ohio, the

Democratic position on the principle of the fifteenth amendment,

and on its constitutional validity, if _declared_ adopted, was thus

stated:

Speaking of the principle of the amendment, Judge Thurman said: "I

tell you it is only the entering wedge that will destroy all

intelligent suffrage in this country, and turn our country from an

intelligent white man's government into one of the most corrupt

mongrel governments in the world."

On its validity, if declared adopted, General Ward said:

"Fellow-citizens of Ohio, I boldly assert that the States of this

Union have always had, both before and since the adoption of the

constitution of the United States, entire sovereignty over the

whole subject of suffrage in all its relations and bearings. Ohio

has that sovereignty now, and it can not be taken from her without

her consent, even by all the other States combined, except by

revolutionary usurpation. The right to regulate suffrage as to the

organization of its own government, and the election of officers

under it, is an inalienable attribute of sovereignty, which the

State could not surrender without surrendering its sovereign

existence as a State. To take from Ohio the power of determining

who shall exercise the right of suffrage is not an amendment of the

constitution, but a revolutionary usurpation by the other States,

in no wise constitutionally binding upon her sovereignty as a

State."

These opinions are still largely prevalent in the Democratic party.

When a new departure was announced at Dayton, the leading organ of

the party in this State said:

"There are matters in the Montgomery county resolutions which, it

is very safe to say, will not receive the approval of the State

convention, and which should not receive its endorsement. They have

faults of omission and commission. They evince a desire to sail

with the wind, and as near the water as possible without getting

wet. The Democracy everywhere believe that the constitution was

altered by fraud and force, and do not intend to be mealy-mouthed

in their expression of the outrage, whatever they may agree upon as

to how the amendments should be treated in the future, for the sake

of saving, if possible, what is left of constitutional liberty."

After the scheme was adopted in convention, the common sentiment

was well expressed by the editor who said that "the platform was

made for present use, and is marked with the taint of insincerity."

The speeches of Colonel McCook and other Democratic gentlemen

exhibit, when carefully read, clearly enough the character of the

new departure.

In accepting his nomination, Colonel McCook said: "Let me speak now

upon the fifteenth amendment, which confers the right of suffrage

upon the blacks. It was no legitimate consequence of the war; it

was no legitimate consequence of secession; but it was passed in

the exigency of a political party, that they might have control as

much in Ohio as in those States in the South. I opposed it, as I

did the fourteenth, from the beginning, and I have no regrets over

that opposition. But now a word more upon it. If it contained

nothing but this provision for suffrage there would be but little

objection in it; but it contains a provision intended to confer

power upon Congress which is dangerous to the liberties of the

country, and the dangers can only be avoided by having Democratic

Congresses in the future, who will trust no power to the executive

which bears the purse and sword to interfere with our elections."

When interrogated on this subject at Chardon, he said: "When he

received the nomination he had said that no black man who had

received the right to vote under the 15th amendment ever could have

it taken away. Repealing the 15th amendment would not take it away;

that amendment is no more sacred, but just as sacred as any other

part of the constitution; but repealing it could not take away a

right." He was asked as to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments: "Do

you regard them as in the same sense and to the same extent parts

of the constitution as other portions?" He answered: "Yes,

certainly. Can not men see the difference between opposing the

adoption of a measure and yielding when it has been adopted, and

opposition has become useless?" He was asked: "Are these amendments

never again to become political questions?" "I have no authority or

power to answer such a question. How can I answer as to all the

future? How can I tell what the Democracy of New York or any other

State may do? But how can they become political questions, now that

they are acquiesced in by almost the entire people of the country?"

Mr. Hubbard, the chairman of Colonel McCook's first meeting, said:

"The Democrats did not dispute that this amendment, which was

adopted by constitutional forms, was valid; but, while accepting

it, call it a 'new departure.' If you please, we don't surrender

the right to make such returns to the old constitution as we may

deem expedient. It is a future question that we are not bound to

discuss."

The gentleman who has the second place on the Democratic ticket,

Mr. Hunt, says: "There is no reasoning, and certainly no

circumstance, which can give the 13th amendment more binding force

than either of the other two amendments. If the 13th amendment

abolished slavery, then the title to vote under the 15th amendment

is as perfect as the title to liberty. The fact that they have been

declared a part of the constitution does not preclude any

legitimate discussion as to their expediency. Proper action will

never be barred, for the statute of limitation will run with the

constitution itself. Experience may teach the necessity of a change

in any provision of the organic law, and any legislation to be

permanent must conform to the living sentiment of the people."

These paragraphs furnish no adequate reply to the questions which

an intelligent and earnest Republican, who believes in the wisdom

and value of the amendments, would put to these distinguished

gentlemen, when they ask him for his vote. He would ask: "If the

Democratic party shall obtain the controlling power in the general

government, in its several departments, executive, legislative, and

judicial, and in the State governments, what would it do? Would it

faithfully execute these amendments, or would it not rather use its

power to get rid of them--either by constitutional amendment, by

judicial decision, by unfriendly legislation, or by a failure or

refusal to legislate?" Before the "new departure" can gain

Republican votes, its friends must answer satisfactorily these

questions. The speeches I have quoted fail to furnish such answers.

Colonel McCook objects to the 15th amendment, because "it contains

a provision intended to confer power upon Congress which is

dangerous to the liberties of the country." Now, what is this

dangerous provision? It reads: "Section 2. The Congress shall have

power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Each of

the three recent amendments contains a similar provision. Without

this provision, they would be inoperative in more than half of the

late rebel States. The complaints made of these provisions warn us

that in Democratic hands the legislation required to give force and

effect to these provisions would be denied.

