I
ON THE CIRCUIT
DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY AFTER THE CIVIL WAR--SLAVERY THE APPLE OF
DISCORD BEFORE THE WAR--LINCOLN AS A COUNTRY LAWYER--SOCIABILITY
OF THE LAWYERS OF THE PERIOD--THEIR EXCELLENCE AS ORATORS--HENRY
CLAY AS A PARTY LEADER--EULOGIUMS ON LAWYERS--LINCOLN'S ADMIRATION
FOR GENERAL WINFIELD SCOTT--THE WRITER'S ADDRESS ON THE LAW AND
LAWYERS.
The period extending from my first election to Congress in 1874,
to my retirement from the Vice-Presidency in 1897, was one of
marvellous development to the country. Large enterprises were
undertaken, and the sure foundation was laid for much of
existing business conditions. The South had recovered from the
sad effects of the Civil War, and had in a measure regained its
former position in the world of trade, as well as in that pertaining
to the affairs of the Government. The population of the country
had almost doubled; the ratio of representation in the Lower House
of Congress largely augmented; the entire electoral vote increased
from 369 to 444. Eight new States had been admitted to the Union,
thus increasing the number of Senators from seventy-four to ninety.
The years mentioned likewise witnessed the passing from the national
stage, with few exceptions, of the men who had taken a conspicuous
part in the great debates directly preceding and during the Civil War
and the reconstruction period which immediately followed. By
the arbitrament of war, and by constitutional amendment, old
questions, for a half-century the prime cause of sectional strife,
had been irrevocably settled, and passed to the domain of history.
New men had come to the front, and new questions were to be discussed
and determined.
To the student of history, the years immediately preceding the
Civil War are of abiding interest. In some of its phases slavery was
the all-absorbing subject of debate throughout the entire country.
It had been the one recognized peril to the Union since the formation
of the Government. Beginning with the debates in the convention
that formulated the Federal Constitution, it remained for seventy
years the apple of discord,--the subject of patriotic apprehension
and repeated compromise. The last serious attempt to settle
this question in the manner just indicated was by the adjustment
known in our political history as "the compromise measures of 1850."
These measures, although bitterly denounced in the South as well
as in the North, received the sanction in national convention of
both of the great parties that two years later presented candidates
for the Presidency. It is no doubt true that a majority of the
people, in both sections of the country, then believed that the
question that had been so fraught with peril to national unity from
the beginning was at length settled for all time. The rude
awakening came two years later, when the country was aroused, as it
had rarely been before, by impassioned debate in and out of Congress,
over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. It was a period of
excitement such as we shall probably not see again. Slavery in
all its phases was the one topic of earnest discussion, both upon the
hustings and at the fireside. There was little talk now of
compromise. The old-time statesmen of the Clay and Webster, Winthrop
and Crittenden, school soon disappeared from the arena. Men hitherto
comparatively unknown to the country at large were soon to the
front.
Conspicuous among them was a country lawyer whose home was at
Springfield, Illinois. With the mighty events soon to follow, his
name is imperishably linked. But it is not of Lincoln the President,
the emancipator, the martyr, we are now to speak. It is of Lincoln
the country lawyer, as he stepped upon the arena of high debate,
the unswerving antagonist of slavery extension half a century
and more ago.
His home, during his entire professional life, was at the capital of
the State. He was, at the time mentioned, in general practice as a
lawyer and a regular attendant upon the neighboring courts. His
early opportunities for education were meagre indeed. He had been
a student of men, rather than of books. He was, in the most
expressive sense, "of the people,"--the people as they then were.
For,
"Know thou this, that men are as the time is."
His training was, in large measure, under the severe conditions to
be briefly mentioned. The old-time custom of "riding the circuit"
is to the present generation of lawyers only a tradition. The few
who remember central Illinois as it was sixty years ago will readily
recall the full meaning of the expression. The district in which Mr.
