The President called the Forty-sixth Congress in extra session,

March 18, 1879, to make the necessary appropriations. The effort

was at once made, through riders to appropriation bills and by

separate bills, to enact the laws mentioned. Excitement ran high.

For the first time in the history of the United States (perhaps in

the history of any government) it was announced by a party in

control of its law-making power, and consequently responsible for

the proper conduct and support of the government, that unless the

Executive would consent to legislation not by him deemed wise or

just, there should not be provided means for maintaining the several

departments of the government--that the government should be "starved

to death." In vain were precedents sought for in the history of

England for such suicidal policy. The debate in both branches of

Congress ran high, and there was much apprehension felt by the

people. Mr. Blackburn of Kentucky, speaking for his party, said:

"For the first time in eighteen years past the Democracy are back

in power in both branches of this Legislature, and she proposes to

signallize her return to power; she proposes to celebrate her

recovery of her long-lost heritage by tearing off these degrading

badges of servitude and destroying the machinery of a corrupt and

partisan legislation. We do not intend to stop until we have

stricken the last vestige of your war measures from the statute-

book, which, like these, were born of the passions incident to

civil strife and looked to the abridgment of the liberty of the

citizen."

Others threatened to refuse to vote appropriations until the "Capitol

crumbled into dust" unless the legislation demanded was passed.

President Hayes' veto alone prevented the legislation. It is not

here proposed to give a history of the struggle, fraught with so

much danger to the Republic, but only to call attention to it.

The contest lasted for months.

Senators Edmunds, Conkling, Blaine, Chandler of Michigan, and other

Republicans, and Thurman, Voorhees, Beck, Morgan, Lamar, and other

Democrats participated in the debates. In the House Mr. Garfield,

Mr. Frye, Mr. Reed, and other Republicans, and Mr. Cox, Mr. Tucker,

Mr. Carlisle, and other Democrats took a more or less prominent

part in the discussion. I spoke against the repeal of the election

laws on April 25, 1879, and against the prohibition of the use of

troops at the polls to keep the peace on election days, on June

11, 1879. The necessity for the pay of members for the fiscal year

ending June 30, 1880, had the effect, finally, after many vetoes

of the President, to cause the Democratic members to recede, for

a time, from the false position taken. The whole question was,

however, renewed in the first regular session of the same Congress.

Precisely similar riders to appropriation bills and new bills

relating to the use of troops at the polls, to repeal laws authorizing

the appointment of supervisors and special deputy marshals for

elections, and to make it a crime for an officer of the army to

aid in keeping the peace at the polls on election days were brought

forward and their enactment into laws demanded. I spoke on the

8th and on the 10th of April, 1880, against inhibiting the use of

the army at the polls and restricting the President's power to keep

the peace at elections when riots and disorder prevailed, and on

March 18th, and again on the 11th of June, 1880, in opposition to

a bill intended to repeal existing laws relating to the use of

deputy marshals at elections. In these debates I sought to make

clear the power of the government to protect the voter in Federal

elections; to demonstrate the necessity for doing so; to show that

it was as important to have peace on election day at the polls as

on the other days of the year and at other places; that it was not

intended, and had never been the purpose, to use troops or supervisors

or deputy marshals to prevent a voter from voting for officers of

his choice, but only to secure him in that right; and that the

right to a peaceful election had always been sacredly maintained,

and for this purpose the army had been used in England and in all

countries where free elections had been held. I maintained that

the citizen was as much entitled to be protected in his right

peacefully and freely to exercise the elective franchise, as to be

protected in any other right, and that it was as much the duty and

as clearly within the power of the Federal Government to use, when

necessary, the army as a police force on an election day as to use

it on other days of the year to suppress riots and breaches of the

peace; and I further insisted that it was the duty of the United

States to protect its citizens at home as well as abroad in all

their constitutional rights.(12) I also showed that the coercive

policy of forcing legislation under threats of destroying the

government was not only indefensible, treasonable, and unpatriotic,

but wholly new. The precedents alleged to be found in the history

of the British Parliament were shown not to exist in fact; that

the farthest the English Parliament had ever gone was to refuse

subsidies to the Crown, the princes, or to maintain royalty, or to

vote supplies to carry on a foreign war not approved by the House

of Commons; that in no case had the life of the nation been threatened

as the penalty for the Crown's not approving laws passed by the

House of Commons, and that the English statutes provided for preserving

peace and order by the army, especially at elections.

In some cases during this memorable contest in the Forty-sixth

Congress I took issue in the House with the majority of my party

colleagues when they, through timidity, or for other causes, yielded

their opposition to proposed legislation touching the use of the

army and special deputy marshals and supervisors of elections to

secure peaceable and fair elections. In one notable instance (June

11, 1879), Mr. Garfield of Ohio, Mr. Hale of Maine, and the other

Republican members of the appropriation committee so far surrendered

their previously expressed views as to concur in the adoption of

a section in the army appropriation bill which prohibited any of

the money appropriated by it from being "paid for the subsistence,

equipment, transportation, or compensation of any portion of the

army of the United States to be used as a police force to keep the

peace at any election held within any State."

The application of the previous question cut off general debate,

and I was only able to get five minutes to state my objections to

the proposed measure.

Though the section was plainly intended to deprive the President

of his constitutional power as Commander-in-Chief of the army,

eleven Republicans only of the House joined me in voting against

it. The Republican Senators, however, generally opposed the section

when the bill reached the Senate. Later in the same Congress the

Republicans of the House unitedly supported the position taken by

me. This and other like incidents led, however, to a charge being

made later by some weak, jealous, and vain Republicans that I was

not friendly to Mr. Garfield as a leader and not always loyal to

my party.

In the last army appropriation bill of the same Congress, after

full discussion, a similar provision was omitted, and no such

limitation on the use of the army has since been or is ever again

likely to be attempted to be enacted into law.

The political heresies of the Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth Congresses

have apparently passed away, and a more patriotic sentiment generally

exists in all parties, and, fortunately, the necessity for troops,

supervisors of elections, and special deputy marshals at the polls

no longer exists in so marked a degree.

I spoke, December 7, 1880, and again, February 9, 1881, at length,

against the adoption of a joint rule of Congress relating to counting

the electoral vote, which rule, among other things, undertook to

give Congress the right to settle questions that might arise on

objection of a member as to the vote of the electors of a State.

I maintained that, under the Constitution, Congress neither in

joint session nor in separate sessions had the right to decide that

the vote of a State should or should not be counted, or that there

was any power anywhere to reject the vote of any State after it

had been cast and properly certified and returned; that the two

Houses only met, as provided in the Constitution, to witness the

purely ministerial work of the Vice-President in opening and counting

the electoral vote as returned to him. I cited the precedents from

the beginning of the government under the Constitution in support

of my position, excepting only the dangerous one of 1877, growing

out of the Electoral Commission.

I spoke on many other important subjects, especially on the true

rule of apportionment of representation in the House; on election

cases, and parliamentary questions. I was not always in harmony

with my party leaders. I denied the policy of surrendering principle

in any case, even though apparent harmony was, for the time being,

attainable thereby.

At the November election of 1880, James A. Garfield was elected

President, and the Republicans had a bare majority in the House at

the opening of the Forty-seventh Congress over the Democrats and

Greenbackers, but not a majority over all. There were three Mahone

re-Adjusters elected from Virginia. I formed no purpose to become

a candidate for Speaker of the House, until the close of the Forty-

sixth, and then only on the solicitation of leading members of that

Congress who had been elected to the next one.

