_Question_. How do you account for the defeat of Mr. Blaine?
_Answer_. How do I account for the defeat of Mr. Blaine? I will
answer: St. John, the Independents, Burchard, Butler and Cleveland
did it. The truth is that during the war a majority of the people,
counting those in the South, were opposed to putting down the
Rebellion by force. It is also true that when the Proclamation of
Emancipation was issued a majority of the people, counting the
whole country, were opposed to it, and it is also true that when
the colored people were made citizens a majority of the people,
counting the whole country, were opposed to it.
Now, while, in my judgment, an overwhelming majority of the whole
people have honestly acquiesced in the result of the war, and are
now perfectly loyal to the Union, and have also acquiesced in the
abolition of slavery, I doubt very much whether they are really in
favor of giving the colored man the right to vote. Of course they
have not the power now to take that right away, but they feel
anything but kindly toward the party that gave the colored man that
right. That is the only result of the war that is not fully accepted
by the South and by many Democrats of the North.
Another thing, the Republican party was divided--divided too by
personal hatreds. The party was greatly injured by the decision
of the Supreme Court in which the Civil Rights Bill was held void.
Now, a great many men who kept with the Republican party, did so
because they believed that that party would protect the colored
man in the South, but as soon as the Court decided that all the
laws passed were unconstitutional, these men felt free to vote for
the other side, feeling that it would make no difference. They
reasoned this way: If the Republican party cannot defend the
colored people, why make a pretence that excites hatred on one side
and disarms the other? If the colored people have to depend upon
the State for protection, and the Federal Government cannot interfere,
why say any more about it?
I think that these men made a mistake and our party made a mistake
in accepting without protest a decision that was far worse than
the one delivered in the case of Dred Scott. By accepting this
decision the most important issue was abandoned. The Republican
party must take the old ground that it is the duty of the Federal
Government to protect the citizens, and that it cannot simply leave
that duty to the State. It must see to it that the State performs
that duty.
_Question_. Have you seen the published report that Dorsey claims
to have paid you one hundred thousand dollars for your services in
the Star Route Cases?
_Answer_. I have seen the report, but Dorsey never said anything
like that.
_Question_. Is there no truth in the statement, then?
_Answer_. Well, Dorsey never said anything of the kind.
_Question_. Then you do not deny that you received such an enormous
fee?
_Answer_. All I say is that Dorsey did not say I did.*
--_The Commercial_, Louisville, Kentucky, October 24, 1884.
[* Col. Ingersoll has been so criticised and maligned for defending
Mr. Dorsey in the Star Route cases, and so frequently charged with
having received an enormous fee, that I think it but simple justice
to his memory to say that he received no such fee, and that the
ridiculously small sums he did receive were much more than offset
by the amount he had to pay as indorser of Mr. Dorsey's paper.
--C. F. FARRELL.]