[Illustration: Benjamin Harrison]
SPEECHES
OF
BENJAMIN HARRISON
TWENTY-THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
A COMPLETE COLLECTION OF HIS PUBLIC ADDRESSES FROM FEBRUARY,
1888, TO FEBRUARY, 1892, CHRONOLOGICALLY CLASSIFIED;
EMBRACING ALL HIS CAMPAIGN SPEECHES, LETTER
OF ACCEPTANCE, INAUGURAL ADDRESS, AND THE
NUMEROUS SPEECHES DELIVERED DURING
HIS SEVERAL TOURS; ALSO EXTRACTS
FROM HIS MESSAGES TO
CONGRESS
COMPILED BY
CHARLES HEDGES
NEW YORK
UNITED STATES BOOK COMPANY
SUCCESSORS TO
JOHN W. LOVELL COMPANY
142 TO 150 WORTH STREET
COPYRIGHT, 1892,
BY
CHARLES HEDGES
PREFACE.
It is not the purpose of this book to present a few selections of
oratory, laboriously prepared and polished, or occasional flashes of
brilliant thought. From such efforts, prepared, perhaps, after days of
study and repeated revision, one can form but an imperfect idea of their
author. Such a compilation might show the highest conceptions of the
man, and evidence a wide range of thought and a surpassing grandeur of
expression; but it would be but a poor mirror of the man himself in his
daily life.
It is due to the people that the largest opportunity be given them to
observe the character of their public servants, to come into closest
touch with their daily thoughts, and to know them as they are--not when
prepared for special occasions, but day after day and all the time. It
is with this view that this collection of the speeches of President
Harrison is offered to the public. It is a series of instantaneous
photographs that have caught him unawares. The studied pose is wanting,
but the pictures are true to life.
There are included the letter of acceptance, the inaugural address,
the letter to the commercial congress, extracts from his last annual
message to Congress, his patriotic message on the Chilian affair, and
a few carefully prepared speeches, among them his notable addresses at
the banquet of the Michigan Club, February 22, 1888, and before the
Marquette Club at Chicago, March 20, the same year; also his celebrated
speech at Galveston, in April last. All these are among the best models
of statesmanlike thought and concise, forcible, and elegant expression.
With these exceptions, the speeches presented were delivered during the
presidential campaign of 1888, often four or five in a day, to visiting
delegations of citizens, representing every occupation and interest,
and during his tours of 1890 and 1891, when he often spoke eight or ten
times a day from the platform of his car.
If these speeches contained no other merit, they would be remarkable
in the fact that, while delivered during the excitement of a political
campaign and in the hurry of wayside pauses in a journey by railroad,
they contain not one carelessly spoken word that can detract from
their dignity, or, by any possible distortion of language, be turned
against their author by his political opponents. With no opportunity
for elaborately studied phrases, he did not utter a word that could be
sneered at as weak or commonplace. This fact is all the more noteworthy
when we recall the dismal failures that have been made by others under
like circumstances.
A spirit of exalted patriotism and broad statesmanship is apparent in
every line; and notwithstanding the malignity of the partisan assaults
that were made upon him, no words of bitterness--only terms of generous
tolerance--characterize his allusions to his political opponents.
With a single notable exception, no thought of sameness or repetition
is ever suggested. That exception was the central thought and vital
principle that was at stake in the campaign. One marvels at his
versatility in adapting himself to every occasion, whether he was
addressing a delegation of miners, of comrades in war, or of children
from the public schools; we admire the lofty thoughts and the delicious
humor; but while he might soften in tender, playful greeting of
children, or live again with his comrades the old life of tent and
field, he never for one moment forgot the great principle whose banner
he had been chosen to uphold. Protection of American industry was
always his foremost thought--and how well he presented it! What an
example to the politician who seeks by evasion or silence to avoid the
questions at issue!
The book is therefore presented with the gratifying belief that a
valuable service has been rendered in collecting these speeches and
putting them in an enduring form, not only because they give the
American people the most lifelike mental portrait of their Chief
Magistrate, but because they are a valuable contribution to American
literature.
In order to the best understanding and appreciation of an address, it
is often necessary to know the circumstances in which it was delivered.
Especially is this true when the address was made, as many of these
were, to some particular organization or class of citizens or at the
celebration of some important event. For this reason, as well as for
their important historical value, an account is given of the occasion
of each speech, including, as far as they could be learned, the names
of the more distinguished persons who were present and took part in the
exercises.
C. H.
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 20, 1892.
BIOGRAPHICAL.
Benjamin Harrison, twenty-third President of the United States, was born
Tuesday, August 20, 1833, at North Bend, Hamilton County, Ohio. He is
the second son of the late John Scott and Elizabeth Irwin Harrison.
His father--the third son of President William Henry Harrison and Anna
Symmes--was born at Vincennes, Indiana, was twice elected to Congress as
a Democrat, from the Cincinnati district, and died in 1878.
