_Question_. What do you think of the Democratic nominations?
_Answer_. In the first place, I hope that this campaign is to be
fought on the issues involved, and not on the private characters
of the candidates. All that they have done as politicians--all
measures that they have favored or opposed--these are the proper
subjects of criticism; in all other respects I think it better to
let the candidates alone. I care but little about the private
character of Mr. Cleveland or of Mr. Thurman. The real question
is, what do they stand for? What policy do they advocate? What
are the reasons for and against the adoption of the policy they
propose?
I do not regard Cleveland as personally popular. He has done
nothing, so far as I know, calculated to endear him to the popular
heart. He certainly is not a man of enthusiasm. He has said
nothing of a striking or forcible character. His messages are
exceedingly commonplace. He is not a man of education, of wide
reading, of refined tastes, or of general cultivation. He has some
firmness and a good deal of obstinacy, and he was exceedingly
fortunate in his marriage.
Four years ago he was distinctly opposed to a second term. He was
then satisfied that no man should be elected President more than
once. He was then fearful that a President might use his office,
his appointing power, to further his own ends instead of for the
good of the people. He started, undoubtedly, with that idea in
his mind. He was going to carry out the civil service doctrine to
the utmost. But when he had been President a few months he was
exceedingly unpopular with his party. The Democrats who elected
him had been out of office for twenty-five years. During all those
years they had watched the Republicans sitting at the national
banquet. Their appetites had grown keener and keener, and they
expected when the 4th of March, 1885, came that the Republicans
would be sent from the table and that they would be allowed to tuck
the napkins under their chins. The moment Cleveland got at the
head of the table he told his hungry followers that there was
nothing for them, and he allowed the Republicans to go on as usual.
In a little while he began to hope for a second term, and gradually
the civil service notion faded from his mind. He stuck to it long
enough to get the principal mugwump papers committed to him and to
his policy; long enough to draw their fire and to put them in a
place where they could not honorably retreat without making themselves
liable to the charge of having fought only for the loaves and
fishes. As a matter of fact, no men were hungrier for office than
the gentlemen who had done so much for civil service reform. They
were so earnest in the advocacy of that principle that they insisted
that only their followers should have place; but the real rank and
file, the men who had been Democrats through all the disastrous
years, and who had prayed and fasted, became utterly disgusted with
Mr. Cleveland's administration and they were not slow to express
their feelings. Mr. Cleveland saw that he was in danger of being
left with no supporters, except a few who thought themselves too
respectable really to join the Democratic party. So for the last
two years, and especially the last year, he turned his attention
to pacifying the real Democrats. He is not the choice of the
Democratic party. Although unanimously nominated, I doubt if he
was the unanimous choice of a single delegate.
Another very great mistake, I think, has been made by Mr. Cleveland.
He seems to have taken the greatest delight in vetoing pension
bills, and they seem to be about the only bills he has examined,
and he has examined them as a lawyer would examine the declaration,
brief or plea of his opponent. He has sought for technicalities,
to the end that he might veto these bills. By this course he has
lost the soldier vote, and there is no way by which he can regain
it. Upon this point I regard the President as exceedingly weak.
He has shown about the same feeling toward the soldier now that he
did during the war. He was not with them then either in mind or
body. He is not with them now. His sympathies are on the other
side. He has taken occasion to show his contempt for the Democratic
party again and again. This certainly will not add to his strength.
He has treated the old leaders with great arrogance. He has cared
nothing for their advice, for their opinions, or for their feelings.
The principal vestige of monarchy or despotism in our Constitution
is the veto power, and this has been more liberally used by Mr.
Cleveland than by any other President. This shows the nature of
the man and how narrow he is, and through what a small intellectual
aperture he views the world. Nothing is farther from true democracy
than this perpetual application of the veto power. As a matter of
fact, it should be abolished, and the utmost that a President should
be allowed to do, would be to return a bill with his objections,
and the bill should then become a law upon being passed by both
houses by a simple majority. This would give the Executive the
opportunity of calling attention to the supposed defects, and
getting the judgment of Congress a second time.
I am perfectly satisfied that Mr. Cleveland is not popular with
his party. The noise and confusion of the convention, the cheers
and cries, were all produced and manufactured for effect and for
the purpose of starting the campaign.
Now, as to Senator Thurman. During the war he occupied substantially
the same position occupied by Mr. Cleveland. He was opposed to
putting down the Rebellion by force, and as I remember it, he rather
justified the people of the South for going with their States.
Ohio was in favor of putting down the Rebellion, yet Mr. Thurman,
by some peculiar logic of his own, while he justified Southern
people for going into rebellion because they followed their States,
justified himself for not following his State. His State was for
the Union. His State was in favor of putting down rebellion. His
State was in favor of destroying slavery. Certainly, if a man is
bound to follow his State, he is equally bound when the State is
right. It is hardly reasonable to say that a man is only bound to
follow his State when his State is wrong; yet this was really the
position of Senator Thurman.