Lincoln practised extended from the counties of Livingston and
Woodford upon the north, almost to the Indiana line--embracing the
present cities of Danville, Springfield, and Bloomington. The last
named was the home of the Hon. David Davis, the presiding judge of
the district. As is well known, he was the intimate friend of Mr.
Lincoln, and the latter was often his guest during attendance upon
the courts at Bloomington. At that early day, the term of court
in few of the counties continued longer than a week, so that much of
the time of the judge and the lawyers who travelled the circuit
with him was spent upon horseback. When it is remembered that there
were then no railroads, but few bridges, a sparse population,
and that more than half the area embraced in that district was
unbroken prairie, the real significance of riding the circuit will
fully appear. It was of this period that the late Governor
Ford, speaking of Judge Young,--whose district extended from Quincy,
upon the Mississippi River to Chicago,--said: "He possesses in
rare degree one of the highest requisites for a good circuit judge,
--he is an excellent horseback rider."
At the period mentioned there were few law-books in the State.
The monster libraries of later days had not yet arrived. The
half-dozen volumes of State Reports, together with the Statutes
and a few leading text-books, constituted the lawyer's library.
To an Illinois lawyer upon the circuit, a pair of saddle-bags was an
indispensable part of his outfit. With these, containing the
few books mentioned and a change or two of linen, and supplied with
the necessary horse, saddle and bridle, the lawyer of the pioneer days
was duly equipped for the active duties of his calling. The lack
of numerous volumes of adjudicated cases was, however, not an
unmixed evil. Causes were necessarily argued upon principle. How
well this conduced to the making of the real lawyer is well known.
The admonition, "Beware the man who reads but one book," is of deep
significance. The complaint to-day is not of scarcity, but that
"of the making of many books there is no end." Professor Phelps
is authority for the statement that "it is easy to find single
opinions in which more authorities are cited than were mentioned by
Marshall in the whole thirty years of his unexampled judicial life;
and briefs that contain more cases than Webster referred to in all
the arguments he ever delivered."
The lawyers of the times whereof we write were, almost without
exception, politicians--in close touch with the people, easy of
approach, and obliging to the last degree. Generally speaking,
a lawyer's office was as open to the public as the Courthouse
itself. That his surroundings were favorable to the cultivation
of a high degree of sociability goes without saying. Story-telling
helped often on the circuit to while away the long evenings at
country taverns. At times, perchance,
"the night drave on wi' sangs and clatter."
Oratory counted for much more then than now. When an important
case was on trial all other pursuits were for the time suspended, and
the people for miles around were in prompt attendance. This was
especially the case when it was known that one or more of the
leading advocates were to speak. The litigation, too, was to a
large extent different from that of to-day. The country was
new, population sparse; the luxuries and many of the comforts of
life yet in the future; post-offices, schools, and churches many
miles away. In every cabin were to be found the powder-horn,
bullet-pouch, and rifle. The restraints and amenities of modern
society were in large measure unknown; and altogether much was to
be, and was, "pardoned to the spirit of liberty." There were no
great corporations to be chosen defendants, but much of the time
of the courts was taken up by suits in ejectment, actions for
assault and battery, breach of promise, and slander. One, not
infrequent, was replevin, involving the ownership of hogs, when by
unquestioned usage all stock was permitted to run at large. But
criminal trials of all grades, and in all their details, aroused
the deepest interest. To these the people came from all directions,
as if summoned to a general muster. This was especially true if
a murder case was upon trial. Excitement then ran high, and the
arguments of counsel, from beginning to close, were listened to
with breathless interest. It will readily be seen that such
occasions furnished rare opportunity to the gifted advocate. In
very truth the general acquaintance thus formed, and the popularity
achieved, have marked the beginning of more than one successful
and brilliant political career. Moreover, the thorough knowledge of
the people thus acquired by actual contact--the knowledge of their
condition, necessities, and wishes--resulted often in legislation of
enduring benefit to the new country. The Homestead law, the law
setting apart a moiety of the public domain for the maintenance of
free schools, and judicious provision for the establishment of the
various charities, will readily be recalled.