Shortly after Mr. Garfield was inaugurated President of the United

States, a violent controversy arose over appointments to important

offices in New York, which led to the resignation of Senators

Conkling and Platt. This was followed by President Garfield being

shot (July 2, 1881) by a crazy crank (Guiteau) who, in some way,

conceived that he, through the controversy, was deprived of an

office. In company with General Sherman I saw and had an interview

with Mr. Garfield in his room at the White House the afternoon of

the day he was shot. His appearance then was that of a man fatally

wounded. He lingered eighty days, dying September 19, 1881. (He

is buried at Cleveland, Ohio.) Garfield was a man of great intellect,

and attracted people to him by his generous nature. I have spoken

of him in an oration delivered, May 12, 1887, at the unveiling of

a statue of him at the foot of Capitol Hill, Washington, D. C.,

erected by the Society of the Army of the Cumberland.(13)

Over such competitors as Mr. Reed, of Maine, Mr. Burrows of Michigan,

Mr. Hiscock of New York, and others, I was chosen Speaker of the

Forty-seventh Congress, December 5, 1881. The contest was sharp

before the caucus met, but when my nomination became reasonably

apparent, Mr. Hiscock, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Burrows, my three leading

competitors, generously voted and had their friends vote for my

nomination.

Chester A. Arthur, as Vice-President, succeeded to the Presidency

on the death of Mr. Garfield. There came, later, an acute division

in the Republican party, Blaine and Conkling (both then out of

office by a singular coincidence), being the assumed heads of the

opposing factions. President Arthur tried, faithfully, to bring

the elements together by recognizing both, but in this, as is

usually the case, he was not successful and had not the active

support of either faction. Mr. Blaine was too inordinately ambitious

and jealous of power to patiently bide his time, and Mr. Conkling

was too imperious and vengeful to tolerate, through his political

friends, fair treatment of his supposed enemies. Mr. Conkling was

a man of honesty and sincerity, true to his friends to a degree,

of overtowering intellect, with marvellous industry. Notwithstanding

his many unfortunate traits of character, Mr. Conkling was a great

man.

Mr. Blaine was essentially a politician, and possessed of a vaulting

and consuming ambition, and was jealous of even his would-be personal

and political friends. Mr. Conkling advised some of his friends

in Congress to support me for Speaker, as did also his former

senatorial colleague, Mr. Platt of New York. The members from New

York state, however, though many of them were followers of Mr.

Conkling, unitedly supported Mr. Hiscock until the latter decided,

during the caucus, himself to vote for me. Mr. Blaine, though to

me personally professing warm friendship, held secret meetings at

the State Department and at his house to devise methods of preventing

my election.(14) He had been a member, for many terms, of the

House, and thrice its Speaker, had been a Senator, and for a few

months Secretary of State under Presidents Garfield and Arthur.

He had an extended acquaintance and many enthusiastic friends. He

lacked breadth and strength of learning, as well as sincerity of

character. He, however, came near being a great man, especially

in public, popular estimation.

The Forty-seventh Congress met December 5, 1881, and being elected

its Speaker over Mr. Randall, the candidate of the Democrats, I

made this inaugural address:

"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,--I thank you with a

heart filled with gratitude for the distinguished honor conferred

on me by an election as your Speaker. I will assume the powers

and duties of this high office with, I trust, a due share of

diffidence and distrust of my own ability to meet them acceptably

to you and the country. I believe that you, as a body and

individually, will give me hearty support in the discharge of all

my duties. I invoke your and the country's charitable judgment

upon all my official acts. I will strive to be just to all,

regardless of party or section. Where party principle is involved,

I will be found to be a Republican, but in all other respects I

hope to be able to act free from party bias.

"It is a singular fact that at this most prosperous time in our

nation's history no party in either branch of Congress has an

absolute majority over all other parties, and it is therefore

peculiarly fortunate that at no other time since and for many years

prior to the accession of Abraham Lincoln to the Executive chair

have there been so few unsettled vital questions of a national

character in relation to which party lines have been closely drawn.

"The material prosperity of the people is in advance of any other

period in the history of our government. The violence of party

spirit has materially subsided, and in great measure because many

of the reasons for its existence are gone.

"While the universal tendency of the people is to sustain and

continue to build up an unparalleled prosperity, it should be our

highest aim to so legislate as to permanently promote and not

cripple it. This Congress should be, and I profoundly hope it will

be, marked peculiarly as a business Congress.

"It may be true that additional laws are yet necessary to give to

every citizen complete protection in the exercise of all political

rights. With evenly balanced party power, with few grounds for

party strife and bitterness, and with no impending Presidential

election to distract us from purely legislative duties, I venture

to suggest that the present is an auspicious time to enact laws to

guard against the recurrence of dangers to our institutions and to

insure tranquillity at perilous times in the future.

"Again thanking you for the honor conferred, and again invoking

your aid and generous judgment, I am ready to take the oath prescribed

by law and the Constitution and forthwith proceed, with my best

ability, guided by a sincere and honest purpose, to discharge the

duties belonging to the office with which you have clothed me."

The duties of Speaker were arduous, varied, and delicate. Under

the law, rules, and practice of the House he had control of the

Hall of the House, and of the assignment of committee rooms; signed

orders for the monthly pay of each member, and the pay of employees;

approved bonds of officers; appointed and removed stenographers;

examined and approved the daily journal of the proceedings of the

House before being read; received and submitted messages from the

President and heads of departments; appointed three regents to the

Smithsonian Institution, and three members annually as visitors to

the Military Academy, and a like number to the Naval Academy, and

performed many other duties cast upon him, besides appointing all

the committees of the House. The Speaker is naturally the person

to whom members, employees, and others having business with the

House flock for advice, assistance, and with their real or imaginary

grievances. An extensive correspondence and social duties demand

much of the Speaker's time. All this, independent of his real

duties as presiding officer of the House, in performing what is

expected, without time for deliberation, to decide correctly all

parliamentary questions and inquiries. And he is obliged, in

addition, to discharge the ordinary duties of a member for his

district and constituents. The members from all parts of the Union

have diverse and often conflicting interests to press upon the

attention of the House, and the jealousy of members in matters of

precedence or recognition by the Speaker renders his duties severely

trying. It constantly occurred that several members with equal

rights, urging matters of equal merit, were dependent on the

recognition of the Speaker in a "morning hour," when not more than

one or two of them at most could, for want of time, be recognized.

The Speaker has to be invidious, relying on the future to even

matters up. The recognition of a member by the Speaker is final,

and from which there is no appeal. Members and often personal

friends not infrequently feel aggrieved at the Speaker, for a time

at least. All this regardless of political party lines. It is

the Speaker's duty to equally divide recognition on party sides,

and this duty, from the member's standpoint, is often a ground of

complaint.

The first duty of the Speaker, ordinarily, after the House is

organized and before it can proceed regularly to business, is to

appoint the standing committees.