But the most significant part of these speeches are the passages

which refer to the repeal of the amendments. Mr. Hubbard said: "We

don't surrender the right to make such returns to the old

constitution as we may deem expedient. It is a future question that

we are not bound to discuss." Colonel McCook says: "How can I

answer for all the future? How can I tell what the Democracy of New

York or any other State may do?" Mr. Hunt says: "The fact that they

have been declared a part of the constitution does not preclude any

legitimate discussion as to their expediency. Proper action will

never be barred." The meaning of all this is that the Democratic

party will acquiesce in the amendments while it is out of power.

Whether or not it will try to repeal them when it gets power is a

question of the future which they are not bound to discuss. Or as

another distinguished gentleman has it, this question is "beyond

the range of profitable discussion." In reply to these gentlemen,

the well-informed Republican citizen when asked to vote for the new

departure, is very likely to adopt their own phraseology, and to

say, Whether I shall vote your ticket or not is a question of the

future which it is not now proper to discuss--"it is beyond the

range of profitable discussion;" and if he has the Democratic

veneration for Tammany hall, he will say with Colonel McCook, "How

can I tell what the Democracy of New York may do?"

Notwithstanding the decision of the late convention, it is probable

that the real sentiment of the Democracy of Ohio is truly stated by

the Butler county Democrat:

"Our position then, is, that while we regard the so-called

amendments as gross usurpation and base frauds--not a part of the

Federal constitution _de facto_ nor _de jure_--and, therefore, acts

which are void, we will abide by them until a majority of the

people of the States united shall, at the polls, put men in power

who shall hold them to be null and of no effect. We adhere

strictly, on this point, to the second resolution of Hon. L. D.

Campbell, adopted at the Democratic convention held in this county

last May; and to refresh the minds of our readers we reproduce it

here:

"2. That now, as heretofore, we are opposed to all lawlessness and

disorder, and for maintaining the supremacy of the constitution and

laws as the only certain means of public safety, and will abide by

all their provisions until the same shall be amended, abrogated, or

repealed by the lawfully constituted authorities."

The new departure has certainly very little claim to the support of

Republican citizens. What are its claims on honest Democrats?

Colonel McCook, to make the new departure palatable to his

Democratic supporters, tells them that a repeal of the fifteenth

Amendment would fail of its object. That the right to vote, once

exercised by the black man, can not be taken away. Is this sound

either in law or logic? By the fifteenth amendment no State can

deny the right to vote to any citizens on account of race or color.

Suppose that amendment was repealed; what would prevent Kentucky

from denying suffrage to colored citizens? Plainly nothing. And in

case of such repeal it is probable that in less than ninety days

thereafter every Democratic State would deny suffrage to colored

citizens, and the great body of Democratic voters would heartily

applaud that result. The truth is, no sound argument can be made,

showing or tending to show that the new departure is consistent

with the Democratic record. Hitherto Democracy has taught that, as

a question of law, the amendments were made by force and fraud, and

are therefore void; that, as a question of principles, this is a

white man's government, and that to confer suffrage on the colored

races--on the African or Chinaman--would change the nature of the

government and speedily destroy it. Now the new departure demands

that Democrats shall accept the amendments as valid, and shall take

a pledge "to secure equal rights to all persons, without

distinction of race, color, or condition." Sincere Democrats will

find it very difficult to take that pledge, unless they are now

convinced that their whole political life has been a great mistake.

When an individual changes his political principles--turns his coat

merely to catch votes--he is generally thought to be unworthy of

support, I entertain no doubt that the people of Ohio, at the

approaching election, will, upon that principle, by a large

majority, condemn the Democratic party for its bold attempt to

catch Republican votes by the new departure.

_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Marion, Lawrence County,

Ohio, July 31, 1875._

_Fellow-citizens of Lawrence County:_

It is a gratification for which I wish to make my acknowledgments

to the Republican committee of this county, to have the privilege

of beginning, in behalf of the Republicans of Ohio, the oral

discussions of this important political canvass before the people

of Lawrence county. Although my residence is separated from yours

by the whole breadth of the State, we are not strangers. We have

met before on similar occasions, and some of you were my comrades

in the Union army during a considerable part of the great civil

conflict which ended ten years ago. Those who had the honor and the

happiness to serve together during that memorable struggle are not

likely to forget each other. We shall forever regard those four

years as the most interesting period of our lives.

The great majority of the people of Lawrence county, citizens as

well as soldiers, have also good reason to recall the events and

scenes of that contest with satisfaction and pride.

The official records of the State show how well Lawrence county

performed her part in the war for the Union. From the beginning to

the end, with the ballot at home and with the musket in the field,

this county stood among the foremost of all the communities in the

United States in devotion to the good cause. And since the Nation's

triumph, Lawrence county, sooner or later, but never too late to

rejoice in the final and decisive victory, has supported every

measure required to secure the legitimate results of that triumph.

You have done your part forever to set at rest the great questions

of the past. It is settled that the United States constitute a

Nation, and that their government possesses ample power to maintain

its authority over every part of its territory against all

opposers. It is settled that no man under the American flag shall

be a slave. It is settled that all men born or naturalized in the

United States and within its jurisdiction shall be citizens

thereof, and have equal civil and political rights. It is settled

that the debt contracted to save the Nation is sacred, and shall be

honestly paid. You may well be congratulated that on all of these

questions you fought and voted on the right side.