Politics, in the modern sense--too often merely "for what there is
in it"--was unknown. As stepping-stones to local offices and even
to Congress, the caucus and convention were yet to come. Aspirants
to public place presented their claims directly to the people, and
the personal popularity of the candidate was an important factor
in achieving success. Bribery at elections was rarely heard of.
The saying of the great bard,
"If money go before,
All ways do open lie,"
awaited its verification in a later and more civilized period. As
late even as 1858, when Lincoln and Douglas were rival aspirants
to the Senate, when every voter in the State was a partisan of one
or the other candidate, and the excitement was for many months
intense, there was never, from either side, an intimation of the
corrupt use of a farthing to influence the result.
No period of our history has witnessed more intense devotion to
great party leaders than that of which we write. Of eminent
statesmen, whose names were still invoked, none had filled larger space
than did Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson. The former was the
early political idol of Mr. Lincoln; the latter, of Mr. Douglas.
Possibly, since the foundation of the Government, no statesman has
been so completely idolized by his friends and party as was
Henry Clay. Words are meaningless when the attempt is made to
express the idolatry of the Whigs of his own State for their great
chieftain. For a lifetime he knew no rival. His wish was law
to his followers. In the realm of party leadership a greater than
he hath not appeared. At his last defeat for the Presidency strong
men wept bitter tears. When his star set, it was felt to be the
signal for the dissolution of the great party of which he was
the founder. In words worthy to be recalled, "when the tidings
came like wailing over the State that Harry Percy's spur was cold,
the chivalrous felt somehow the world had grown commonplace."
The following incident, along the line indicated, may be considered
characteristic. While Mr. Clay was a Senator, a resolution, in
accordance with a sometime custom, was introduced into the Kentucky
House of Representatives instructing the Senators from that State to
vote in favor of a certain bill then pending in Congress. The
resolution was in the act of passing without opposition, when a
hitherto silent member from one of the mountain counties, springing
to his feet, exclaimed: "Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that this
Legislature is undertaking _to tell_ Henry Clay how to vote?" The
Speaker answered that such was the purport of the resolution.
At which the member from the mountains, throwing up his arms,
exclaimed "Great God!" and sank into his seat. It is needless
to add that the resolution was immediately rejected by unanimous
vote.
Two-thirds of a century ago the Hon. John P. Kennedy wrote of
the lawyers of his day:
"The feelings, habits, and associations of the bar in general, have
a very happy influence upon the character. And, take it altogether,
there may be collected from it a greater mass of shrewd, observant,
droll, playful, and generous spirits, than from any other equal
numbers of society. They live in each other's presence like a set
of players; congregate in courts like the former in the green room;
and break their unpremeditated jests, in the intervals of business,
with that sort of undress freedom that contrasts amusingly with
the solemn and even tragic seriousness with which they appear in
turn upon the boards. They have one face for the public, rife with
the saws and learned gravity of the profession, and another for
themselves, replete with broad mirth, sprightly wit, and gay
thoughtlessness. The intense mental toil and fatigue of
business give them a peculiar relish for the enjoyment of their
hours of relaxation, and, in the same degree, incapacitate them
for that frugal attention to their private concerns which their
limited means usually require. They have, in consequence, a
prevailing air of unthriftiness in personal matters, which, however
it may operate to the prejudice of the pocket of the individual, has
a mellow and kindly effect upon his disposition. In an old member
of the profession, one who has grown gray in the service, there is
a rich unction of originality that brings him out from the ranks
of his fellowmen in strong relief. His habitual conversancy with the
world in its strangest varieties and with the secret history of
character, gives him a shrewd estimate of the human heart. He
is quiet, and unapt to be struck with wonder at any of the actions
of men. There is a deep current of observation running calmly
through his thoughts, and seldom gushing out in words; the confidence
which has been placed in him, in the thousand relations of his
profession, renders him constitutionally cautious. His acquaintance
with the vicissitudes of fortune, as they have been exemplified in
the lives of individuals, and with the severe afflictions that have
'tried the reins' of many, known only to himself, makes him an
indulgent and charitable apologist of the aberrations of others.