Chairmanships of committees and appointments on leading ones are

much sought after, and members appeal to the Speaker on all kinds

of grounds to give them the coveted places. Personal and party

friendship is pressed upon him to induce favorable action. The

same place is often sought by a number of members. Experience in

congressional service, regardless of the member's prior duties,

pursuit, or occupation, is generally urged as a reason for making

a desired appointment. Some construct a geographical reason for

a particular selection. Out of all this and more, the Speaker,

with little or no acquaintance with a large number of the members,

does the best he can. A few always are disappointed, and, necessarily

under the circumstances, some mistakes are made, but generally

those who make the loudest complaint are the weak, vain, and

inefficient members who hope to be made great in the eyes of their

constituents by being named on one or more important committees by

the Speaker.

Some who seek and obtain committee appointments of their own choice

soon find they are not what they had expected, and they also join

the clamor against the Speaker. There are, however, only a small

number out of the whole who are unreasonable or dissatisfied. This

small number, by their wailing, give the appearance of a general

discontent. Complaint was made by the disappointed that I gave

preference on committees to personal and party friends who supported

me for Speaker. I always believed in rewarding my friends.

I, however, appointed Hon. Thomas B. Reed (since Speaker), Hon.

Frank Hiscock, Hon. J. C. Burrows (all competitors for Speaker),

Chairmen, respectively, of the Committees on the Judiciary,

Appropriations, and Territories. Hon. William D. Kelley was made

Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. He was the acknowledged

leading advocate of a high protective tariff to which the Republican

party was then pledged, though the party was then honeycombed with

free-traders, some of whom edited leading newspapers. Some of the

latter in New York, Chicago, and Cincinnati, took occasion to assail

me for appointing Mr. Kelley, and to give weight to their unjust

attacks made many false statements as to the organization of other

committees.(15) In this they were inspired by Mr. Blaine, and a

very few others outside of Congress, who imagined their dictations

should have been regarded, or who were otherwise disappointed in

not being able to say who should be Speaker. The Speaker could

not go into the newspapers and contradict these and like malicious

stories, and hence some of them are still ignorantly repeated.(16)

After fuller acquaintance with the members, it became obvious that

in assigning them to committee work I had overrated some and

underrated others, but a better working Congress never met. Its

work abundantly proves this, not only in amount of work done, but

in the importance and character of the legislation, and its freedom

from all that was corrupt or vicious. I cannot recall that even

the weak and vicious slanderers or disappointed lobbyists ever

risked charging me while I was Speaker or during my eight years in

Congress with favoring any corrupt measure pending in Congress.

Polygamy, notwithstanding it had maintained itself in the United

States for fifty years, and was then more firmly established in

Utah than at any time before, was given a blow, under which it has

since about disappeared. The first three-per-cent. funding bill

was passed by this Congress. Pauper immigration was prohibited,

and immigrants were required to be protected on their way across

the sea; national bank charters were extended, letter postage was

reduced to two cents, and many public acts wisely regulating the

Indian and land policy of the government were passed. Liberal

pension laws were enacted; internal-revenue taxes were largely

reduced, and there was a general revision (March 3, 1883) of the

tariff laws. The Civil Service Act was also passed in this

Congress.

More bills were introduced for consideration in the Forty-seventh

than came before Congress in the first fifty years of its existence.

In discharging the duties of Speaker I had no strong parliamentary

leader of my party on the floor to aid me, and I had had but little

experience as a presiding officer. Of the opposite party were Mr.

Randall, who had been Speaker of the three preceding Congresses;

Mr. Cox of New York, the pugnacious, who had acted as Speaker for

a time in the Forty-third; Mr. Carlisle (my successor as Speaker),

and Mr. Knott of Kentucky, and others who laid just claim to much

parliamentary learning. The House was hardly Republican; and in

my own party were disappointed aspirants who often thought they

saw opportunities to gain a little cheap applause.(17) Notwithstanding

this situation, no parliamentary decision of mine was overruled by

the House, though many appeals were taken, and more than the usual

number of important questions were raised by members and decided

by me. The most memorable of the decisions was the one which put

an end to dilatory motions to prevent the House from making or

amending its rules of procedure. The occasion of this holding

arose on the consideration of a report of the Committee on Rules

whereby it was proposed to so amend the rules as to prevent

filibustering and dilatory motions in the consideration of contested

election cases. It may be observed that for the first time in the

history of Congress, dilatory methods were resorted to, to prevent

the _consideration_ of election cases. I was then ready to hold

(and so stated) that dilatory motions were not in order to prevent

the consideration of such cases, as their disposition affected the

organization of the House for business; and I was also prepared to

count a quorum when a quorum of members was present not voting,

but these questions did not arise, and it was then understood that

leading Republicans (Mr. Reed of Maine among the number (18)) did

not agree with my views on these two points. A point of order was

made against a dilatory motion, which was debated at much length,

and with some heat, by the ablest parliamentarians of all parties

in the House. My opinion on the question made is quoted from the

_Record_ of May 29, 1882.

"Mr. Reed, as a privileged question, called up the report of the

Committee on Rules made on Saturday last; when Mr. Randall raised

the question of consideration; pending which, Mr. Kenna moved that

the House adjourn; pending which Mr. Blackburn moved that when the

House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next; and the question

being put thereon, it was decided in the negative.

* * * * *

"The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Kenna that the House

adjourn; pending which Mr. Randall moved that when the House adjourn

it be to meet on Thursday nest;

"Mr. Reed made the point of order that the said motion was not in

order at this time, on the ground that pending a proposition to

change the rules of the House, dilatory motions cannot be entertained

by the Chair.

"After debate on said point of order,

"The Speaker. The question for the Chair to decide is briefly

this: The gentleman from Maine (Reed) has called up for present

consideration the report of the Committee on Rules made on the 27th

inst., and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) raised,

as he might under the practice and the rules of the House, the

question of consideration. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.

Kenna) then moved that the House adjourn, and the gentleman from

Kentucky (Mr. Blackburn) moved that when the House adjourn it be

to meet on Wednesday next, which last motion was voted down; and

thereupon the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) moved that

when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thursday next. The gentleman

from Maine (Mr. Reed) then raised the point of order that such

motions are mere dilatory motions, and therefore, as against the

right of the House to consider a proposition to amend the rules,

not in order.

"It cannot be disputed that the Committee on Rules have the right

to report at any time such changes in the rules as it may decide

to be wise. The right of that committee to report at any time may

be, under the practice, a question of privilege; but if it is not,

resolutions of this House, adopted December 19, 1881, expressly

give that right.

"The Clerk will read the resolutions.

"The Clerk read as follows:

'_Resolved_, That the rules of the House of Representatives of the

Forty-sixth Congress shall be the rules of the present House until

otherwise ordered; and,

'_Resolved_ further, That the Committee on Rules when appointed

shall have the right to report at any time all such amendments or

revisions of said rules as they may deem proper.'

"The Speaker. It will be seen that these resolutions not only give

the right to that committee to report at any time, but the committee

is authorized to report any change, etc., in the rules. The right

given to report at any time carries with it the right to have the

proposition reported considered without laying over. The resolutions

are the ones adopting the present standing rules of the House for

its government; and it will be observed that they were only

conditionally adopted; and the right was expressly reserved to the

House to order them set aside. Paragraph 1 of Rule xxviii provides

that.--

'No standing rule of the House shall be rescinded or changed without

one day's notice of the motion therefor.'

"This clause of the rule, if applicable at all, may fairly be

construed to make it in order under the standing rules of the House

to consider any motion to rescind or change the rules after one

day's notice.