General William Henry Harrison, ninth President of the United
States, was the third son of a famous signer of the Declaration of
Independence--Benjamin Harrison, of Virginia, and his wife Elizabeth
Bassett. This Benjamin Harrison, "the signer," was one of the first
seven delegates from Virginia to the Continental Congress. He reported
the resolution for independence, was Speaker of the House of Burgesses,
and was thrice elected Governor of Virginia, dying in 1791; he was the
eldest son of Benjamin and Anna Carter Harrison, both of whom were
descended from ancestors distinguished for their high character and
their services to the colony of Virginia.
Ben Harrison's boyhood was passed upon his father's farm in Ohio. At the
age of 14, with his elder brother Irwin, he attended Farmer's College at
Cincinnati, preparatory to entering Miami University at Oxford, Ohio,
from which institution he graduated in 1852.
He studied law in the office of Judge Belamy Storer at Cincinnati, and
in March, 1854--with his bride, Miss Caroline W. Scott, to whom he
was wedded October 20, 1853--he located at Indianapolis and began the
practice of the law.
In 1860 he was elected reporter of the decisions of the Supreme Court of
Indiana, as a Republican, receiving 9,688 majority.
In July, 1862, he was commissioned by Gov. Oliver P. Morton as second
lieutenant, and raised Company A of the Seventieth Indiana Volunteer
Infantry, was commissioned captain, and on the organization of the
regiment was commissioned colonel. In August his regiment entered the
field and became a part of the 1st Brigade of the 1st Division of the
20th Army Corps, Gen. W. T. Ward, of Kentucky, brigade commander. At
the battle of Resaca, Sunday, May 15, 1864, the Seventieth Regiment led
the brigade in a gallant charge, and its colonel signally distinguished
himself, being among the first to scale the bloody parapet. He actively
participated in the engagements at Cassville, New Hope Church, Gilgal
Church, Kulps Hill, and Kenesaw. Following that great captain in the
Atlanta campaign, initiatory to his famous march to the sea, Colonel
Harrison at the battle of Peach Tree Creek, July 20, 1864, in the crisis
of the fight, without awaiting orders, seized an important position and
successfully resisted, at great loss, the terrific assaults of a large
detachment of Hood's army. For this brilliant achievement, upon the
recommendation of Major-General Joe Hooker, he was brevetted in March,
1865, by President Lincoln, a brigadier-general, to date from January
23, 1865.
In October, 1864, while at the front, he was re-elected, by 19,713
majority, reporter of the Supreme Court, which office he had lost by
accepting a commission in the army. After four years as reporter he
resumed his law practice, forming a partnership with Albert G. Porter
and W. P. Fishback. About 1870 Mr. Fishback retired, and the firm became
Porter, Harrison & Hines; upon Governor Porter's retirement W. H. H.
Miller took his place, and in 1883 Mr. Hines retired, and, John B. Elam
coming in, the firm became Harrison, Miller & Elam.
In 1876 Hon. Godlove S. Orth was nominated as Republican candidate for
Governor of Indiana, but pending the canvass he unexpectedly withdrew.
In this emergency, during General Harrison's absence on a trip to Lake
Superior, the Central Committee substituted his name at the head of
the ticket. Undertaking the canvass despite adverse conditions, he was
defeated by Hon. James D. Williams--"Blue Jeans"--by a plurality of
5,084 votes.
In 1878 he was chosen chairman of the Republican State Convention.
In 1879 he was appointed by President Hayes a member of the Mississippi
River Commission.
In 1880 he was chairman of the delegation from Indiana to the National
Convention, and with his colleagues cast 34 consecutive ballots for
James G. Blaine in that historic contest.
President Garfield tendered him any position but one in his Cabinet, but
the high honor was declined.
In January, 1881, he was elected United States Senator--the unanimous
choice of his party--to succeed Joseph E. McDonald, and served six years
to March 3, 1887.
In 1884 he again represented his State as delegate at large to the
National Convention.
January, 1887, he was a second time the unanimous choice of his party
for United States Senator, but after a protracted and exciting contest
was defeated on the sixteenth joint ballot, upon party lines, by 2
majority.
June 25, 1888, he was nominated at Chicago by the Republican National
Convention for President, on the eighth ballot, receiving 544 votes
against 118 for John Sherman, 100 for Russell A. Alger, and 59 for
Walter Q. Gresham. He was chosen President by 233 electoral votes
against 168 for Grover Cleveland. The popular vote resulted: 5,536,242
(48.63 per cent.) for the Democratic ticket, 5,440,708 (47.83 per cent.)
for the Republican ticket, 246,876 (2.16 per cent.) for the Prohibition,
146,836 (1.27 per cent.) for the Union Labor, and 7,777 (0.11 per cent.)
scattering.
HARRISON'S SPEECHES.
DETROIT, FEBRUARY 22, 1888.