Fortunately, there is still further cause for congratulation. Our

adversaries, who were on the wrong side of all of these questions,

and who opposed us on all of them to the very last, are now

compelled to be silent in their platform on every one of them. Not

a single one of their fourteen resolutions raises any question on

any of these long-contested subjects. It is not strange that they

are silent. I do not choose on this occasion to recall the

predictions of evil which they so confidently made when discussing

the measures to which I have referred. It is enough for my present

purpose to point to the grand results. When the Republican party,

with Abraham Lincoln as president, received the government from the

hands of the Democratic party, fifteen years ago, the Union of the

fathers was destroyed. A hostile Nation, dedicated to perpetual

slavery, had been established south of the Potomac, and claimed

jurisdiction over one-third of the people and territory of the

Republic. These States were "dissevered, discordant,

belligerent"--our land was rent with civil feud, and ready to be

drenched in fraternal blood. Now, behold the change! The Union is

re-established on firmer foundations than ever before. Brave men in

the South, who were then in battle array against us, now stand side

by side with Union soldiers, with no shadow of discord between

them. Slavery, which was then an impassable gulf between the

hostile sections, is now gone; and good men of the South unite with

good men of the North in thanking God that it is forever a thing of

the past. Then there was no freedom of speech or of the press--no

friendly mingling together of the people of the two sections of the

country. Now the people of the South receive and greet as a

fellow-citizen and a friend the vice-president--a citizen of

Massachusetts, and an anti-slavery man from his youth; and

Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina send their distinguished

sons to celebrate with New England the centennial anniversaries of

the early battles of the Revolution. The men of the North and the

men of the South are now everywhere coming together in a spirit of

harmony and friendship which this generation has not witnessed

before, and which has not existed, until now, since Jefferson was

startled by that "fire-ball in the night"--the Missouri

question--more than fifty years ago.

In this era of good feeling and reconciliation a few men of morbid

temperament, blind to what is passing before them, still talk of

"bayonets" and "tyranny and cruelty to the South" and seek in vain

to revive the prejudices and passions of the past. But there is

barely enough of this angry dissent to remind us of the terrible

scenes through which we have passed, and to fill us with gratitude

that the house which was divided against itself is divided no

longer, and that all of its inhabitants now have a fair start and

an equal chance in the race of life.

Let us now proceed to the consideration of some of the questions

which engage the attention of the people of Ohio. The war which the

Democratic party and its doctrines brought upon the country left a

large debt, heavy taxation, a depreciated currency, and an

unhealthy condition of business, which resulted two years ago in a

financial panic and depression, from which the country is now

slowly recovering. With this condition of things the Democratic

party in its recent State convention at Columbus undertook to deal.

The most important part--in fact the only part of their platform in

Ohio this year which receives or deserves much attention, is that

in which is proclaimed a radical departure on the subject of money

from the teachings of all of the Democratic fathers. This Ohio

Democratic doctrine inculcates the abandonment of gold and silver

as a standard of value. Hereafter gold and silver are to be used as

money only "where respect for the obligation of contracts requires

payment in coin." The only currency for the people is to be paper

money, issued directly by the general government, "its volume to be

made and kept equal to the wants of trade," and with no provision

whatever for its redemption in coin. The Democratic candidate for

lieutenant-governor, who opened the canvass for his party, states

the money issue substantially as I have. General Carey, in his

Barnesville speech, says:

"Gold and silver, when used as money, are redeemable in any

property there is for sale in the Nation; will pay taxes for any

debt, public or private. This alone gives them their money value.

If you had a hundred gold eagles, and you could not exchange them

for the necessaries of life, they would be trash, and you would be

glad to exchange them for greenbacks or anything else that you

could use to purchase what you require. With an absolute paper

money, stamped by the government and made a legal tender for all

purposes, and its functions as money are as perfect as gold or

silver can be!"

This is the financial scheme which the Democratic party asks the

people of Ohio to approve at the election in October. The

Republicans accept the issue. Whether considered as a permanent

policy or as an expedient to mitigate present evils we are opposed

to it. It is without warrant in the constitution, and it violates

all sound financial principles.

The objections to an inflated and irredeemable paper currency are

so many that I do not attempt to state them all. They are so

obvious and so familiar that I need not elaborately present or

argue them. All of the mischief which commonly follows inflated and

inconvertible paper money may be expected from this plan, and in

addition it has very dangerous tendencies, which are peculiarly its

own. An irredeemable and inflated paper currency promotes

speculation and extravagance, and at the same time discourages

legitimate business, honest labor, and economy. It dries up the

true sources of individual and public prosperity. Over-trading and

fast living always go with it. It stimulates the desire to incur

debt; it causes high rates of interest; it increases importations

from abroad; it has no fixed value; it is liable to frequent and

great fluctuations, thereby rendering every pecuniary engagement

precarious and disturbing all existing contracts and expectations;

it is the parent of panics. Every period of inflation is followed

by a loss of confidence, a shrinkage of values, depression of

business, panics, lack of employment, and widespread disaster and

distress. The heaviest part of the calamity falls on those least

able to bear it. The wholesale dealer, the middle-man, and the

retailer always endeavor to cover the risks of the fickle standard

of value by raising their prices. But the men of small means and

the laborer are thrown out of employment, and want and suffering

are liable soon to follow.

When government enters upon the experiment of issuing irredeemable

paper money there can be no fixed limit to its volume. The amount

will depend on the interest of leading politicians, on their whims,

and on the excitement of the hour. It affords such facility for

contracting debt that extravagant and corrupt government

expenditure are the sure result. Under the name of public

improvements, the wildest enterprises, contrived for private gain,

are undertaken. Indefinite expansion becomes the rule, and in the

end bankruptcy, ruin, and repudiation.