I saw the other day that some gentlemen in this city had given as
a reason for thinking that Thurman would strengthen the ticket,
that he had always been right on the financial question. Now, as
a matter of fact, he was always wrong. When it was necessary for
the Government to issue greenbacks, he was a hard money man--he
believed in the mint drops--and if that policy had been carried
out, the Rebellion could not have been suppressed. After the
suppression of the Rebellion, and when hundreds and hundreds of
millions of greenbacks were afloat, and the Republican party proposed
to redeem them in gold, and to go back--as it always intended to
do--to hard money--to a gold and silver basis--then Senator Thurman,
holding aloft the red bandanna, repudiated hard money, opposed
resumption, and came out for rag currency as being the best. Let
him change his ideas--put those first that he had last--and you
might say that he was right on the currency question; but when the
country needed the greenback he was opposed to it, and when the
country was able to redeem the greenback, he was opposed to it.
It gives me pleasure to say that I regard Senator Thurman as a man
of ability, and I have no doubt that he was coaxed into his last
financial position by the Democratic party, by the necessities of
Ohio, and by the force and direction of the political wind. No
matter how much respectability he adds to the ticket, I do not
believe that he will give any great strength. In the first place,
he is an old man. He has substantially finished his career. Young
men cannot attach themselves to him, because he has no future.
His following is not an army of the young and ambitious--it is
rather a funeral procession. Yet, notwithstanding this fact, he
will furnish most of the enthusiasm for this campaign--and that
will be done with his handkerchief. The Democratic banner is
Thurman's red bandanna. I do not believe that it will be possible
for the Democracy to carry Ohio by reason of Thurman's nomination,
and I think the failure to nominate Gray or some good man from that
State, will lose Indiana. So, while I have nothing to say against
Senator Thurman, nothing against his integrity or his ability,
still, under the circumstances, I do not think his nomination a
strong one.
_Question_. Do you think that the nominations have been well
received throughout the United States?
_Answer_. Not as well as in England. I see that all the Tory
papers regard the nominations as excellent--especially that of
Cleveland. Every Englishman who wants Ireland turned into a
penitentiary, and every Irishman to be treated as a convict, is
delighted with the action of the St. Louis convention. England
knows what she wants. Her market is growing small. A few years
ago she furnished manufactured articles to a vast portion of the
world. Millions of her customers have become ingenious enough to
manufacture many things that they need, so the next thing England
did was to sell them the machinery. Now they are beginning to make
their own machinery. Consequently, English trade is falling off.
She must have new customers. Nothing would so gratify her as to
have sixty millions of Americans buy her wares. If she could see
our factories still and dead; if she could put out the fires of
our furnaces and forges; there would come to her the greatest
prosperity she has ever known. She would fatten on our misfortunes
--grow rich and powerful and arrogant upon our poverty. We would
become her servants. We would raise the raw material with ignorant
labor and allow her children to reap all the profit of its manufacture,
and in the meantime to become intelligent and cultured while we
grew poor and ignorant.
The greatest blow that can be inflicted upon England is to keep
her manufactured articles out of the United States. Sixty millions
of Americans buy and use more than five hundred millions of Asiatics
--buy and use more than all of China, all of India and all of
Africa. One civilized man has a thousand times the wants of a
savage or of a semi-barbarian. Most of the customers of England
want a few yards of calico, some cheap jewelry, a little powder,
a few knives and a few gallons of orthodox rum.
To-day the United States is the greatest market in the world. The
commerce between the States is almost inconceivable in its immensity.
In order that you may have some idea of the commerce of this country,
it is only necessary to remember one fact. We have railroads enough
engaged in this commerce to make six lines around the globe. The
addition of a million Americans to our population gives us a better
market than a monopoly of ten millions of Asiatics. England, with
her workhouses, with her labor that barely exists, wishes this
market, and wishes to destroy the manufactures of America, and she
expects Irish-Americans to assist her in this patriotic business.
Now, as to the enthusiasm in this country. I fail to see it. The
nominations have fallen flat. It has been known for a long time
that Cleveland was to be nominated. That has all been discounted,
and the nomination of Judge Thurman has been received in a quite
matter-of-fact way. It may be that his enthusiasm was somewhat
dampened by what might be called the appearance above the horizon
of the morning star of this campaign--Oregon. What a star to rise
over the work of the St. Louis convention! What a prophecy for
Democrats to commence business with! Oregon, with the free trade
issue, seven thousand to eight thousand Republican majority--the
largest ever given by that State--Oregon speaks for the Pacific
Coast.
_Question_. What do you think of the Democratic platform?