_Michigan Club Banquet._
The Michigan Club, the largest and most influential political
organization in the State, held its third annual banquet at the Detroit
Rink on Washington's Birthday, 1888.
The officers of the club were: _President_, Clarence A. Black;
_Vice-President_, William H. Elliott; _Secretary_, Fred. E. Farnsworth;
_Treasurer_, Frederick Woolfenden.
Senator Thomas W. Palmer was president of the evening; the
vice-presidents were: Hons. F. B. Stockbridge, C. G. Luce, J. H.
Macdonald, Austin Blair, H. P. Baldwin, David H. Jerome, R. A. Alger, O.
D. Conger, Chas. D. Long, E. P. Allen, James O'Donnell, J. C. Burrows,
M. S. Brewer, S. M. Cutcheon, Henry W. Seymour, Benj. F. Graves, Isaac
Marston, Edward S. Lacy, John T. Rich, O. L. Spaulding, Geo. W. Webber,
Geo. Willard, E. W. Keightley, R. G. Horr, E. O. Grosvenor, James
Birney, C. E. Ellsworth, D. P. Markey.
The distinguished guests and speakers of the evening from other States
were: General Benjamin Harrison, Ind.; General Joseph R. Hawley, Conn.;
Hon. William McKinley, Jr., Ohio; Hon. Joseph G. Cannon, Hon. John F.
Finerty, and General Green B. Raum, Ill.; Hon. L. E. McComas, Md.; and
Hon. James P. Foster, N. Y.
General Harrison responded to the sentiment, "Washington, the
republican. The guarantee of the Constitution that the State shall have
a republican form of government is only executed when the majority in
the States are allowed to vote and have their ballots counted."
His speech attracted widespread attention at the time, and is considered
one of his greatest. One expression therein--viz.: "I am a dead
statesman, but a living and rejuvenated Republican"--went broadcast over
the land and became one of the keynotes of the campaign.
Senator Harrison made the first reference of the evening to the name of
"Chandler." It was talismanic; instantly a great wave of applause swept
over the banquet-hall, and thenceforth the speaker carried his hearers
with him.
The Senator spoke as follows:
_Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Michigan Club_--I feel that I
am at some disadvantage here to-night by reason of the fact that I
did not approach Detroit from the direction of Washington city. I
am a dead statesman ["No! No!"]; but I am a living and rejuvenated
Republican. I have the pleasure to-night, for the first time in
my life, of addressing an audience of Michigan Republicans. Your
invitations in the past have been frequent and urgent, but I have
always felt that you knew how to do your own work, that we could
trust the stalwart Republicans of this magnificent State to hold
this key of the lakes against all comers. I am not here to-night in
the expectation that I shall be able to help you by any suggestion,
or even to kindle into greater earnestness that zeal and interest
in Republican principles which your presence here to-night so well
attests. I am here rather to be helped myself, to bathe my soul in
this high atmosphere of patriotism and pure Republicanism [applause]
by spending a little season in the presence of those who loved and
honored and followed the Cromwell of the Republican party, Zachariah
Chandler. [Tremendous applause.]
The sentiment which has been assigned me to-night--"Washington,
the republican; a free and equal ballot the only guarantee of the
Nation's security and perpetuity"--is one that was supported with a
boldness of utterance, with a defiance that was unexcelled by any
leader, by Zachariah Chandler always and everywhere. [Applause.] As
Republicans we are fortunate, as has been suggested, in the fact
that there is nothing in the history of our party, nothing in the
principles that we advocate, to make it impossible for us to gather
and to celebrate the birthday of any American who honored or defended
his country. [Cheers.] We could even unite with our Democratic friends
in celebrating the birthday of St. Jackson, because we enter into
fellowship with him when we read his story of how by proclamation he
put down nullification in South Carolina. [Applause.] We could meet
with them to celebrate the birthday of Thomas Jefferson; because there
is no note in the immortal Declaration or in the Constitution of our
country that is out of harmony with Republicanism. [Cheers.] But our
Democratic friends are under limitation. They have a short calendar of
sense, and they must omit from the history of those whose names are
on their calendar the best achievements of their lives. I do not know
what the party is preserved for. Its history reminds me of the boulder
in the stream of progress, impeding and resisting its onward flow and
moving only by the force that it resists.
I want to read a very brief extract from a most notable paper--one
that was to-day in the Senate at Washington read from the desk by
its presiding officer--the "Farewell Address of Washington;" and
while it is true that I cannot quote or find in the writings of
Washington anything specifically referring to ballot-box fraud, to
tissue ballots, to intimidation, to forged tally-sheets [cheers],
for the reason that these things had not come in his day to disturb
the administration of the Government, yet in the comprehensiveness
of the words he uttered, like the comprehensive declarations of
the Holy Book, we may find admonition and guidance, and even with
reference to a condition of things that his pure mind could have never
contemplated. Washington said: "Liberty is indeed little less than a
name where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises
of factions, to confine each member of society within the limits
prescribed by the law, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil
enjoyment of the rights of persons and property." If I had read that
to a Democratic meeting they would have suspected that it was an
extract from some Republican speech. [Laughter.] My countrymen, this
Government is that which I love to think of as my country; for not
acres, or railroads, or farm products, or bulk meats, or Wall Street,
or all combined, are the country that I love. It is the institution,
the form of government, the frame of civil society, for which that
flag stands, and which we love to-day. [Applause.] It is what Mr.