He has an impregnable good humor that never falls below the level of
thoughtfulness into melancholy."
A distinguished writer, two generations ago, said of the early
Western bar:
"Not only was it a body distinguished for dignity and tolerance,
but chivalrous courage was a marked characteristic. Personal
cowardice was odious among the bar, as among the hunters who had
fought the British and the Indians. Hence, insulting language,
and the use of billingsgate, were too hazardous to be indulged
where a personal accounting was a strong possibility. Not only
did common prudence dictate courtesy among the members of the bar,
but an exalted spirit of honor and well-bred politeness prevailed.
The word of a counsel to his adversary was his inviolable bond.
The suggestion of a lawyer as to the existence of a fact was accepted
as verity by the court. To insinuate unprofessional conduct was
to impute infamy."
I distinctly recall the first time I saw Mr. Lincoln. In September,
1852, two lawyers from Springfield, somewhat travel-stained with
their sixty miles' journey, alighted from the stage-coach in front
of the old tavern in Bloomington. The taller and younger of the
two was Abraham Lincoln; the other, his personal friend and former
preceptor, John T. Stuart. That evening it was my good fortune to
hear Mr. Lincoln address a political meeting at the old Courthouse
in advocacy of the election of General Winfield Scott to the
Presidency. The speech was one of great ability, and but little
that was favorable of the military record of General Pierce remained
when the speech was concluded. The Mexican War was then of recent
occurrence, its startling events fresh in the memory of all, and
its heroes still the heroes of the hour. The more than half-century
that has passed has not wholly dispelled my recollection of Mr.
Lincoln's eloquent tribute to "the hero of Lundy's Lane," and his
humorous description of the military career of General Franklin Pierce.
The incident now to be related occurred at the old National Hotel in
Bloomington in September, 1854. Senator Douglas had been advertised
to speak, and a large audience was in attendance. It was his first
appearance there since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
The writer, then a student at the Wesleyan University, with his
classmate James S. Ewing and many others, had called upon Mr.
Douglas at his hotel. While there the Hon. Jesse W. Fell, a
prominent citizen of Bloomington and the close friend of Mr.
Lincoln, also called upon Mr. Douglas, and after some conversation
with him said in substance, that inasmuch as there was profound
interest felt in the great question then pending, and the people
were anxious to hear both sides, he thought it would be well to
have a joint discussion between Judge Douglas and Mr. Lincoln. To
which proposition Mr. Douglas at once demanded, "What party does
Mr. Lincoln represent?" The answer of Mr. Fell was, "the Whig
party, of course." Declining the proposition with much feeling Mr.
Douglas said, "When I came home from Washington I was assailed
in the northern part of the State by an old line abolitionist,
in the central part of the State by a Whig, and in Southern Illinois
by an anti-Nebraska Democrat. I cannot hold the Whig responsible for
what the abolitionist says, nor the anti-Nebraska Democrat responsible
for what either of the others say, and it looks like dogging a man
all over the State." There was no further allusion to the subject,
and Mr. Lincoln soon after called. The greeting between Judge
Douglas and himself was most cordial, and their conversation,
principally of incidents of their early lives, of the most agreeable
and friendly character. Judge Lawrence Weldon, just then at the
beginning of an honorable career, was present at the above interview,
and has in a sketch of Mr. Lincoln given its incidents more in
detail.
Courts of justice, and the law as a distinctive calling, are the
necessary outgrowths of civilization. In his rude state, man
avenged his wrongs with his own strong arm, and the dogma, "Might makes
right," passed unchallenged. But as communities assumed organic
form, tribunals were instituted for the administration of justice and
the maintenance of public order. The progress of society, from
a condition of semi-barbarism and ignorance to a state of the
highest culture and refinement, may be traced by its advancement
in the modes of administering justice, and in the character and
learning of its tribunals. The advance steps taken from time to
time in the history of jurisprudence are the milestones which stand
out on the highway of civilization. All along the pathway of human
progress, the courts of justice have been the sure criteria by
which to judge of the intelligence and virtue of our race.