During the last few years a great deal has been said about the

centralizing tendency of recent events in our history. The

increasing power of the government at Washington has been a

favorite theme for Democratic declamation. But where, since the

foundation of the government, has a proposition been seriously

entertained which would confer such monstrous and dangerous powers

on the general government as this inflation scheme of the Ohio

Democracy? During the war for the Union, solely on the ground of

necessity, the government issued the legal tender, or greenback

currency. But they accompanied it with a solemn pledge in the

following words of the act of June 30, 1864:

"Nor shall the total amount of United States notes issued or to be

issued ever exceed four hundred millions, and such additional sum,

not exceeding fifty millions, as may be temporarily required for

redemption of temporary loans."

But the Ohio inflationists, in a time of peace, on grounds of mere

expediency, propose an inconvertible paper currency, with its

volume limited only by the discretion or caprice of its issuers, or

their judgment as to the wants of trade. The most distinguished

gentleman whose name is associated with the subject once said "the

process must be conducted with skill and caution, ... by men whose

position will enable them to guard against any evil," and using a

favorite illustration he said, "The secretary of the treasury ought

to be able to judge. His hand is upon the pulse of the country. He

can feel all the throbbings of the blood in the arteries. He can

tell when the blood flows too fast and strong, and when the

expansion should cease." This brings us face to face with the

fundamental error of this dangerous policy. The trouble is the

pulse of the patient will not so often decide the question as the

interest of the doctor. No man, no government, no Congress is wise

enough and pure enough to be trusted with this tremendous power

over the business, and property, and labor of the country. That

which concerns so intimately all business should be decided, if

possible, on business principles, and not be left to depend on the

exigencies of politics, the interests of party, or the ambition of

public men. It will not do for property, for business, or for labor

to be at the mercy of a few political leaders at Washington, either

in or out of Congress. The best way to prevent it is to apply to

paper money the old test sanctioned by the experience of all

Nations--let it be convertible into coin. If it can respond to this

test, it will, as nearly as possible, be sound, safe, and stable.

The Republicans of Ohio are in favor of no sudden or harsh

measures. They do not propose to force resumption by a contraction

of the currency. They see that the ship is headed in the right

direction, and they do not wish to lose what has already been

gained. They are satisfied to leave to the influences of time and

the inherent energy and resources of the country the work that yet

remains to be done to place our currency at par. We believe that

what our country now needs to revive business and to give

employment to labor, is a restoration of confidence. We need

confidence in the stability and soundness of the financial policy

of the government. That confidence has for many months past been

slowly but steadily increasing. The Columbus Democratic platform

comes in as a disturbing element, and gives a severe shock to

reviving confidence. The country believed, and rejoiced to believe,

that Senator Thurman expressed the sober judgment of Ohio, when he

spoke last year in the Senate on this subject. The senator said,

March 24, 1874:

"Never have I spoken in favor of that inflation of the currency,

which, I think I see full well, means that there shall never be any

resumption at all. That is the difference. It is one thing to

contract the currency, with a view to the resumption of specie

payment; it is another thing neither to contract nor enlarge it,

but let resumption, come naturally and as soon as the business and

production of the country will bring it about. But it is a very

different thing indeed to inflate the currency with a view never in

all time to redeem it at all. And that is precisely what this

inflation means. It means demonetizing gold and silver in

perpetuity, and substituting a currency of irredeemable paper,

based wholly and entirely upon government credit, and depending

upon the opinion and the interests of the members of Congress and

their hopes of popularity, whether the volume of it shall be large

or small. That is what this inflation means. Sir, I have never said

anything in favor of that. I am too old-fashioned a Democrat for

that. I can not give up the convictions of a life-time, whether

they be popular or unpopular."

April 6th, when the Senate inflation bill was debated, he said:

"It simply means that no man of my age shall ever again see in this

country that kind of currency which the framers of the constitution

intended should be the currency of the Union; which every sound

writer on political economy the world over says is the only

currency that defrauds no man. It means that so long as I live, and

possibly long after I shall be laid in the grave, this people shall

have nothing but an irredeemable currency with which to transact

their business--that currency which has been well described as the

most effective invention that ever the wit of man devised to

fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow.

I will have nothing to do with it."

How great the shock which was given to returning confidence by the

Democratic action at Columbus abundantly appears by the manner in

which the platform is received by the Liberal and the English and

the German Democratic press throughout the United States. The

Liberal press and the German press, so far as I have observed, in

the strongest terms condemn the platform. They speak of it as

disturbing confidence, shaking credit, and threatening repudiation.

A large part of the Democratic press of other States is hardly less

emphatic. It would be strange, indeed, if this were otherwise. In

Ohio, less than two years ago, the convention which nominated

Governor Allen resolved, speaking of the Democratic party, that "it

recognizes the evils of an irredeemable paper currency, but

insists that in the return to specie payment care should be taken

not to seriously disturb the business of the country or unjustly

injure the debtor class." There was no inflation then. Now come the

soft-money leaders of the Democratic party, and try to persuade the

people that the promises of the United States should only be

redeemed by other promises, and that it is sound policy to increase

them.