"But the question for the Chair to decide is this: Are the rules

of this House to be so construed as to give to the minority of the

House the absolute right to prevent the majority or a quorum of

the House from making any new rules for its government; or in the

absence of anything in the rules providing for any mode of proceeding

in the matter of consideration, when the question of changing the

rules is before the House, shall the rules be so construed as to

virtually prevent their change should one-fifth of the House oppose

it? It may be well to keep in mind that paragraph 2 of section 5

of article 1 of the Constitution says that--

'Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.'

"The same section of the Constitution provides that--

'A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business.'

"The right given to the House to determine the rules of its

proceedings is never exhausted, but is at all times a continuing

right, and in the opinion of the Chair gives a right to make or

alter rules independent of any rules it may adopt. Dilatory motions

to prevent the consideration of business are comparatively recent

expedients, and should not be favored in any case save where

absolutely required by some clear rule of established practice.

"In any case it is a severe strain upon common sense to construe

the rules so as to prevent a quorum of the House from taking any

proceedings at all required by the Constitution; and it is still

more difficult to find any justification for holding that the

special resolutions of this House adopted December 19th last, or

the standing rules even of the House, were intended to prevent the

House, if a majority so desired, from altering or abrogating the

present rules of the House.

"There seems to be abundant precedent for the view the Chair takes.

The Clerk will read from the _Record_ of the Forty-third Congress,

volume ix, page 806, an opinion expressed by the distinguished

Speaker, Mr. Blaine, which has been repeatedly alluded to to-day.

"The Clerk read as follows:

'The Chair has repeatedly ruled that pending a proposition to change

the rules dilatory motions could not be entertained, and for this

reason he has several times ruled that the right of each House to

determine what shall be its rules is an organic right expressly

given by the Constitution of the United States. The rules are the

creature of that power, and, of course, they cannot be used to

destroy that power. The House is incapable by any form of rules

of divesting itself of its inherent constitutional power to exercise

its functions to determine its own rules. Therefore the Chair has

always announced upon a proposition to change the rules of the

House he never would entertain a dilatory motion.'

"The Speaker. It will be observed that the then Speaker says he

has frequently held that pending a proposition to change the rules

dilatory motions could not be entertained. The precedents for

ruling out dilatory motions where an amendment of the rules is

under consideration are many.

"During the electoral count my immediate predecessor (Mr. Randall)

decided, in principle, the point involved here. On February 24,

1877, after an obstructive motion had been made, the following

language was used, as found in the _Record_ of the Forty-fourth

Congress, page 1906.

'The Speaker. The Chair is unable to recognize this in any other

light than as a dilatory motion.

'The mover then denied that he made the motion as such.

'The Speaker. The Chair is unable to classify it in any other way.

Therefore he rules that when the Constitution of the United States

directs anything to be done, or when the law under the Constitution

of the United States enacted in obedience thereto directs an act

of this House, it is not in order to make any motion to obstruct

or impede the execution of that injunction of the Constitution and

laws.'

"While this decision is not on the precise point, it clearly covers

the principle involved in the case with which we are now dealing.

"The Chair thinks the Constitution and the laws are higher than

any rules, and when they conflict with the rules the latter must

give way. There is not one word in the present rules, however,

which prescribes the mode of proceeding in changing the standing

rules except as to the reference of propositions to change the

rules, with the further exception that--

'No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or

changed without one day's notice.'

"But it will be observed that there is an entire absence from all

these standing rules of anything that looks to giving directions

as to the procedure when the rule is under consideration by the

House. This only refers to the time of considering motions to

rescind or change a standing rule to the reference of propositions

submitted by members, and to the time and manner of bringing them

before the House for consideration, and not to the method of

considering them when brought before the House.

"It seems to purposely avoid saying one word as to the forms of

proceedings while considering such motions. This is highly

significant.

"There is nothing revolutionary in holding that purely dilatory

motions cannot be entertained to prevent consideration or action

on a proposition to amend the rules of the House, as this right to

make or amend the rules is an organic one essential to be exercised

preliminary to the orderly transaction of business by the House.

It would be more than absurd to hold otherwise.

"Rule XLV undertakes to fasten our present standing rules on the

present and all succeeding Congresses. It reads as follows:

'These rules shall be the rules of the House of Representatives of

the present and succeeding Congresses, unless otherwise ordered.'

"If this rule is of binding force on succeeding Congresses, and

the rules apply and can be invoked to give power to a minority in

the House to prevent their abrogation or alteration, they would be

made perpetual if only one-fifth of the members of the House so

decreed.

"The fallacy of holding that the standing rules can be held to

apply to proceedings to amend, etc., the rules will more sharply

appear when we look to the case in hand. The proposition is to so

amend the rules in contested-election cases as to take away the

right to make and repeat dilatory motions, to prevent consideration,

etc. And the same obstructive right is appealed to to prevent its

consideration. To allow this would be to hold the rules superior

not only to the House that made them but to the Constitution of

the United States.

"The wise remarks quoted in debate, made long since by the

distinguished speaker, Mr. Onslow of the House of Commons, about

the wisdom of adhering to fixed rules in legislative proceedings,

were made with no reference to the application of rules which it

was claimed were made to prevent any proceedings at all by the body

acting under them.

"The present occupant of the chair has tried, and will try, to give

full effect to all rules wherever applicable, and especially to

protect the rights of the minority to the utmost extent the rules

will justify.

"The Chair is not called upon to hold that any of the standing

rules of the House are in conflict with the Constitution, as it

is not necessary to do so. It only holds that there is nothing in

the rules which gives them application pending proceedings to amend

and rescind them. It also holds that under the first of the

resolutions adopted by the House on December 19, 1881, the right

was reserved to order the standing rules set aside at any time this

House so decided, and without regard to dilatory forms of proceedings

provided for in them. The Chair does not hold that pending the

question of consideration no motion shall be in order. It is

disposed to treat one motion to adjourn as proper at this time, as

it is a well-known parliamentary motion, and that such motion may

be liable at some stage of the proceedings to be repeated if made

for a proper and not a dilatory purpose.

"The Chair feels better satisfied with its ruling in this case,

because the rule proposed to be adopted is one which looks to an

orderly proceeding in the matter of taking up and disposing of

contested-election cases, a duty cast directly on the House by the

Constitution of the United States, and an essential one to be

performed before it is completely organized.

"The Chair is unable to find in the whole history of the government

that any dilatory motions have ever been made or entertained to

prevent the consideration or disposition of a contested-election

case until this Congress. The point of order has not yet been made

against obstructive motions to prevent the consideration of a

contested-election case, and the Chair is not now called on to

decide whether such motions are in order or not where they would

prevent a complete organization of the House. The principle here

involved will suffice to indicate the opinion of the Chair on that

question.

"The question here decided the Chair understands to be an important

one, because it comprehends the complete organization of the House

to do business, but it feels that on principle and sound precedents

the point of order made by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) must

be sustained to the extent of holding that the motion made by the

gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall), which is in effect a

dilatory motion, is not at this time in order.

"It has been, in debate, claimed that on January 11, 1882, the

present occupant of the chair made a different holding. The question

then made and decided arose on a matter of reference of a proposition

to amend the rules to an appropriate committee as provided for

under the rules, and not on the consideration of a report when

properly brought before the House for its action. The two things

are so plainly distinguishable as to require nothing further to be

said about them.