Truly it has been said: "With the coming of the lawyer came a new
power in the world. The steel-clad baron and his retainers were
awed by terms they had never before heard and did not understand, such
as precedent, principle, and the like. The great and real pacifier
of the world was the lawyer. His parchment took the place of
the battle-field. The flow of his ink checked the flow of blood.
His quill usurped the place of the sword. His legalism dethroned
barbarism. His victories were victories of peace. He impressed
on individuals and on communities that which he is now endeavoring
to impress on nations, that there are many controversies that it
were better to lose by arbitration than to win by war and
bloodshed."
It is all-important, never more so than now, that the people should
magnify the law. Whatever lessens respect for its authority bodes
evil and only evil to the State. No occasion could arise more
appropriate than this in which to utter solemn words of warning
against an evil of greater menace to the public weal than aught to
be apprehended from foreign foe. In many localities a spirit of
lawlessness has asserted itself in its most hideous form. The rule
of the mob has at times usurped that of the law. Outrages have
been perpetrated in the name of summary justice, appalling to
all thoughtful men. It need hardly be said that all this is in
total disregard of individual rights, and utterly subversive of
all lawful authority.
By the solemn adjudication of courts, and under the safeguards
of law, the fact of guilt is to be established, and the guilty
punished. The spirit of the mob is in deadly antagonism to all
constituted authority. Unless curbed it will sap the foundation
of civilized society. Lynching a human creature is no less murder
when the act of a mob than when that of a single individual. There
is no safety to society but in an aroused public sentiment that
will hold each participant amenable to the law for the consequences
of the crime he either perpetrates or abets. This is the land
of liberty, "of the largest liberty," but let it never be forgotten
that it is liberty regulated by law. Let him be accounted a public
enemy who would weaken the bonds of human society, and destroy what
it has cost our race the sacrifice and toil of centuries to achieve.
The sure rock of defence in the outstretched years as in the
long past, will be the intelligence, the patriotism, the virtue of
a law-abiding, liberty-loving people. To a degree that cannot
be measured by words, the temple of justice will prove the city of
refuge. "The judiciary has no guards, no palaces, no treasuries; no
arms but truth and wisdom; and no splendor but justice."
II
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOTABLE MEMBERS OF THE FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS--TRIAL OF GENERAL
BELKNAP--THE PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST BETWEEN HAYES AND TILDEN--CREATION
OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION--THE WRITER'S SPEECH ON THAT OCCASION--
PROMINENT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE DURING THIS CONGRESS--ANECDOTES
OF MR. BLAINE--OTHER MEMBERS--ANECDOTES OF MR. HOAR--ELECTION OF
THE "BLIND PREACHER"--MR. LAMAR'S ERROR AT TABLE--"BLUE JEANS
WILLIAMS"--RETIREMENT OF DR. BUTLER FROM THE CHAPLAINCY--MR.
BLACKBURN'S SPEECH AT AN EXECUTION--MR. COX'S READY WIT--PROCTOR
KNOTT'S ABILITY AS A LAWYER--HIS SPEECH ON DULUTH--HIS REPLY TO
HIS COMPETITOR FOR THE GOVERNORSHIP.
The forty-fourth Congress--the first of which I was a member--
assembled December 6, 1875. Among its members were many gentlemen
of distinction, some of whom had known active service in the field.
Political disabilities had been in large measure removed, and
the South was now, for the first time since the war, represented in
Congress by its old-time statesmen. Of this number may be mentioned
Mr. Stephens of Georgia, Mr. Lamar of Mississippi, and Mr. Reagan of
Texas. From the membership of this House were afterwards chosen
twenty-six Senators, ten members of the Cabinet, one Justice of
the Supreme Court, and from this and the House immediately succeeding,
three Vice-Presidents and two Presidents of the United States. The
proceedings of this Congress marked an important epoch in our
history. During its first session occurred the masterful debate
upon the General Amnesty Bill. The very depths of partisan feeling
were stirred, and for many days it was indeed a titanic struggle.