_Answer_. Mr. Watterson was kind enough to say that before they
took the roof off of the house they were going to give the occupants
a chance to get out. By the "house" I suppose he means the great
workshop of America. By the "roof" he means protection; and by
the "occupants" the mechanics. He is not going to turn them out
at once, or take the roof off in an instant, but this is to be done
gradually.
In other words, they will remove it shingle by shingle or tile by
tile, until it becomes so leaky or so unsafe that the occupants--
that is to say, the mechanics, will leave the building.
The first thing in the platform is a reaffirmation of the platform
of 1884, and an unqualified endorsement of President Cleveland's
message on the tariff. And if President Cleveland's message has
any meaning whatever, it means free trade--not instantly, it may
be--but that is the object and the end to be attained. All his
reasoning, if reasoning it can be called, is in favor of absolute
free trade. The issue is fairly made--shall American labor be
protected, or must the American laborer take his chances with the
labor market of the world? Must he stand upon an exact par with
the laborers of Belgium and England and Germany, not only, but with
the slaves and serfs of other countries? Must he be reduced to
the diet of the old country? Is he to have meat on holidays and
a reasonably good dinner on Christmas, and live the rest of the
year on crusts, crumbs, scraps, skimmed milk, potatoes, turnips,
and a few greens that he can steal from the corners of fences? Is
he to rely for meat, on poaching, and then is he to be transported
to some far colony for the crime of catching a rabbit? Are our
workingmen to wear wooden shoes?
Now, understand me, I do not believe that the Democrats think that
free trade would result in disaster. Their minds are so constituted
that they really believe that free trade would be a great blessing.
I am not calling in question their honesty. I am simply disputing
the correctness of their theory. It makes no difference, as a
matter of fact, whether they are honest or dishonest. Free trade
established by honest people would be just as injurious as if
established by dishonest people. So there is no necessity of
raising the question of intention. Consequently, I admit that they
are doing the best they know now. This is not admitting much, but
it is something, as it tends to take from the discussion all ill
feeling.
We all know that the tariff protects special interests in particular
States. Louisiana is not for free trade. It may be for free trade
in everything except sugar. It is willing that the rest of the
country should pay an additional cent or two a pound on sugar for
its benefit, and while receiving the benefit it does not wish to
bear its part of the burden. If the other States protect the sugar
interests in Louisiana, certainly that State ought to be willing
to protect the wool interest in Ohio, the lead and hemp interest
in Missouri, the lead and wool interest in Colorado, the lumber
interest in Minnesota, the salt and lumber interest in Michigan,
the iron interest in Pennsylvania, and so I might go on with a list
of the States--because each one has something that it wishes to
have protected.
It sounds a little strange to hear a Democratic convention cry out
that the party "is in favor of the maintenance of an indissoluble
union of free and indestructible States." Only a little while ago
the Democratic party regarded it as the height of tyranny to coerce
a free State. Can it be said that a State is "free" that is
absolutely governed by the Nation? Is a State free that can make
no treaty with any other State or country--that is not permitted
to coin money or to declare war? Why should such a State be called
free? The truth is that the States are not free in that sense.
The Republican party believes that this is a Nation and that the
national power is the highest, and that every citizen owes the
highest allegiance to the General Government and not to his State.
In other words, we are not Virginians or Mississippians or Delawareans
--we are Americans. The great Republic is a free Nation, and the
States are but parts of that Nation. The doctrine of State
Sovereignty was born of the institution of slavery. In the history
of our country, whenever anything wrong was to be done, this doctrine
of State Sovereignty was appealed to. It protected the slave-trade
until the year 1808. It passed the Fugitive Slave Law. It made
every citizen in the North a catcher of his fellow-man--made it
the duty of free people to enslave others. This doctrine of State
Rights was appealed to for the purpose of polluting the Territories
with the institution of slavery. To deprive a man of his liberty,
to put him back into slavery, State lines were instantly obliterated;
but whenever the Government wanted to protect one of its citizens
from outrage, then the State lines became impassable barriers, and
the sword of justice fell in twain across the line of a State.
People forget that the National Government is the creature of the
people. The real sovereign is the people themselves. Presidents
and congressmen and judges are the creatures of the people. If we
had a governing class--if men were presidents or senators by virtue
of birth--then we might talk about the danger of centralization;
but if the people are sufficiently intelligent to govern themselves,
they will never create a government for the destruction of their
liberties, and they are just as able to protect their rights in
the General Government as they are in the States. If you say that
the sovereignty of the State protects labor, you might as well say
that the sovereignty of the county protects labor in the State and
that the sovereignty of the town protects labor in the county.