"Mr. Randall. From your decision, Mr. Speaker, just announced, I

appeal to the House, whose officer you are.

"Mr. Reed. I move to lay the appeal on the table.

"The Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) appeals

from the decision of the Chair, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr.

Reed) moves that the appeal be laid upon the table.

"The question was taken; and there were--yeas 150, nays 0, not

voting 141.

"So the appeal was laid on the table."(19)

There was much clamor and undue excitement over this decision of

the Speaker cutting off the, always to me, foolish and unjustifiable,

though time-honored, practice of allowing a turbulent minority to

stop business indefinitely, by purely dilatory, though in form,

privileged motions. This holding, however, received the commendation

of sober, learned men of this country, and in Europe it was quoted

approvingly by Gladstone in the House of Commons of England, and

was followed, in principle, by its Speaker in upholding the rule

of _clôture_ against violent filibustering of the Irish party.

Such dilatory methods have been little resorted to since.

At the end of this Congress a resolution was adopted, on the motion

of Mr. Randall, thanking "the Speaker for the ability and courtesy

with which he has presided over the deliberations of the House

during the Forty-seventh Congress."

My valedictory as Speaker was as follows:

"Gentlemen, the time has come when our official relations as

Representatives in the Forty-seventh Congress are to be dissolved.

In a moment more this House of Representatives will be known only

in history. Its acts will stand, many of them, it is believed,

through the future history of the Republic.

"On the opening day of this Congress, I ventured the suggestion

and the expression of a hope that it would be marked 'as peculiarly

a business Congress.'

"It has successfully grappled with more of the vital, material,

and moral questions of the country than its predecessors. Many of

these have been settled wisely and well by appropriate legislation.

It would be quite impossible at this time to enumerate the many

important laws which have been enacted to foster and promote the

substantial interests of the whole country.

"This Congress enacted into a law the first 3 per cent. funding

bill known to this country, and under it a considerable portion of

the government debt has been refunded at lower rates than ever

before.

"It did not hesitate to take hold of the question of polygamy, and

it is believed it has struck the first effective blow in the

direction of destroying that greatest remaining public crime of

the age.

"Laws have been passed to protect the immigrant on his way across

the sea and upon his arrival in the ports of this country.

"Laws have also been passed to extend the charters of the banking

institutions so that financial disorder cannot take place, which

would otherwise have come at the expiration of the old bank

charters.

"Many public acts will be found relating to the Indian policy and

the land policy of this country which will prove to be wise.

"The post-office laws have been so changed as to reduce letter

postage from three to two cents, the lowest rate ever known in the

United States.

"No legislation of this Congress will be found upon the statute

books, revolutionary in character or which will oppress any section

or individual in the land. All legislation has been in the direction

of relief.

"Pension laws have been enacted which are deemed wise, and liberal

appropriations have been made to pay the deserving and unfortunate

pensioner.

"Internal-revenue taxes have been taken off, and the tariff laws

have been revised.

"Sectionalism has been unknown in the enactment of laws.

"In the main a fraternal spirit has prevailed among the members

from all portions of the Union. What has been said in the heat of

debate and under excitement and sometimes with provocation is not

to be regarded in determining the genuine feeling of concord existing

between members. The high office I have filled through the session

of this Congress has enabled me to judge better of the true spirit

of the members that compose it than I could otherwise have done.

"It is common to say that the House of Representatives is a very

turbulent and disorderly body of men. This is true more in appearance

than in reality. Those who look on and do not participate see more

apparent confusion than exists in reality. The disorder that often

appears on the floor of the House grows out of an earnest, active

spirit possessed by members coming from all sections of the United

States, and indicates in high degree their strong individuality

and their great zeal in trying to secure recognition in the prompt

discharge of their duty. No more conscientious body of men than

compose this House of Representatives, in my opinion, ever met.

Partisan zeal has in some instances led to fierce word-contests on

the floor, but when the occasion which gave rise to it passed by,

party spirit went with it.

"I am very thankful for the considerate manner in which I have been

treated by the House in its collective capacity. I am also very

thankful to each individual member of this body for his personal

treatment of me. I shall lay down the gavel and the high office

you clothed me with filled with good feeling towards each member

of this House. I have been at times impatient and sometimes severe

with members, but I have never purposely harshly treated any member.

I have become warmly attached to and possessed of a high admiration,

not only for the high character of this House as a parliamentary

body, but for all its individual members. I heartily thank the

House for its vote of thanks.

"The duties of a Speaker are of the most delicate and critical

kind. His decisions are in the main made without time for deliberation

and are often very far-reaching and controlling in the legislation

of the country on important matters, and they call out the severest

criticism.

"The rules of this House, which leave to the Speaker the onerous

duty and delicate task of recognizing individuals to present their

matters for legislation, render the office in that respect as

exceedingly unpleasant one. No member should have the legislation

he desires depend upon the individual recognition of the Speaker,

and no Speaker should be compelled to decide between members having

matters of possibly equal importance or of equal right to his

recognition.

"I suggest here that the time will soon come when another mode will

have to be adopted which will relieve both the Speaker and individual

members from this exceedingly embarrassing if not dangerous power.

"During my administration in the chair very many important questions

have been decided by me, and I do not flatter myself that I have,

in the hurry of these decisions, made no mistakes. But I do take

great pride in being able to say that no parliamentary decision of

mine has been overruled by the judgment of this almost evenly

politically balanced House, although many appeals have been taken.

"I congratulate each member of this House upon what has been

accomplished by him in the discharge of the important duties of a

Representative, and with the sincerest hope that all may return

safely to their homes, and wishing each a successful and happy

future during life, I now exercise my last official duty as presiding

officer of this House by declaring the term of this House under

the Constitution of the United States at an end, and that it shall

stand adjourned _sine die_. (Hearty and continued applause.)"--

_Con. Record_, Vol. xiv., Part IV., p. 3776.

I was the caucus nominee and voted for by my party friends for

Speaker of the Forty-eighth Congress, but Mr. Carlisle was elected,

the Democrats being in the majority. I served on the Committees

on Appropriations and Rules of the Forty-eighth Congress, and

performed much hard work. I participated actively in much of the

general business of this House, and in the debates. On January

24, 1884, I made an extended speech against a bill for the relief

of Fitz-John Porter, by which it was proposed to make him "Colonel

in the Army," and thus to exonerate him from the odium of his

conduct while under General Pope, August 29, 1862, at the Second

Bull Run, as found by a general court-martial. I advocated (January

5, 1885) pensioning Mexican soldiers. I spoke on various other

subjects, and especially advocated (February 20, 1885) the increase

of the naval strength of the government so that it might protect

our commerce on the high seas in peace, guard our boundary coast

line (in length, excluding Alaska, one and two thirds times the

distance around the earth at the equator), and successfully cope,

should war come, with any naval power of the world.

My principal work in this Congress was in the rooms of the Committee

on Appropriations in the preparation of bills. Hon. Samuel J.

Randall (Democrat) of Pennsylvania was Chairman of this committee.

He was conscientious, industrious, and honest, absolutely without

favorites, personal and political, in the making of appropriations.