The speeches attracting the greatest attention were those of Blaine
and Garfield upon the one side, and Hill of Georgia and Lamar upon
the other. This great debate recalled vividly that of Webster and
Hayne, in the other wing of the Capitol, almost half a century before.
This session also witnessed the impeachment of a Cabinet officer, General
Belknap, Secretary of War. The trial occurred before the
Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment during the closing weeks
of the session, and resulted in his acquittal, less than two-thirds
of the Senators voting for conviction. General Belknap was
represented by an able array of counsel, chief of whom were
Judge Black of Pennsylvania and the Hon. Matthew H. Carpenter
of Wisconsin. Mr. Knott of Kentucky, Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts,
and Mr. Lord of New York, conducted the prosecution in the main as
managers on the part of the House of Representatives. The principal
contention on the part of the counsel for the accused was that there
could be no conviction, inasmuch as Belknap had resigned his office
before the article of impeachment had been preferred. This view
seems to have been decisive of the final vote of many Senators,
and the accused stood acquitted at the bar of the Senate.
When the second session of this Congress convened, in December,
1876, the excitement throughout the country was intense over the
pending Presidential contest between Hayes and Tilden. As will be
remembered, the electoral vote of two States, Louisiana and Florida,
was claimed by each of the candidates. These votes were decisive of
the result. As the days passed and the time approached for the
joint session of the Senate and the House, for the purpose of
counting the electoral votes and declaring the result, the tension
became greater, and partisan feeling more intense. The friends of
Hayes were in the majority in the Senate; those of Tilden, in
the House. With conflicting certificates, both purporting to give
the correct vote from each of the States named, and no lawful
authority existing to determine as to their validity, it can readily
be seen that the situation was one to arouse the grave apprehension
of all thoughtful men. The condition was without a precedent in
our history. Twice had there been a failure to elect a President by
the people, and by constitutional provision the election in each
instance devolved upon the House. In the first-mentioned case, in
1801, Mr. Jefferson was chosen; and in the latter, in 1825, Mr.
John Quincy Adams. In neither of the cases just mentioned had
there been a question as to _how_ any State had voted. It was
simply that no person had received a majority of all of the electoral
votes cast. The method of settlement was clearly pointed out by
the Constitution. As already indicated, the case was wholly
different in the Hayes-Tilden controversy. The question then was as
to _how_ certain States had voted. It was for the purpose of
ascertaining this fact and certifying the same to the joint session
of the Senate and House, that the Electoral Commission was constituted.
The bill having this end in view originated in the House in January,
1877; the Commission was constituted, and the controverted questions
were soon thereafter determined.
The Electoral Commission was an imperative necessity. As such
it was created,--consisting of five members each from the Senate, the
House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court. Its decisions
were adverse to Mr. Tilden from the beginning, and resulted in the
finding that all disputed votes should be counted for his opponent.
This, it will be remembered, gave Hayes a majority of one on the
final count, and resulted in his induction into office. Partisan feeling
was at its height, and the question of the justice of the decision
of the Electoral Commission was vehemently discussed.
To the end that there might be a peaceful determination of the
perilous question, that of disputed succession to the Presidency, I
was an earnest advocate of the bill creating the Commission. Upon
the question of concurrence by the House of Representatives in the
final determination of the Commission, bitter opposition was
manifested upon the part of friends of Mr. Tilden, and a heated
partisan debate resulted, and during this debate I spoke as follows:
"When this Congress assembled in December, it witnessed the American
people from one end of the country to the other divided upon the
question as to which candidate had been lawfully elected to the
high office of President of the United States. The business
industries of the country were paralyzed, public confidence destroyed,
and the danger of civil war was imminent. That Mr. Tilden had
received a majority of more than two hundred thousand of the popular
vote was not disputed. That he had secured a majority of the
Presidential electors in the several States, and was lawfully
entitled to be inducted into the great office, was the firm belief
of fully one-half of the people of this country. The hour was one
of great peril to our institutions, and many were apprehensive that
we were but entering into the dark night of anarchy and confusion.