Lincoln so tersely, yet so felicitously, described as a government of
the people, by the people, and for the people; a government of the
people, because they instituted it--the Constitution reads, "We,
the people, have ordained;" by the people, because it is in all its
departments administered by them; for the people, because it states as
its object of supreme attainment the happiness, security and peace of
the people that dwell under it. [Applause.]
The bottom principle--sometimes it is called a corner-stone,
sometimes the foundation of our structure of government--is the
principle of control by the majority. It is more than the corner-stone
or foundation. This structure is a monolith, one from foundation
to apex, and that monolith stands for and is this principle of
government by majorities, legally ascertained by constitutional
methods. Everything else about our government is appendage, it is
ornamentation. This is the monolithic column that was reared by
Washington and his associates. For this the War of the Revolution
was fought, for this and its more perfect security the Constitution
was formed; for this the War of the Rebellion was fought; and when
this principle perishes the structure which Washington and his
compatriots reared is dishonored in the dust. The equality of the
ballot demands that our apportionments in the States for legislative
and congressional purposes shall be so adjusted that there shall be
equality in the influence and the power of every elector, so that it
shall not be true anywhere that one man counts two or one and a half
and some other man counts only one half.
But some one says that is fundamental. All men accept this truth.
Not quite. My countrymen, we are confronted by this condition of
things in America to-day; a government by the majority, expressed by
an equal and a free ballot, is not only threatened, but it has been
overturned. Why is it to-day that we have legislation threatening
the industries of this country? Why is it that the paralyzing shadow
of free trade falls upon the manufactures and upon the homes of our
laboring classes? It is because the laboring vote in the Southern
States is suppressed. There would be no question about the security of
these principles so long established by law, so eloquently set forth
by my friend from Connecticut, but for the fact that the workingmen
of the South have been deprived of their influence in choosing
representatives at Washington.
But some timid soul is alarmed at the suggestion. He says we are
endeavoring to rake over the coals of an extinct strife, to see if
we may not find some ember in which there is yet sufficient vitality
to rekindle the strife. Some man says you are actuated by unfriendly
feelings toward the South, you want to fight the war over again, you
are flaunting the bloody shirt. My countrymen, those epithets and that
talk never have any terrors for me. [Applause.] I do not want to
fight the war over again, and I am sure no Northern soldier--and there
must be many here of those gallant Michigan regiments, some of which I
had the pleasure during the war of seeing in action--not one of these
that wishes to renew that strife or fight the war over again. Not one
of this great assemblage of Republicans who listen to me to-night
wishes ill to the South. If it were left to us here to-night the
streams of her prosperity would be full. We would gladly hear of her
reviving and stimulated industry. We gladly hear of increasing wealth
in those States of the South. We wish them to share in the onward and
upward movement of a great people. It is not a question of the war,
it is not a question of the States between '61 and '65, at all, that
I am talking about to-night. It is what they have been since '65. It
is what they did in '84, when a President was to be chosen for this
country.
Our controversy is not one of the past; it is of the present. It has
relation to that which will be done next November, when our people
are again called to choose a President. What is it we ask? Simply
that the South live up to the terms of the surrender at Appomattox.
When that great chieftain received the surrender of the army of
Northern Virginia, when those who had for four years confronted us
in battle stacked arms in total surrender, the terms were simply
these: "You shall go to your homes and shall be there unmolested so
long as you obey the laws in force where you reside." That is the sum
of our demand. We ask nothing more of the South to-night than that
they shall cease to use this recovered citizenship which they had
forfeited by rebellion to oppress and disfranchise those who equally
with themselves under the Constitution are entitled to vote--that and
nothing more.
I do not need to enter into details. The truth to-day is that the
colored Republican vote of the South, and with it and by consequence
the white Republican vote of the South, is deprived of all effective
influence in the administration of this Government. The additional
power given by the colored population of the South in the Electoral
College and in Congress was more than enough to turn the last
election for President, and more than enough to reverse--yes, largely
more than reverse--the present Democratic majority of the House of
Representatives. Have we not the spirit to insist that everywhere
north and south in this country of ours no man shall be deprived of
his ballot by reason of his politics? There is not in all this land a
place where any rebel soldier is subject to any restraint or is denied
the fullest exercise of the elective franchise. Shall we not insist
that what is true of those who fought to destroy the country shall be
true of every man who fought for it, or loved it, like the black man
of the South did [applause]--that to belong to Abraham Lincoln's party
shall be respectable and reputable everywhere in America? [Cheers.]