The credit of the Nation depends on its ability and disposition to

keep its promises. If it fails to keep them, and suffers them to

depreciate, its credit is tainted, and it must pay high rates of

interest on all of its loans. For many years we must be a borrower

in the markets of the world. The interest-bearing debt is over

seventeen hundred millions of dollars. If we could borrow money at

the same rate with some of the great Nations of Europe, we could

save perhaps two per cent per annum on this sum. Thirty or forty

millions a year we are paying on account of tainted credit. The

more promises to pay an individual issues, without redeeming them,

the worse becomes his credit. It is the same with Nations. The

legal tender note for five dollars is the promise of the United

States to pay that sum in the money of the world, in coin. No time

is fixed for its payment. It is therefore payable on

presentation--on demand. It is not paid; it is past due; and it is

depreciated to the extent of twelve per cent. The country

recognizes the necessities of the situation, and waits, and is

willing to wait, until the productive business of the country

enables the government to redeem. But the Columbus financiers are

not satisfied. They demand the issue of more promises. This is

inflation. No man can doubt the result. The credit of the Nation

will inevitably suffer. There will be further depreciation. A

depreciation of ten per cent diminishes the value of the present

paper currency from fifty to one hundred millions of dollars. Its

effect on business would be disastrous in the extreme. The present

legal tenders have a certain steadiness, because there is a limit

fixed to their amount. Public opinion confides in that limit. But

let that limit be broken down, and all is uncertainty. The authors

of this scheme believe inflation is a good thing. When this subject

was under discussion, a few years ago, the Cincinnati _Enquirer_

said "the issue of two millions dollars of currency would only put

it in the power of each voter to secure $400 for himself and

family to spend in the course of a life-time. Is there any voter

thinks that is too much--more than he will want?" This shows what

the platform means. It means inflation without limit; and inflation

is the downward path to repudiation. It means ruin to the Nation's

credit, and to all individual credit. All the rest of the world

have the same standard of value. Our promises are worthless as

currency the moment you pass our boundary line. Even in this

country, very extensive sections still use the money of the world.

Texas, the most promising and flourishing State of the South, uses

coin. California and the other Pacific States and Territories do

the same. Look at their condition. Texas and California are not the

least prosperous part of the United States. This scheme can not be

adopted. The opinion of the civilized world is against it. The vast

majority of the ablest newspapers of the country is against it. The

best minds of the Democratic party are against it. The last three

Democratic candidates for the presidency were against it. The

German citizens of the United States, so distinguished for

industry, for thrift, and for soundness of judgment in all

practical money affairs, are a unit against it. The Republican

party is against it. The people of Ohio will, I am confident,

decide in October to have nothing to do with it.

Since the adoption of the inflation platform at Columbus, a great

change has taken place in the feelings and views of its friends.

Then they were confident--perhaps it is not too much to say that

they were dictatorial and overbearing toward their hard money party

associates. There was no doubt as to the intent and meaning of the

platform. Its friends asserted that the country needed more money,

and more money now. That the way to get it was to issue government

legal tender notes liberally. But the storm of criticism and

condemnation which burst upon the platform from the soundest

Democrats in all quarters has alarmed its supporters. Many of them

have been seized with a panic, and are now utterly stampeded and in

full retreat. They say that they are not for inflation, not for

inconvertible paper money, and that they never have been. That they

are hard money men, and always have been. That they look forward to

a return of specie payment, and that it must always be kept in

view. Why what did they mean by their platform? Did they expect to

make money plenty by an issue of more coin? Certainly not. By an

issue of more paper redeemable in coin? Certainly not. They

expected to issue more legal tender notes--notes irredeemable and

depreciated. But public opinion as shown by the press is so

decidedly against them, that Ohio inflationists now begin to desert

their own platform. Even Mr. Pendleton is solicitous not to be held

responsible for the Columbus scheme. He says, "I speak for myself

alone. I do not assume to speak for the Democratic party. Its

convention has spoken for it," and proceeds to interpret the

platform as if it was for hard money. Senator Thurman did not so

understand it. He thought the hard money men were beaten and felt

disappointed. It now looks as if General Carey might be left almost

alone before the canvass ends. If Judge Thurman could get that

convention together again, it is evident that he could now in the

same body rout the inflationists, horse, foot, and artillery.

Nothing but a victory in Ohio can put inflation again on its legs.

Let it be defeated in October, and the friends of a sound and

honest currency will have a clear field for at least the life of

the present generation.

Two years ago, the Democratic party came fully into power in Ohio,

in the State legislature, and for the first time in twenty years,

elected the executive of the State. They were also entrusted with

the affairs of the leading cities, and a majority of the wealthiest

and most populous counties in the State. It would be profitable in

us to inquire how this came about, and what are the results. In the

course of the canvass it is my purpose to show in detail how

unfortunate their management of State affairs has been. It will

appear, on investigation, that the interests of the State in the

benevolent, penal, and reformatory institutions have been

sacrificed to the spoils doctrine: how the cities, and especially

the chief city of the State, has suffered by the corruption of its

rulers; how public expenditures have been increased, until the

aggregate of taxation in Ohio, in this time of money depression, is

vastly larger than ever before; how the number of salaried officers

was increased; how the members of the legislature were corrupted by

bribery, notorious, and shameless; and how the dominant party

utterly failed to deal with this corruption as duty and the good

name of the State demanded. Fallacious and deceptive statements

have been made as to the reduction of the levy for State taxes, and

as to the appropriations. It is enough now to say that the

aggregate taxation in Ohio in 1874, was over $27,000,000, a larger

sum than was ever before collected by tax-gatherers in Ohio.