This committee, chiefly, too, by the labor of a very few of its

members, each annual session prepared bills for the appropriation

of hundreds of millions of dollars, which (with the rarest exception)

passed the House without question (and ultimately became laws),

the members generally knowing little or nothing as to the honesty

or special necessity, if even the purpose, of the appropriations

made. In the preparation of these bills the expenditures and

estimates in detail of all the departments of the government

including all branches of the public service and all special matters

of expense, liability, and obligation, were examined and scrutinized,

to avoid errors, injustice to the government or individuals,

extravagance, or fraud. I have, covering as many as five of the

last days of a session, remained with Mr. Randall in the committee

rooms at the Capitol, working, almost uninterruptedly, night and

day, to complete the bills necessary to be passed before adjournment.

This committee work brought no immunity from attendance in the

House.

My service in Congress ended March 4, 1885, since which time I have

participated in public and political affairs as a private citizen,

and assiduously pursued the practice of the law and attended to my

personal affairs; writing this volume, mainly, in the winter nights

of 1896 and 1897, incident to an otherwise busy life.

III

SERVICE IN SPANISH WAR

After the foregoing was written, a war arose between the United

States and Spain, growing out of the latter's bad government of

Cuba, which Spain had held (except for a brief time) since its

discovery in 1492.

Spain was only partially successful in putting down the ten years'

(1868-1877) struggle of the Cubans for independence, and was forced

to agree (1876) to give the inhabitants of Cuba all the rights,

representation in the Cortes included, of Spanish citizens. This

agreement was not kept, and in February, 1895, a new insurrection

broke out, supported by the mass of the Cuban population, especially

by those residing outside of the principal coast cities.

Notwithstanding Spain employed in Cuba her best regular troops as

well as volunteers, she failed to put down this insurrection.

Governor-General Weyler inaugurated fire and slaughter wherever

the Spanish armies could not penetrate, not sparing non-combatants,

and, February 16, 1896, he adopted the inhuman policy of forcing

the rural inhabitants from their homes into closely circumscribed

so-called military zones, where they were left unprovided with

food, and hence to die. Under Weyler's cruel methods and policy

about one third (600,000) of the non-combatant inhabitants of the

island were killed or died of starvation and incident disease before

the end of the Spanish-American War. Yet a war was maintained by

the insurgents under the leadership of able men, inspired with a

patriotic desire for freedom and independence. The barbarity of

the reconcentrado policy excited, throughout the civilized world,

deep sympathy for the Cubans, and, April 6, 1896, a resolution

passed Congress, expressing the opinion that a "state of war existed

in Cuba," and declaring that the United States should maintain a

strict neutrality, but accord to each of the contending powers "the

rights of belligerents in the ports and territory of the United

States," and proposing that the friendly offices of the United

States "be offered by the President to the Spanish government for

the recognition of the independence of Cuba." This resolution and

the proffered friendly offices bore no fruit. To meet a possible

attack upon our citizens in Havana, the battle-ship _Maine_,

commanded by Captain C. D. Sigsbee, was sent there in January,

1898. It was peacefully anchored in the harbor, where, February

15th, it was destroyed by what was generally believed to have been

a sub-marine mine, designedly exploded by unauthorized Spaniards.

Of its officers and crew 266 perished, and the splendid war-ship

was totally destroyed.

Preparations for war commenced at once in our country. Congress

appropriated $50,000,000 "for the national defence."

It also, April 18, 1898, passed joint resolutions, declaring:

"That the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to

be, free and independent"; demanding of Spain that it "at once

relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba, and

withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters";

authorizing the President "to use the entire land and naval forces

of the United States . . . and the militia of the several States,

to such an extent as may be necessary to carry these resolutions

into effect," but disclaiming that the United States had "any

intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over

said island, except for the pacification thereof," and asserting

its determination that when that was completed to "leave the

government and control of the island to its people." The resolutions

were approved by the President April 20th, and in themselves had

the effect of a declaration of war. The Spanish Minister at once

demanded his passports and departed from Washington. The American

Minister at Madrid was handed his passports on the morning of April

21, 1898, without being permitted to present the resolutions to

the Spanish authorities. Congress, April 25th, by law, declared

that war existed between the United States and Spain since and

including April 21, 1898.

Thus, after a long peace of thirty-three years, our country was

again to engage in war, and with and old and once powerful and war-

like nation, which must be waged both by sea and land.

I do not intend to write a history of the one hundred and fourteen

days' war that ensued. I merely summarize the conditions which

caused me to turn from civil pursuits and a quiet home to again

take up the activities of a military life in war.

The President called for volunteers (125,000 April 23d, and 75,000

May 25th), and, June 9th, I was, by him, appointed, and, June 14th,

1898, unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, a Major-

General of Volunteers. I was the only person in civil life from

a northern State, or who had served in the Union Army in the Civil

War but never in the regular Army, on whom was originally conferred

that high rank in the Spanish-American War.

This rank was conferred on Fitzhugh Lee of Virginia, Joseph Wheeler

of Alabama, and Matthew C. Butler of South Carolina, each of whom

had served as a general officer in the Confederate Army; and on

James H. Wilson of Delaware, who had served as a Major-General in

the Union Army in the Civil War. These four were from civil life,

but, save Butler, each was a graduate of West Point and had served

in the United States Army.

Hon. William J. Sewell of New Jersey declined an appointment to

that rank, and Francis V. Greene of New York was appointed after

the protocol was signed. He was a graduate of West Point, and had

served in the United States Army. No other Major-General was

appointed from civil life before the treaty of peace.

A feature of the Spanish War was the alacrity with which ex-

Confederates and Southern men tendered their services to sustain

it. It was worth the cost of the war, to demonstrate the patriotism

of the whole people, and their readiness to unite under one flag

and fight in a common cause.

I was assigned to the Seventh Army Corps, then being organized,

with headquarters at Jacksonville, Florida. I reported there to

Major-General Fitzhugh Lee, its commander, and was assigned to the

First Division, then located at Miami, 366 miles farther south, on

the east coast of Florida, at the terminus of railroad transportation.

I assumed command of the Division, July 7th, with headquarters at

Miami. It then numbered about 7500 officers and enlisted men. My

tents were pitched in a cocoanut grove on the shore of the Biscayne

Bay. The corps had been designated to lead an early attack on

Havana. I had exercised no military command for a third of a

century, and had misgivings of my ability to discharge, properly,

the important duties. This feeling was not decreased by the fact

that the division was composed of southern troops--1st and 2d

Louisiana; 1st and 2d Alabama; and 1st and 2d Texas Volunteer

Infantry regiments. Some of these regiments and many of the

companies were commanded by ex-Confederate officers, and one brigade

--the Second--was commanded by Brigadier-General W. W. Gordon, an

ex-Confederate officer from Georgia. He commanded this brigade

until the protocol, when he was made one of the evacuation

commissioners for Porto Rico. Several of the staff were sons of

Confederate officers. The only officer, other than staff-officers,

who was not southern, was Brigadier-General Loyd Wheaton, who

commanded the First Brigade. He had served in the Union Army in

the Civil War from Illinois, and became, after the war, an officer

in the United States Army, from which he was appointed a general

officer of Volunteers in the Spanish War. Wheaton remained in my

command until after our army occupied Havana, and commanded a

division that entered that city, January 1, 1899, then shortly

thereafter was ordered to the Philippines, where he has, in several

battles with the Filipinos, distinguished himself, and deservedly

acquired fame.