But this is not simply a Southern question. It has come to be a
national question, for not only is the Republican vote suppressed
in the South, but I ask you to turn your eyes to as fair and
prosperous a territory as ever sat at the door of the Federal Union
asking admission to the sisterhood of the States. See yonder in the
northwest Dakota, the child of all these States, with 500,000 loyal,
intelligent, law-abiding, prosperous American citizens robbed to-day
of all participation in the affairs of this Nation. The hospitable
door which has always opened to territories seeking admission
is insolently closed in her face--and why? Simply because the
predominating sentiment in the Territory of Dakota is Republican--that
and nothing more. And that is not all. This question of a free,
honest ballot has crossed the Ohio River. The overspill of these
Southern frauds has reached Ohio and Indiana and Illinois, indicating
to my mind a national conspiracy, having its centre and most potent
influence in the Southern States, but reaching out into Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois in its attempt by frauds upon the ballot-box to possess
the Senate of the United States. Go down to Cincinnati in a recent
election and look at the election returns, shamelessly, scandalously
manipulated to return members to the Senate and House of Ohio, in
order that that grand champion of Republican principles, John Sherman,
might be defeated. Go yonder with me to Chicago and look into those
frauds upon the ballot--devised, executed in furtherance of the same
iniquitous scheme, intended to defeat the re-election of that gallant
soldier, that fearless defender of Republican principles, John A.
Logan of Illinois. [Great cheering.]
And these people have even invaded Indiana. At the last election
in my own State, first by gerrymander, they disturbed and utterly
destroyed the equality of suffrage in that State; it was so framed as
to give the Democratic party a majority of 50 on joint ballot; and
Indiana gave a Republican majority on members of the Legislature of
10,000, and yet they claim to hold the Legislature. And that is not
all. Then, when gerrymander had failed, they introduced the eraser
to help it out [laughter]; scratched our tally-sheets, shamelessly
transferred ballots from Republican to Democratic candidates. How are
we going to deal with these fellows? What is the remedy? As to the
Southern aspect of this question, I have first to suggest that it is
in the power of the free people of the North, those who love the
Constitution and a free and equal ballot, those who, while claiming
this high privilege for themselves, will deny it to no other man, to
welcome a President who shall not come into office, into the enjoyment
of the usufruct of these crimes, against the ballot [applause]; that
will be great gain. And then we should aim to place in the Southern
States, in every office exercising federal authority, men whose local
influence will be against these frauds, instead of such men as the
district attorney appointed by Mr. Cleveland, who in this recent
outrage upon the ballot in Jackson, Miss., was found among the most
active conspirators, when, by public resolution of a Democratic
committee, Republicans of that city were warned away from the polls.
Then again we shall keep ourselves free from all partisanship if
we lift our voice steadily and constantly in protest against these
offences.
There is vast power in a protest. Public opinion is the most potent
monarch this world knows to-day. Czars tremble in its presence, and
we may bring to bear upon this question a public sentiment, by bold
and fearless denunciation of it, that will do a great deal towards
correcting it. Why, my countrymen, we meet now and then with these
Irish-Americans and lift our voices in denunciations of the wrongs
which England is perpetrating upon Ireland. [Applause.] We do not
elect any Members of Parliament, but the voice of free America
protesting against these centuries of wrongs has had a most potent
influence in creating, stimulating and sustaining the liberal policy
of William E. Gladstone and his associates. [Great applause.] Cannot
we do as much for oppressed Americans? Can we not make our appeal to
these Irish-American citizens who appeal to us in behalf of their
oppressed fellow-countrymen to rally with us in this crusade against
election frauds and intimidation in the country that they have made
their own? [Applause.]
There may be legislative remedies in sight when we can once again
possess both branches of the national Congress and have an executive
at Washington who has not been created by these crimes against the
ballot. [Applause.] Whatever they are, we will seek them out and
put them into force--not in a spirit of enmity against the men who
fought against us--forgetting the war, but only insisting that now,
nearly a quarter of a century after it is over, a free ballot shall
not be denied to Republicans in these States where rebels have been
rehabilitated with a full citizenship. [Applause.] Every question
waits the settlement of this. The tariff question would be settled
already if the 1,000,000 of black laborers in the South had their due
representation in the House of Representatives.
And my soldier friends, interested that liberal provisions should
be made for the care of the disabled soldier--are they willing that
this question should be settled without the presence in the House of
Representatives of the power and influence of those faithful black
men in the South who were always their friends? [Applause.] The
dependent pension bill would pass over the President's veto if these
black friends of the Union soldier had their fair representation in
Congress. [Applause.] It is the dominant question at the foundation
of our Government, in its dominating influence embracing all others,
because it involves the question of a free and fair tribunal to
which every question shall be submitted for arbitrament and final
determination. Therefore, I would here, as we shall in Indiana, lift
up our protest against these wrongs which are committed in the name
of democracy, lift high our demand, and utter it with resolution,
that it shall no longer be true that anywhere in this country men are
disfranchised for opinion's sake.