Altogether the most interesting questions in our State affairs are

those which relate to the passage, by the last legislature, of the

Geghan bill and the war which the sectarian wing of the Democratic

party is now waging against the public schools. In the admirable

speech made by Judge Taft at the Republican State Convention, he

sounded the key-note to the canvass on this subject. He said "our

motto must be universal liberty and universal suffrage, secured by

universal education." Before we discuss these questions, it may be

well, in order that there may be no excuse for further

misrepresentation, to show by whom this subject was introduced into

politics, and to state explicitly that we attack no sect and no

man, either Protestant or Jew, Catholic or Unbeliever, on account

of his conscientious convictions in regard to religion. Who began

the agitation of this subject? Why is it agitated? All parties have

taken hold of it. The Democratic party in their State convention

make it the topic of their longest resolution. In their platform

they gave it more space than to any other subject except the

currency. Many of the Democratic county conventions also took

action upon it.

The Republican State Convention passed resolutions on the question.

It is stated that it was considered in about forty Republican

county conventions. The State Teachers' Association, at their last

meeting, passed unanimously the following resolution. Mr. Tappan,

from the Committee on Resolutions, reported the following:

"_Resolved_, That we are in favor of a free, impartial, and

unsectarian education to every child in the State, and that any

division of the school fund or appropriation of any part thereof to

any religious or private school would be injurious to education and

the best interests of the church."

An able address by the Rev. Dr. Jeffers, of Cleveland, showing the

"perils which threaten our public schools," was emphatically

applauded by that intelligent body of citizens.

The assemblies of the different religious denominations in the

State, which have recently been held, have generally, and I think

without exception, passed similar resolutions. If blame is to

attach to all who consider and discuss this question before the

public, we have had a very large body of offenders. But I have not

named all who are engaged in it. I have not named those who began

it; those who for years have kept it up; those who in the press, on

the platform, in the pulpit, in legislative bodies, in city

councils, and in school boards, now unceasingly agitate the

question. Everybody knows who they are; everybody knows that the

sectarian wing of the Democratic party began this agitation, and

that it is bent on the destruction of our free schools. If

Republicans acting on the defensive discuss the subject, and

express the opinion that the Democratic party can't safely be

trusted, they are denounced in unmeasured terms. General Carey

calls them "political knaves" and "fools" and "bigots." But it is

very significant that no Democratic speaker denounces those who

began the agitation. All their epithets are leveled at the men who

are on the right side of the question. Agitation on the wrong

side--agitation against the schools may go on. It meets no

condemnation from leading Democratic candidates and speakers. The

reason is plain. Those who mean to destroy the school system

constitute a formidable part of the Democratic party, without whose

support that party, as the legislature was told last Spring, can

not carry the county, the city, nor the State.

The sectarian agitation against the public schools was begun many

years ago. During the last few years, it has steadily and rapidly

increased, and has been encouraged by various indications of

possible success. It extends to all of the States where schools at

the common expense have been long established. Its triumphs are

mainly in the large towns and cities. It has already divided the

schools, and in a considerable degree impaired and limited their

usefulness. The glory of the American system of education has been

that it was so cheap that the humblest citizen could afford to give

his children its advantages, and so good that the man of wealth

could nowhere provide for his children anything better. This gave

the system its most conspicuous merit. It made it a Republican

system. The young of all conditions of life are brought together

and educated on terms of perfect equality. The tendency of this is

to assimilate and to fuse together the various elements of our

population, to promote unity, harmony, and general good will in our

American society. But the enemies of the American system have begun

the work of destroying it. They have forced away from the public

schools, in many towns and cities, one-third or one-fourth of their

pupils and sent them to schools which it is safe to say are no whit

superior to those they have left. These youth are thus deprived of

the associations and the education in practical Republicanism and

American sentiments which they peculiarly need. Nobody questions

their constitutional and legal right to do this, and to do it by

denouncing the public schools. Sectarians have a lawful right to

say that these schools are "a relict of paganism--that they are

Godless," and that "the secular school system is a social cancer."

But when having thus succeeded in dividing the schools, they make

that a ground for abolishing school taxation, dividing the school

fund, or otherwise destroying the system, it is time that its

friends should rise up in its defense.

We all agree that neither the government nor political parties

ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that

religious sects ought not to interfere with the government or with

political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and

the cause of religion both suffer by all such interference. But if

Sectarians make demands for legislation of political parties, and

threaten that party with opposition at the elections in case the

required enactments are not passed, and if the political party

yields to such threats, then those threats, those demands, and that

action of the political party become a legitimate subject of

political discussion, and the sectarians who thus interfere with

the legislation of the State are alone responsible for the

agitation which follows.

And now a few words as to the action of the last legislature on

this subject. After an examination of the Geghan bill, we shall

perhaps come to the conclusion that in itself it is not of great

importance. I would not undervalue the conscientious scruples on

the subject of religion of a convict in the penitentiary, or of any

unfortunate person in any State institution. But the provision of

the constitution of the State covers the whole ground. It needs no

awkwardly framed statute of doubtful meaning, like the Geghan bill,

to accomplish the object of the organic law. The old constitution

of 1802, and the constitution now in force, of 1851, are

substantially alike. Both declare (I quote section 7, article 1,

constitution of 1851):

"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty

God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person

shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of

worship, or maintain any form of worship against his consent; and

no preference shall be given by law to any religious society; nor

shall any interference with the right of conscience be permitted."