I soon, however, became familiar with my duties, and the command

was a most agreeable and pleasant one. I became warmly attached

to and proud of it; and it was, throughout, loyal to me. No better

volunteer soldiers were ever mustered, and if occasion had arisen

they would have proved their skill and valor by heroic deeds and

willing sacrifices.

The camp at Miami was the farthest south of any in the United

States, consequently the hottest, and by reason of the situation

near the Everglades and the Miami River (their principal outlet to

the sea) the water proved bad, and only obtainable for the troops

through pipes laid on the rocky surface of the earth from the

Everglades at the head of the river. It thus came warm, and

sometimes offensive by reason of vegetable matter contained in it.

The reefs--an extension of the Florida Reefs--which lay four miles

from the west shore of the bay, cut off easterly sea breezes; and

the mosquitoes were at times so numerous as to make life almost

unbearable. All possible was done for the health and comfort of

the command. Notwithstanding the location, hotness of the season,

and bad general conditions, the health of the soldiers was better,

numbers considered, than in any other camp in the United States.

A good military hospital was established under capable medical

officers, and, through some patriotic ladies--the wife and daughter

of General W. W. Gordon and others--a convalescent hospital was

established where the greatest care was taken of the sick, and

wholesome delicacies were provided for them. A feeling of unrest

amounting to dissatisfaction, however, arose, which caused the War

Department to order my command to Camp Cuba Libre, Jacksonville,

Florida. It was accordingly transported there by rail early in

August, my headquarters having been at Miami just one month. My

division was then camped in proximity to the St. John's River at

Fairfield, immediately east of Jacksonville. My headquarters tents

were pitched in a pine forest. Here the general conditions were

much better than at Miami, though much sickness, chiefly typhoid

and malarial fevers, prevailed in the corps, my own division having

a far less per centum of cases than either of the other two. The

water was artesian and good, but the absence of anything like a

clay soil rendered it impossible to keep the camps well policed

and the drainage was difficult. Florida sand is not a disinfectant;

clay is. This camp, however, had a smaller list of sick in proportion

to numbers than was reported in other camps farther north.

There was added to my division at Jacksonville, before any were

mustered out, the 1st Ohio (Colonel C. B. Hunt) and the 4th U. S.

Volunteer Infantry (Colonel James S. Pettit), the two constituting

a third brigade, commanded by Colonel Hunt. My division then

numbered about 11,000; the corps something over 32,000.

I commanded the corps, in the absence of General Lee, from the 14th

to the 22d of August, 1898. Again, September 27th, I assumed

command of the corps and retained it until October 6th, when I took

a leave of absence home, returning _via_ Washington for consultation

with the authorities. I resumed command of the corps (then removed

to Camp Onward, Savannah, Georgia), October 25th, and retained it

until November 11th, 1898.

General Lee being about to depart for Havana, Cuba, I assumed,

December 8th, command of all the United States forces at Savannah,

consisting of regulars and volunteers.

The President, William McKinley, the Secretary of War, R. A. Alger,

and others of the President's cabinet, visited Savannah, December

17th and 18th, and reviewed (17th), under my command, all the troops

then there; about 16,000 of all arms, some of whom had seen service

at Santiago, Cuba, and in Porto Rico.

The Springfield rifles with which the volunteers had been armed,

were exchanged at Savannah for Krag-Jorgensen magazine (calibre

.30) rifles.

The troops while at Savannah were generally in good health, although

a few cases of cerebro or spinal meningitis occurred, owing to

frequent changes of temperature.

The secret of preserving the health of soldiers is in regular drill

and exercise, ventilation of clothing, bedding, and tents, and in

cleanliness of person and camps. Exposure to sun and air purifies

and disinfects better than lime or chemicals.

I superintended the final equipment and shipment to Cuba of about

16,000 troops; about one half were volunteers of the Seventh Corps,

who went to Havana.

While at Jacksonville, the war with Spain having ended, a number

of volunteer regiments were mustered out, and the Seventh Corps

was reorganized into two divisions. The 1st Texas, Colonel W. H.

Mabry (who died near Havana, January 4, 1899), and 2d Louisiana,

Colonel Elmer E. Wood, only, were left of my original First Division,

to which was added the 3d Nebraska, Colonel William Jennings Bryan

(who resigned at Savannah December 10, 1898); the 4th Illinois,

Colonel Eben Swift; the 9th Illinois, Colonel James R. Campbell,

and the 2d South Carolina, Colonel Wilie Jones. The first three

regiments constituted the First Brigade, commanded by General Loyd

Wheaton, and the last three, the Second Brigade, commanded by

Brigadier-General Henry T. Douglas, who had served in the Confederate

Army in the Civil War. He was an excellent officer.

I embarked for Havana on the 26th of December, 1898, with my

headquarters, including my staff, provost-guard, etc., on the

_Panama_, a ship captured from the Spanish early in the war. I

arrived in Havana Harbor the evening of the 28th, and the next day

reached Camp Columbia, southwest of Havana about eight miles, at

Buena Vista, near Marianao, where my last military headquarters

were established, in tents, as always before. The troops were

prepared to take possession of Havana on its surrender by the

Spaniards, January 1, 1899. Major-Generals Brooke, Lee, Ludlow,

and some other officers attended to the ceremonial part in the

surrender of the city, and it became my duty to march the Seventh

Corps and other troops in the vicinity of Havana into it for the

purpose of taking public and actual possession. I, accordingly,

early New Year morning, moved my command, numbering, infantry,

cavalry, and artillery, about 9000, to and along the sea-shore,

crossing the Almendares River on pontoons, near its mouth, thence

through Vedado to the foot of the Prado, opposite Morro Castle,

located east of the neck of the harbor. The formal ceremonies

being over (12 M.), the troops were moved up the Prado, passing

Major-General Brooke and others on the reviewing-stand at the

Inglaterra Hotel, then through principal streets to camp, having

made a march of about eighteen miles, under a tropical sun, the

day being excessively hot for even that climate. The soldiers

endured the march well. The day was a memorable one. A city which

had been under monarchical rule for four hundred years witnessed

the power of freedom, represented by the host of American soldiers,

under the flag of a Republic, move triumphantly through its streets,

with the avowed purpose of securing freedom to all the people.

The Spanish residents did not partake of the joyous feeling or

participate in the wild demonstrations of the Cuban inhabitants.

The latter exhibited a frantic hilarity at times; then a dazed

feeling seemed to come over them, in which condition they stood

and stared, as in meditation. The natural longing to be free had

possessed these people, but when they were confronted with the fact

of personal freedom it was too much for them to fully realize, or

to estimate what the absence of absolute tyranny meant for them.