After many weeks of angry discussion, which resulted in still
further arousing the passions of the people, a measure of adjustment
was proposed. It was believed that there was still patriotism
enough left in the American Congress to secure an honorable and fair
settlement of this most dangerous question. We all recall how our
hopes revived, and how gladly we hailed the introduction of the
bill recommended by a joint committee of conference of the Senate and
House of Representatives. It was welcomed as the harbinger of
peace by the entire people of our country.
"I gave that bill my earnest support. It had in the House no friend
more ardent in its advocacy than myself. I believed it to be a
measure in the interest of peace. I believed that those who framed
it, as well as those who gave it their support upon the floor, were
honest in their statements, that no man could afford to take the
Presidency with a clouded title, and that the object of the bill was
to ascertain which of the candidates was lawfully entitled to
the electoral votes of Florida and Louisiana. I never mistrusted for
a moment that statesmen of high repute could in so perilous an
hour, upon so grave a question, palter with words in a double sense.
"We who are the actors in this drama know, and history will record
the fact, that the Conference Bill became a law, and the Electoral
Commission was organized, not for the purpose of ascertaining which
candidate had _prima facie_ a majority of the electoral votes; not
for the purpose of ascertaining that the Governor of Florida,
and the _de facto_ Governor of Louisiana, had given certificates
to the Hayes electors. It was never dreamed that a tribunal,
consisting in part of five judges of the highest court on earth,
was to be constituted, whose sole duty was to report a fact known to
every man in the land, that the returning-board of Louisiana had
given the votes of that State to the Hayes electors. The avowed
object of that bill was to ascertain which candidate had received a
majority of the legal votes of those States. The avowed object of
the bill was the secure the ends of justice; to see that the will of
the people was executed; that the Republic suffered no harm; to
see that the title to this great office was not tainted with fraud.
How well the members of this tribunal have discharged the sacred
trust committed to them, let them answer to history.
"The record will stand that this tribunal shut its eyes to the
light of truth; refused to hear the undisputed proof that a majority
of seven thousand legal votes in the State of Louisiana for Tilden
was by a fraudulent returning-board changed to eight thousand
majority for Hayes. The Republican Representative from Florida,
Mr. Purman, has solemnly declared upon this floor that Florida had
given its vote to Tilden. I am not surprised that two distinguished
Republican Representatives from Massachusetts, Mr. Seelye and Mr.
Pierce, have in such thrilling tones expressed their dissent from the
judgment of this tribunal. By this decision fraud has become one of
the legalized modes of securing the vote of a State. Can it be
possible that the American people are prepared to accept the doctrine
that fraud, which vitiates all contracts and agreements, which
taints the judgments and decrees of courts, which will even annul the
solemn covenant of marriage--fraud, which poisons wherever it enters
--can be inquired into in all the relations of human life save only
where a returning-board is its instrument, and the dearest rights of
a sovereign people are at stake?
"But we are told that we created this tribunal and must abide by
its arbitrament. I propose to do so in good faith. I have, from the
beginning, opposed every movement that looked only to delay. I
have voted against all dilatory motions. But the decision of this
tribunal is too startling and too far-reaching in its consequences
to pass unchallenged. That the returning-board of Louisiana
will find no imitators in our future history is more than I dare
hope. The pernicious doctrine that fraud and perjury are to be
recognized auxiliaries in popular elections is one that may return
to plague its inventors. The worst effect of this decision will
be its lesson to the young men of our country. Hereafter old-fashioned
honesty is at a discount, and villainy and fraud the legalized
instruments of success. The fact may be conceded, the proof
overwhelming, that the honest voice of a State has been overthrown
by outrage and fraud, and yet the chosen tribunal of the people
has entered of solemn record that there is no remedy.