I believe there are indications that this power is taking hold of
the North. Self-respect calls upon us. Does some devotee at the shrine
of Mammon say it will disturb the public pulse? Do we hear from New
York and her markets of trade that it is a disturbing question and we
must not broach it? I beg our friends, and those who thus speak, to
recollect that there is no peace, that there can be no security for
commerce, no security for the perpetuation of our Government, except
by the establishment of justice the country over. [Great applause.]
CHICAGO, MARCH 20, 1888.
_Marquette Club Banquet._
On the evening of March 20, 1888, General Harrison was the honored
guest of the Marquette Club of Chicago--one of the leading social and
political organizations of that great city--at their second annual
banquet, given at the Grand Pacific Hotel.
The officers of the club for that year were: George V. Lauman,
_President_; William H. Johnson, _First Vice-President_; Hubert D.
Crocker, _Second Vice-President_; Charles U. Gordon, _Secretary_; Will
Sheldon Gilbert, _Treasurer_.
The Banquet Committee and Committee of Reception for the occasion
comprised the following prominent members: James S. Moore, Frederick
G. Laird, LeRoy T. Steward, Wm. H. Johnson, James E. Rogers, F. W. C.
Hayes, Henry T. Smith, Harry J. Jones, Chas. S. Norton, Irving L. Gould,
T. A. Broadbent, Jas. Rood, Jr., Wm. A. Paulsen, T. M. Garrett, Geo. W.
Keehn, Harry P. Finney, C. B. Niblock, Wm. A. Lamson, S. E. Magill, R.
D. Wardwell, Fred. G. McNally.
President Lauman was toastmaster, and opened the banquet with an address
of welcome to Senator Harrison.
The other speakers of the evening were Edward J. Judd, Theodore
Brentano, Hon. Thomas C. MacMillan, Hon. John S. Runnells, Newton Wyeth,
Mayor Roche and President Tracy of the State League of Republican Clubs.
Amid hearty applause General Harrison rose to respond to the toast, "The
Republican Party." He spoke as follows:
_Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Marquette Club_--I am under
an obligation that I shall not soon forget in having been permitted
by your courtesy to sit at your table to-night and to listen to the
eloquent words which have fallen from the lips of those speakers who
have preceded me. I count it a privilege to spend an evening with so
many young Republicans. There seems to be a fitness in the association
of young men with the Republican party. The Republican party is a
young party. I have not yet begun to call myself an old man, and yet
there is no older Republican in the United States than I am. My first
presidential vote was given for the first presidential candidate of
the Republican party, and I have supported with enthusiasm every
successor of Frémont, including that matchless statesman who claimed
our suffrages in 1884. We cannot match ages with the Democratic party
any more than that party can match achievements with us. It has lived
longer, but to less purpose. "Moss-backed" cannot be predicated
of a Republican. Our Democratic friends have a monopoly of that
distinction, and it is one of the few distinguished monopolies that
they enjoy; and yet when I hear a Democrat boasting himself of the age
of his party I feel like reminding him that there are other organized
evils in the world, older than the Democratic party. "The Republican
party," the toast which you have assigned to me to-night, seems to
have a past, a present and a future tense to it. It suggests history,
and yet history so recent that it is to many here to-night a story of
current events in which they have been participants. The Republican
party--the influences which called it together were eclectic in their
character. The men who formed it and organized it were picked men.
The first assembly that sounded in its camp was a call to sacrifice,
and not to spoils. It assembled about an altar to sacrifice, and in a
temple beset with enemies. It is the only political party organized
in America that has its "Book of Martyrs." On the bloody fields of
Kansas, Republicans died for their creed, and since then we have put
in that book the sacred memory of our immortal leader who has been
mentioned here to-night--Abraham Lincoln--who died for his faith and
devotion to the principles of human liberty and constitutional union.
And there have followed it a great army of men who have died by reason
of the fact that they adhered to the political creed that we loved. It
is the only party in this land which in the past has been proscribed
and persecuted to death for its allegiance to the principles of human
liberty. After Lincoln had triumphed in that great forum of debate in
his contest with Douglas, the Republican party carried that debate
from the hustings to the battle-field and forever established the
doctrine that human liberty is of natural right and universal. It
clinched the matchless logic of Webster in his celebrated debate
against the right of secession by a demonstration of its inability.