Of all subjects in the world the Democratic party should avoid
speaking of "a critical period of our financial affairs, resulting
from over taxation." How did taxation become necessary? Who
created the vast debt that American labor must pay? Who made this
taxation of thousands of millions necessary? Why were the greenbacks
issued? Why were the bonds sold? Who brought about "a critical
period of our financial affairs"? How has the Democratic party
"averted disaster"? How could there be a disaster with a vast
surplus in the treasury? Can you find in the graveyard of nations
this epitaph: "Died of a Surplus"? Has any nation ever been known
to perish because it had too much gold and too much silver, and
because its credit was better than that of any other nation on the
earth? The Democrats seem to think--and it is greatly to their
credit--that they have prevented the destruction of the Government
when the treasury was full--when the vaults were overflowing. What
would they have done had the vaults been empty? Let them wrestle
with the question of poverty; let them then see how the Democratic
party would succeed. When it is necessary to create credit, to
inspire confidence, not only in our own people, but in the nations
of the world--which of the parties is best adapted for the task?
The Democratic party congratulates itself that it has not been
ruined by a Republican surplus! What good boys we are! We have
not been able to throw away our legacy!
Is it not a little curious that the convention plumed itself on
having paid out more for pensions and bounties to the soldiers and
sailors of the Republic than was ever paid before during an equal
period? It goes wild in its pretended enthusiasm for the President
who has vetoed more pension bills than all the other Presidents put
together.
The platform informs us that "the Democratic party has adopted and
consistently pursued and affirmed a prudent foreign policy, preserving
peace with all nations." Does it point with pride to the Mexican
fiasco, or does it rely entirely upon the great fishery triumph?
What has the administration done--what has it accomplished in the
field of diplomacy?
When we come to civil service, about how many Federal officials
were at the St. Louis convention? About how many have taken part
in the recent nominations? In other words, who has been idle?
We have recently been told that the wages of workingmen are just
as high in the old country as in this, when you take into consideration
the cost of living. We have always been told by all the free trade
papers and orators, that the tariff has no bearing whatever upon
wages, and yet, the Democrats have not succeeded in convincing
themselves. I find in their platform this language: "A fair and
careful revision of our tax laws, with due allowance for the
difference between the wages of American and foreign labor, must
promote and encourage every branch of such industries and enterprises
by giving them the assurance of an extended market and steady and
continuous operations."
It would seem from this that the Democratic party admits that wages
are higher here than in foreign countries. Certainly they do not
mean to say that they are lower. If they are higher here than in
foreign countries, the question arises, why are they higher? If
you took off the tariff, the presumption is that they would be as
low here as anywhere else, because this very Democratic convention
says: "A fair and careful revision of our tax laws, with due
allowance for the difference between wages." In other words, they
would keep tariff enough on to protect our workingmen from the low
wages of the foreigner--consequently, we have the admission of the
Democratic party that in order to keep wages in this country higher
than they are in Belgium, in Italy, in England and in Germany, we
must protect home labor. Then follows the _non sequitur_, which
is a Democratic earmark. They tell us that by keeping a tariff,
"making due allowance for the difference between wages, all the
industries and enterprises would be encouraged and promoted by
giving them the assurance of an extended market." What does the
word "extended" mean? If it means anything, it means a market in
other countries. In other words, we will put the tariff so low
that the wages of American workingmen will be so low that he can
compete with the laborers of other countries; otherwise his market
could not be "extended." What does this mean? There is evidently
a lack of thought here. The two things cannot be accomplished in
that way. If the tariff raises American wages, the American cannot
compete in foreign markets with the men who work for half the price.
What may be the final result is another question. American industry
properly protected, American genius properly fostered, may invent
ways and means--such wonderful machinery, such quick, inexpensive
processes, that in time American genius may produce at a less rate
than any other country, for the reason that the laborers of other
countries will not be as intelligent, will not be as independent,
will not have the same ambition.
Fine phrases will not deceive the people of this country. The
American mechanic already has a market of sixty millions of people,
and, as I said before, the best market in the world. This country
is now so rich, so prosperous, that it is the greatest market of
the earth, even for luxuries. It is the best market for pictures,
for works of art. It is the best market for music and song. It
is the best market for dramatic genius, and it is the best market
for skilled labor, the best market for common labor, and in this
country the poor man to-day has the best chance--he can look forward
to becoming the proprietor of a home, of some land, to independence,
to respectability, and to an old age without want and without
disgrace.
The platform, except upon this question of free trade, means very
little. There are other features in it which I have not at present
time to examine, but shall do so hereafter. I want to take it up
point by point and find really what it means, what its scope is,
and what the intentions were of the gentlemen who made it.
But it may be proper to say here, that in my judgment it is a very
weak and flimsy document, as Victor Hugo would say, "badly cut and
badly sewed."
Of course, I know that the country will exist whatever party may
be in power. I know that all our blessings do not come from laws,
or from the carrying into effect of certain policies, and probably
I could pay no greater compliment to any country than to say that
even eight years of Democratic rule cannot materially affect her
destiny.
--_New York Press_, June 10, 1888.