'O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts!'
"My criticism of the decision of this tribunal rests upon its
finding in the cases of Louisiana and Florida; upon the Oregon case
I have no criticism to offer. It is true that but two votes of
that State could have been given to Hayes had the decision first
adopted by the Commission been followed in the case of Oregon.
However inconsistent it may be with other rulings of the Commission,
standing alone it is in the main correct. The sanctity of seal of
State and certificate of Governor applied only to Louisiana and
Florida; the Governor of Oregon was not of the household of the
faithful.
"The people of Oregon cast a majority of their votes for Hayes,
and no vote or act of mine shall stand in the way of its being
so recorded. Such have been my convictions from the beginning,
and the great wrong done in Louisiana and Florida cannot warp my
convictions at this hour.
"We have now reached the final act in this great drama, and the
record here made will pass into history. Time, the great healer, will
bring a balm to those who feel sick at heart because of this grievous
wrong. But who can estimate, what seer can foretell, the evils
that may result to us and our children from this judgment? Fortunate,
indeed, will it be for this country if our people lose not faith
in popular institutions; fortunate, indeed, if they abate not their
confidence in the integrity of that high tribunal, for a century the
bulwark of our liberties. In all times of popular commotion and
peril, the Supreme Court of the United States has been looked to
as the final arbiter, its decrees heeded as the voice of God. How
disastrous may be the result of decisions so manifestly partisan, I
will not attempt to forecast.
"Let this vote be now taken and the curtain fall upon these scenes
forever. To those who believe, as I do, that a grievous wrong has
been suffered, let me entreat that this arbitrament be abided in
good faith, that no hindrance or delay be interposed to the execution
of the law, but that by faithful adherence to its mandates, by
honest efforts to revive the prostrate industries of the country, by
obedience to the constituted authorities, we will show ourselves
patriots rather than partisans in the hour of our country's
misfortune."
Some mention will now be made of prominent members of the House
during this Congress. The Hon. Michael C. Kerr of Indiana was
elected Speaker of the House. The vote of the Republican minority
was given to the Hon. James G. Blaine, who had been Speaker during
the three Congresses immediately preceding. Mr. Kerr was a gentleman
of high character and recognized ability. He had been for many
years a member of the House, and was familiar with the details
of its business. He was in failing health at the time of his
election, and died before the close of the first session of that
Congress. He was physically unable to preside during the greater part
of the session, and was frequently relieved from the onerous duties
of the Chair by two new members who were yet to achieve distinction
in that body, Mr. Blackburn of Kentucky and Mr. Springer of
Illinois.
Mr. Blaine, the leader of the minority, had been for twelve years a
member of the House, having been first elected at the age of
thirty-three. He was a brilliant debater, well versed in parliamentary
law, and at all points fully equipped for the conflict. With the
exception of Henry Clay, the House of Representatives has probably
never known his equal as a party leader. That he possessed a touch
of humor will appear from the following. While the discussion was
at its height upon his amendment excluding Jefferson Davis
from the benefit of the General Amnesty Bill, Mr. Blaine,
looking across to the opposite side of the Chamber, said:
"I confess to a feeling of commiseration for some gentlemen
upon the other side, who represent close districts. Surrounded by
their Southern associates here, and with intense Union constituencies
at home, their apprehension, as they are called to vote upon
this amendment, is indeed deplorable. It remind me of a Hibernian
procession I once saw moving down Broadway, where the serious
question was how to keep step to the music, and at the same time
to dodge the omnibuses!"
My seat was just across the aisle from that of Mr. Blaine. When
introduced, I handed him letters of introduction from two of his
college classmates, the Hon. Robert E. Williams and the Rev. John Y.
Calhoun. After reading the letters and speaking most kindly of
his old Washington College classmates, he brusquely inquired, "What
are John Y. Calhoun's politics?"