If the Geghan bill is merely a reënactment of this part of the bill

of rights, it is a work of supererogation, and it is not strange

that the legislature did not, when it was introduced, favor its

passage. The author of the bill wrote, "the members claim that such

a bill is not needed." The same opinion prevails in New Jersey,

where a similar bill is said to have been defeated by a vote of

three to one. But the sectarians of Ohio were resolved on the

passage of this bill. Mr. Geghan, its author, wrote to Mr. Murphy,

of Cincinnati:

"We have a prior claim upon the Democratic party. The elements

composing the Democratic party in Ohio to-day are made up of Irish

and German catholics, and they have always been loyal and faithful

to the interests of the party. Hence the party is under obligations

to us, and we have a perfect right to demand of them, as a party,

inasmuch as they are in control of the State legislature and State

government, and were by both our means and votes placed where they

are to-day, that they should, as a party, redress our grievances."

The organ of the friends of the bill published this letter, and

among other things said:

"The political party with which nine-tenths of the Catholic voters

affiliate on account of past services that they will never forget,

now controls the State. Withdraw the support which Catholics have

given to it and it will fall in this city, county, and State, as

speedily as it has risen to its long lost position and power. That

party is now on trial. Mr. Geghan's bill will test the sincerity of

its professions."

That threat was effectual. The bill was passed, and the sectarian

organ therefore said:

"The unbroken solid vote of the Catholic citizens of the State will

be given to the Democracy at the fall election."

In regard to those who voted against the bill, it said: "They have

dug their political grave; it will not be our fault if they do not

fill it. When any of them appear again in the political arena, we

will put upon them a brand that every Catholic citizen will

understand." No defense of this conduct of the last legislature has

yet been attempted. The facts are beyond dispute. This is the first

example of open and successful sectarian interference with

legislation in Ohio. If the people are wise, they will give it such

a rebuke in October that for many years, at least, it will be the

last.

But it is claimed that the schools are in no danger. Now that

public attention is aroused to the importance of the subject, it is

probable that in Ohio they are safe. But their safety depends on

the rebuke which the people shall give to the party which yielded

last spring at Columbus to the threats of their enemies. It is said

that no political party "desires the destruction of the schools." I

reply, no political party "desired" the passage of the Geghan bill;

but the power which hates the schools passed the bill. The

sectarian wing of the Democratic party rules that party to-day in

the great commercial metropolis of the Nation. It holds the balance

of power in many of the large cities of the country. Without its

votes, the Democratic party would lose every large city and county

in Ohio and every Northern State. In the presidential canvass of

1864, it was claimed that General McClellan was as good a Union man

as Abraham Lincoln, and that he was as much opposed to the

rebellion. An eminent citizen of this State replied: "I learn from

my adversaries. Who do the enemies of the Union want elected? The

man they are for, I am against." So I would say to the friends of

the public schools: "How do the enemies of universal education

vote?" If the enemies of the free schools give their "unbroken,

solid vote" to the Democratic ticket, the friends of the schools

will make no mistake if they vote the Republican ticket.

The Republicans enter upon this important canvass with many

advantages. Their adversaries are loaded down with the record of

the last legislature. Democratic legislatures have not been

fortunate in Ohio. Since the present division of parties, twenty

years ago, no Democratic legislature has ever failed to bring

defeat to its party. The people of Ohio have never been willing to

venture on the experiment of two Democratic legislatures in

succession. The Democratic inflation platform offends German

Democrats, has driven off the Liberal Republicans, and is accepted

by very few old-fashioned Democrats in its true intent and meaning.

The Republicans are out of power in the cities and in the State,

and are everywhere taking the offensive. If Democrats assail them

on account of some affair of years ago, or in a distant Southern

State, or at Washington, Republicans reply by pointing to what

Democrats are now doing in their own cities, or have just done in

the last legislature. The materials for such retort are abundant

and ready at hand. The Republicans are embarrassed by no entangling

alliance with the sectarian enemies of the public schools, and they

have yielded to no sectarian demands or dictation in public

affairs. We rejoice to see indications of an active canvass and a

large vote at the election. Such a canvass and such a vote in Ohio

never yet resulted in a Democratic victory. Our motto is honest

money for all and free schools for all. There should be no

inflation which will destroy the one, and no sectarian interference

which will destroy the other.

_Speech of_ GOVERNOR HAYES _to his neighbors at Fremont, delivered June

25, 1876._

_Mr. Mayor, Fellow-Citizens, Friends, and Neighbors:_

I need not attempt to express the emotions I feel at the reception

which the people of Fremont and this county have given me to-night.

Under any circumstances, an assemblage of this sort at my home to

welcome me would touch me, would excite the warmest emotions of

gratitude; but what gives to this its distinctive character is the

fact that those who are prominent in welcoming me home, I know, in

the past, have not voted with me or for me, and they do not intend

in the future to vote with me or for me. It is simply that, coming

to my home, they rejoice that Ohio, that Sandusky county, that the

town of Fremont has received at that National Convention high

honor, and I thank you, Democrats, fellow-citizens, Independents,

and Republicans, for this spontaneous and enthusiastic reception.

I trust that in the course of events the time will never come that

you will have cause to regret what you do to-night. It is a very

great responsibility that has been placed upon me--to be a

representative of a party embracing twenty millions of people--a

responsibility which I know I am not equal to. I understand very

well that it was not by reason of ability or talents that I was

chosen. But that which does rejoice me is that here, where I have

been known from my childhood, there are those that come and rejoice

at the result.