No party ever entered upon its administration of the affairs of
this Nation under circumstances so beset with danger and difficulty
as those which surrounded the Republican party when it took up the
reins of executive control. In all other political contests those
who had resisted the victorious party yielded acquiescence at the
polls, but the Republican party in its success was confronted by
armed resistance to national authority. The first acts of Republican
administration were to assemble armies to maintain the authority of
the Nation throughout the rebellious States. It organized armies,
it fed them, and it fought them through those years of war with an
undying and persistent faith that refused to be appalled by any
dangers or discouraged by any difficulties. In the darkest days of the
rebellion the Republican party by faith saw Appomattox through the
smoke of Bull Run, and Raleigh through the mists of Chickamauga; and
not only did it conduct this great civil war to a victorious end, not
only did it restore the national authority and set up the flag on all
those places where it had been overthrown and that flag torn down,
but it in the act and as an incident in the restoration of national
authority accomplished that act which, if no other had been recorded
in its history, would have given it immortality. The emancipation of
a race, brought about as an incident of war under the proclamation of
the first Republican President, has forever immortalized the party
that accomplished it.
But not only were these dangers and difficulties and besetments and
discouragements of this long strife at home, but there was also a call
for the highest statesmanship in dealing with the foreign affairs
of the Government during that period of war. England and France not
only gave to the Confederacy belligerent rights, but threatened to
extend recognition, and even armed intervention. There was scarcely
a higher achievement in the long history of brilliant statesmanship
which stands to the credit of our party than the matchless management
of our diplomatic relations during the period of our war; dignified,
yet reserved, masterful, yet patient. Those enemies of republican
liberty were held at bay until we had accomplished perpetual peace
at Appomattox. That grasping avarice which has attempted to coin
commercial advantages out of the distress of other nations which has
so often characterized English diplomacy naturally made the Government
of England the ally of the Confederacy, that had prohibited protective
duties in its constitution, and yet Geneva followed Appomattox. A
trinity of effort was necessary to that consummation--war, finance
and diplomacy; Grant, Chase, Seward, and Lincoln over all, and each
a victor in his own sphere. When 500,000 veterans found themselves
without any pressing engagement, and Phil Sheridan sauntered down
towards the borders of Mexico, French evacuation was expedited, and
when Gen. Grant advised the English Government that our claims for
the depredations committed by those rebel cruisers that were sent
out from British ports to prey upon our commerce must be paid, but
that we were not in a hurry about it--we could wait, but in the mean
time interest would accumulate--the Geneva arbitration was accepted
and compensation made for these unfriendly invasions of our rights.
It became fashionable again at the tables of the English nobility to
speak of our common ancestry and our common tongue. Then again France
began to remind us of La Fayette and De Grasse. Five hundred thousand
veteran troops and an unemployed navy did more for us than a common
tongue and ancient friendships would do in the time of our distress.
And we must not forget that it is often easier to assemble armies
than it is to assemble army revenues. Though no financial secretary
ever had laid upon him a heavier burden than was placed upon Salmon
P. Chase to provide the enormous expenditures which the maintenance
of our army required, this ceaseless, daily, gigantic drain upon the
National Treasury called for the highest statesmanship.
And it was found, and our credit was not only maintained through the
war, but the debt that was accumulated, which our Democratic friends
said could never be paid, we at once began to discharge when the army
was disbanded.
And so it is that in this timely effort--consisting first in this
appeal to the courage and patriotism of the people of this country
that responded to the call of Lincoln and filled our armies with
brave men that, under the leadership of Grant and Sherman and Thomas,
suppressed the rebellion, and under the wise, magnificent system of
our revenue enabled us to defray our expenses, and under the sagacious
administration of our State Department held Europe at bay while we
were attending to the business at home. In these departments of
administration the Republican party has shown itself conspicuously
able to deal with the greatest questions that have ever been presented
to American statesmanship for solution. We must not forget that in
dealing with these questions we were met continually by the protest
and opposition of the Democratic party. The war against the States
was unconstitutional. There was no right to coerce sovereign States.
The war was a failure, and a dishonorable peace was demanded. The
legal tenders were illegal. The constitutional amendments were void.
And so through this whole brilliant history of achievement in this
administration we were followed by the Democratic statesman protesting
against every step and throwing every impediment in the way of
National success until it seemed to be true of many of their leaders
that in their estimation nothing was lawful, nothing was lovely, that
did not conduce to the success of the rebellion.
Now, what conclusion shall we draw? Is there anything in this story,
so briefly and imperfectly told, to suggest any conclusion as to the
inadequacy or incompetency of the Republican party to deal with any
question that is now presented for solution or that we may meet in the
progress of this people's history? Why, countrymen, these problems
in government were new. We took the ship of state when there was
treachery at the helm, when there was mutiny on the deck, when the
ship was among the rocks, and we put loyalty at the helm; we brought
the deck into order and subjection. We have brought the ship into
the wide and open sea of prosperity, and is it to be suggested that
the party that has accomplished these magnificent achievements cannot
sail and manage the good ship in the frequented roadways of ordinary
commerce? What is there now before us that presents itself for
solution?
What questions are we to grapple with? What unfinished work
remains to be done? It seems to me that the work that is unfinished
is to make that constitutional grant of citizenship, the franchise
to the colored men of the South, a practical and living reality.
The condition of things is such in this country--a government by
constitutional majority--that whenever the people become convinced
that an administration or a law does not represent the will of the
majority of our qualified electors, then that administration ceases
to challenge the respect of our people and that law ceases to command
their willing obedience. This is a republican government, a government
by majority, the majorities to be ascertained by a fair count and each
elector expressing his will at the ballot-box. I know of no reason why
any law should bind my conscience that does not have this sanction
behind it. I know of no reason why I should yield respect to any
executive officer whose title is not based upon a majority vote of the
qualified electors of this country. What is the condition of things in
the Southern States to-day?
The Republican vote is absolutely suppressed. Elections in many of
those States have become a farce. In the last congressional election
in the State of Alabama there were several congressional districts
where the entire vote for members of Congress did not reach 2,000;
whereas in most of the districts of the North the vote cast at our
congressional elections goes from 30,000 to 50,000. I had occasion to
say a day or two ago that in a single congressional district in the
State of Nebraska there were more votes cast to elect one Congressman
than were cast in the State of Alabama at the same election to elect
their whole delegation. Out of what does this come? The suppression of
the Republican vote; the understanding among our Democratic friends
that it is not necessary that they should vote because their opponents
are not allowed to vote. But some one will suggest: "Is there a remedy
for this?" I do not know, my fellow citizens, how far there is a legal
remedy under our Constitution, but it does not seem to me to be an
adequate answer. It does not seem to me to be conclusive against the
agitation of the question even if we should be compelled to respond
to the arrogant question that is asked us: "What are you going to
do about it?" Even if we should be compelled to answer: "We can do
nothing but protest," is it not worth while here, and in relation to
this American question, that we should at least lift up our protest;
that we should at least denounce the wrong; that we should at least
deprive the perpetrators of it of what we used to call the usufructs
of the crime? If you cannot prevent a burglar from breaking into your
house you will do a great deal towards discouraging burglary if you
prevent him from carrying off anything, and so it seems to me that if
we can, upon this question, arouse the indignant protest of the North,
and unite our efforts in a determination that those who perpetrate
these wrongs against popular suffrage shall not by means of those
wrongs seat a President in Washington to secure the Federal patronage
in a State, we shall have done much to bring this wrong to an end. But
at least while we are protesting by representatives from our State
Department at Washington against wrongs perpetrated in Russia against
the Jew, and in our popular assemblies here against the wrongs which
England has inflicted upon Ireland, shall we not at least in reference
to this gigantic and intolerable wrong in our own country, as a party,
lift up a stalwart and determined protest against it?
But some of these independent journalists, about which our friend
MacMillan talked, call this the "bloody shirt." They say we are trying
to revive the strife of the war, to rake over the extinct embers, to
kindle the fire again. I want it understood that for one I have no
quarrel with the South for what took place between 1861 and 1865. I am
willing to forget that they were rebels, at least as soon as they are
willing to forget it themselves, and that time does not seem to have
come yet to them. But our complaint is against what was done in 1884,
not against what was done during the war. Our complaint is against
what will be done this year, not what was done between 1861 and 1865.
No bloody shirt--though that cry never had any terrors for me. I
believe we greatly underestimate the importance of bringing the issue
to the front, and with that oft-time Republican courage and outspoken
fidelity to truth denouncing it the land over. If we cannot do
anything else we can either make these people ashamed of this outrage
against the ballot or make the world ashamed of them.
There is another question to which the Republican party has
committed itself, and on the line of which it has accomplished, as
I believe, much for the prosperity of this country. I believe the
Republican party is pledged and ought to be pledged to the doctrine of
the protection of American industries and American labor. I believe
that in so far as our native inventive genius--which seems to have
no limit--our productive forces can supply the American market, we
ought to keep it for ourselves. And yet this new captain on the bridge
seems to congratulate himself on the fact that the voyage is still
prosperous notwithstanding the change of commanders; who seems to
forget that the reason that the voyage is still prosperous is because
the course of the ship was marked out before he went on the bridge and
the rudder tied down. He has attempted to take a new direction since
he has been in command, with a view of changing the sailing course of
the old craft, but it has seemed to me that he has made the mistake of
mistaking the flashlight of some British lighthouse for the light of
day. I do not intend here to-night in this presence to discuss this
tariff question in any detail. I only want to say that in the passage
of what is now so flippantly called the war tariff, to raise revenue
to carry on the war out of the protective duties which were then
levied, there has come to this country a prosperity and development
which would have been impossible without it, and that reversal of this
policy now, at the suggestion of Mr. Cleveland, according to the line
of the blind statesman from Texas, would be to stay and interrupt
this march of prosperity on which we have entered. I am one of those
uninstructed political economists that have an impression that some
things may be too cheap; that I cannot find myself in full sympathy
with this demand for cheaper coats, which seems to me necessarily to
involve a cheaper man and woman under the coat. I believe it is true
to-day that we have many things in this country that are too cheap,
because whenever it is proved that the man or woman who produces any
article cannot get a decent living out of it, then it is too cheap.