I trust, my friends, that as I run along in this desultory way--for

you well know that since I learned that I was to be here to-night,

the multitude of letters, and visits, and telegrams requiring

attention have given me no time to prepare for a reception like

this--you must, therefore, put up with hastily-formed sentences,

very unfitly representing the sentiments appropriate to the

occasion. Let me, if I may do it without too much egotism, recur to

the history of my connection with Fremont. Forty-two years ago my

uncle, Sardis Birchard, brought me to this place, and I rejoice, my

friends, in the good taste and good feeling which have placed his

portrait here to-night. He, having adopted me as his child, brought

me to Fremont. I recollect well the appearance of the then Lower

Sandusky, consisting of a few wooden buildings scattered along the

river, with little paint on them, and these trees none of them

grown, the old fort still having some of its earthworks remaining,

so that it could be easily traced. A pleasant village this was for

a boy to enjoy himself in. There was the fishing on the river,

shooting water-fowls above the dam, at the islands and the lake.

Perhaps no boy ever enjoyed his departure from home better than I

did when I first came to Fremont.

But now see what this town is,--how it has grown. It has not

increased to a first-class city, but it has become a pleasant home,

so pleasant, so thriving that I rejoice to think that whatever may

be the result next fall it will be pleasant to return to it when

the contest is over. If defeated, I shall return to you oftener

than if I go to the White House. If I go there I shall look forward

with pleasure to the time when I shall be permitted to return to

you, to be a neighbor with you again. And really we have cause to

be satisfied with our home and the interests which the future has

in store for us here. Larger cities always have strife and rivalry,

from which we are free, and yet we are well situated between two

commercial centers, the Eastern and Western, between which is the

great highway of the world, and we can not but partake of their

prosperity. Over the railroad passing through this place, or near

it, will pass for all time to come the travel and trade of New York

and San Francisco, of London and Pekin. Every town along this route

partakes of the prosperity of this highway. Upper Sandusky, on the

Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, and Tiffin, that

thriving and beautiful city through which passes the Baltimore and

Ohio Railroad, south of us, while along the lake shore passes the

great northern division of the Lake Shore Road, making this route,

as it were, the great artery of the world's travel, and we can

abide with the prosperity that is to come in the future. Those of

our friends who travel in Europe return sometimes dissatisfied,

because there is a rawness in this country not seen in England and

the older countries of Europe. But then the greatest happiness, as

all of us know, in preparing a garden or a home is to see the

improvements growing up under our hands. This is what we enjoy; and

the change in Fremont from the time I first knew it till to-day

gives me very great pleasure.

There is another change which gives rise to mournful reflections.

When I came here in the year 1834, I became acquainted with honored

citizens who are no longer living. There was, Mr. Mayor, your

father, Rudolphus Dickinson, Thomas I. Hawkins, Judge Olmsted,

Judge Howland, and, among others, that marvel of business energy,

George Grant; and I might go on giving name after name. But it is

true that of all those I remember seeing on that first visit, not

one is with us to-night. All who came with me, my uncle, my mother,

and my sister, are gone. But this is the order of Providence.

Events follow upon one another as wave follows wave upon the ocean.

It is for each man to do what he can to make others happy. This is

the prayer and this is the duty of life. Let us, my friends, in

every position, undertake to perform this duty. For one, I have no

reliance except that which Abraham Lincoln had when, on leaving

Springfield, he said to his friends: "I go to Washington to assume

a responsibility greater than that which has been devolved upon any

one since the first president, and I beg you, my friends and

neighbors, to pray that I may have that Divine assistance, without

which I can not succeed, and with which I can not fail." In that

spirit I ask you to deal with me. If it shall be the will of the

people that this nomination shall be ratified, I know I shall have

your good wishes and your prayers. If, on the other hand, it shall

be the will of the people that another shall assume these great

responsibilities, let us see to it that we who shall oppose him

give him a fair trial.

My friends, I thank you for the interest you have taken in this

reception, and that you have laid aside partisan feeling. There has

been too much bitterness on such occasions in our land. Let us see

to it that abuse and vituperation of the candidate that shall be

named at St. Louis do not proceed from our lips. Let us, in this

centennial year, as we enter upon this second century of our

existence, set an example of what a free and intelligent people can

do. There is gathered at Philadelphia an assemblage representing

nearly all the Nations of the world, with their arts and

manufactures. We have invited competition, and they have come to

compete with us, and with each other. We find that America stands

well with the works of the world, as there exhibited. Let us show,

in electing a chief magistrate of the Nation--the officer that is

to be the first of forty or forty-five millions--let us show all

those who visit us how the American people can conduct themselves

through a canvass of this kind. If it shall be in the spirit in

which we have met to-night, if it shall be that justness and

fairness shall be in all the discussions, it will commend free

institutions to the world in a way which they have never been

commended before.

Well, friends, I am detaining you too long. Therefore I close what

I have to say by expressing the feelings of gratitude entertained

by myself and family for the kindness and regard shown us by the

people of Fremont.

About the middle of the war, General Sherman lost a boy, named

after himself, aged about thirteen years. He supposed that he

belonged to the Thirteenth Infantry, and when they went out to

drill and dress parade, he dressed in the dress of a sergeant and

marched with them. But he sickened and died. The regiment gathered

about him, for he was to them a comrade--dear as the child is loved

by men who are torn away from the associations of home. General

Sherman, the great soldier, was touched by it. He said it would be

idle for him to try to express the gratitude which he felt; but he

said they held the key to the affections of himself and family, and

if any of them should ever be in need, if they would mention that

they belonged to the Thirteenth Infantry at the time his boy died,

they would divide with him the last blanket, and last morsel of

food. It is in this spirit that I wish to express my thanks to the

people of Fremont for the welcome they have given me. I bid you, my

friends, good night.