They appeared in the fronts and on the roofs of the houses, and

along the sides of the streets, displaying all the tokens and

symbols of happiness they possessed. Flowers were thrown in great

profusion, and wild shouts went up from men, women, and children;

especially from children, as, in some way, they seemed to know that

a severance of their country from Spain meant more for them that

it did for the older people. The Cubans are of mixed races, though

they are not to be despised. Some have pure Castilian blood, some

are from other European countries, and some are of pure African

descent, many of the latter having once been in slavery; but many

of the Cubans proper are of a mixed blood, including the Spanish,

African, some Indian, and a general admixture of the people who

early settled in the American tropics. There do not seem to be

any race distinctions where Cubans alone are concerned. The African

and those of mixed blood mingle freely together; and in the insurgent

army officers of all ranks were chosen from the pure or mixed-blood

African as freely as from others. The Cuban colored people seem

to be exceptionally intelligent and energetic, and have a high

reputation as brave soldiers. The typical Cuban does not belong

to the coast cities, the inhabitants of which are more distinctly

Spanish, especially the dominant class. These cities did little

towards the insurrections, and their inhabitants, as a mass, can

claim little of the glory in making Cuba free or independent. Many

of the principal officers of the Cuban army were educated men, and

some were of a high order, capable of deeds, on the theatre of war,

worthy of the best soldiers of any age. When our war with Spain

broke out, the latter had over 200,000 regular soldiers, besides

volunteers, on the island, and the insurgent bands were few in

number, without good arms, with little ammunition and no quartermaster,

commissary, or pay department. Cuba had no permanently located

civil government, and the insurgents owned no ship on the seas,

nor did they possess a single coast city, or a harbor where supplies

could come to them from abroad. They having held the Spanish army

at bay for years, and often confined large parts of it, almost in

a state of siege, within cities and fortified lines, all circumstances

considered, forces us to conclude that talent, skill, endurance,

and bravery were possessed by the Cuban officers, and that the

ranks were filled with devoted soldiers. The insurrections were

of long duration (ten and four years), yet Spain, in 1898, had made

no substantial progress in suppressing the last one, though the

most barbarous methods were adopted. We exploit the partisan heroes

of our Revolution, such as Francis Marion and others, yet they only

acted with and against small bands, leaving our armies to meet the

large organized forces of the British. What is to be said of the

Cuban patriot officer who, year by year, maintained, unsupported,

a war for independence against a relentless foe, equipped with the

best arms the world has yet known?

My work in Cuba was confined to a military command, principally

outside of the cities. My men were in carefully selected camps,

which were constantly throughly policed and supplied with wholesome

water, piped form the Vento (Havana) Water-works. Thanks to a

thorough enforcement of a good sanitary system, the general health

of my command was good throughout, only a few cases of typhoid or

malarial fever appeared, and there were less than half a dozen

cases of yellow fever among my soldiers. There was no epidemic of

any disease in the camp. The yellow fever cases developed among

men who, out of curiosity, exposed themselves in foul places about

old forts and wharves, or in the unused dungeons of Morro and other

castles. Yellow fever is a _place_ disease, not generally contagious

by contact with the sick.

My time was taken up in Cuba in keeping the peace and preserving

order, and with the care of the camps and field-hospitals, and, as

throughout my military service, with the drill and discipline of

my command, often turning the corps out for review by superior

officers. I made incursions to the interior of the island, and

observed the devastation of that magnificently beautiful country,

with its stately royal palms, etc., and noted the depopulation,

under Weyler's reconcentrado plan, of the richest and once most

populous rural parts of the island. I saw the Cuban soldiers in

their camps or bivouacs, and made the acquaintance of many of their

officers, and formed a high regard for them; but it was no part of

my duty to try to solve the great, yet unsettled, Cuban problem,

and I must be silent here.(20)

The muster out of the volunteers commenced again in March, 1899,

and progressed rapidly. The Secretary of War visited Cuba, and

with Major-Generals Brooke, Ludlow, Wilson, and other officers,

reviewed what troops remained of the Seventh Corps, with others,

near Marianao, March 29, 1899. On this occasion, my riding horses

having been shipped away preparatory to my leaving Cuba, I rode a

strange horse, which at a critical time in the review ran away,

carrying me, in much danger, some distance from the reviewing

officers. I recovered control of the horse, but dismounted him

and mounted another, which proved equally untamed, and he likewise,

a little later, attempted to run afield or cast me off. Fortunately

these exceptional accidents terminated without injury; and with that

review ended my public military service--_forever_.

The fatal illness of my beloved and devoted wife and her death

(March 12, 1899) caused me (with my son) to go to my Ohio home.

I returned to Cuba with Captain Horace C. Keifer, who was on my

staff continuously during my service in the Spanish War.

All arrangements having been completed for the early muster out of

the volunteers of the Seventh Corps not already gone, and my mission

in the army being practically at an end, and my command proper

disbanded, I took ship (the _Yarmouth_), in Havana Harbor, March

30th, and proceeded _via_ Port Tampa, home, where I was mustered

out of the military service May 12, 1899, having been in the army

as a Major-General eleven months and three days. During my service

in the field in the Spanish War I was not off duty on account of

illness, injury, or accident.

I had an attack of typhoid fever, at my home in April, from which

I soon recovered, doubtless contracted while travelling to or from

Cuba.

I had now lived about five years in a tent, or without shelter, in

war times, through all seasons, and being in my sixty-fourth year,

gave up all inclination to continue in military life, knowing the

field is for younger men. My duties in the army, though always

arduous, were pleasant, hence gratifying. I had no serious trouble

with any officer or soldier, though I tried to do my duty in the

discipline of my command. My personal attachment to superior and

inferior officers, especially members of my military staff, was

and is of no ordinary kind. I congratulate myself on being able

to attach to me, loyally, some of the most accomplished, hard-

working, conscientious, and highly educated officers of the United

States Army, as well as others of the volunteers, the service has

known. A list of officers (nine of whom were sons of former

Confederate officers) who served, at some time, on my division

staff in the field, is given in Appendix F.

Here this narrative must end with only a parting word as to the

Spanish War.

Dewey destroyed the entire Spanish fleet, with much loss of life,

in Manila Bay, May 1, 1898; seven Americans were wounded, none

killed. Admiral Cervera, with the pride of the Spanish battle-

ships, cruisers, and torpedo-boats, reached Cuban waters from Cape

Verde Islands, and, May 19th, sailed into Santiago Harbor, where

he was blockaded--"bottled up"--by Admirals Sampson and Schley's

fleets. Cervera's fleet, in an attempt to escape, was totally

destroyed, with a loss of above six hundred killed or drowned, and

about two thousand captured, himself included, in two hours, by

our navy under Sampson, on Sunday morning, July 3, 1899, with a

loss of one American killed and one wounded. Other minor naval

affairs occurred, all disastrous to the Spanish. Cervera's entry

into Santiago Harbor caused previous plans for the movement of the

army to be changed.

The bulk of the regular army, under Major-General Wm. R. Shafter,

was assembled at Port Tampa, from whence they were transported to

and landed (June 24th) at Guantanamo Bay, near Santiago. They were

then joined by a body of Cuban troops under General Garcia. Fighting

commenced at once and continued irregularly at Siboney, El Caney,

San Juan Hill, etc., the principal battles being fought on the 1st

and 2d of July. The next day a demand was made on the Spanish

commander (Toral) for the surrender of his army and Santiago. This

was acceded to, after much negotiation, July 17, 1898, including

the province of Santiago and 22,000 troops, in number exceeding

Shafter's entire available force. The display of skill and bravery

by officers and men of our small army (principally regulars) at

Santiago never was excelled. Our loss in the series of battles

there was, killed, 22 officers and 208 men; wounded, 81 officers

and 1203 men. A Porto Rico campaign was then organized. General

Miles wired the War Department, about July 18th, to send me with

my division (then in camp at Miami) to make up his Porto Rico

expedition. His request was not carried out, and it thus happened

that no soldier of a Southern State volunteer organization fired

a hostile shot during the Spanish War. Ponce was taken July 25th,

followed by an invasion of the island from the south. An affair

took place, August 10th, and operations here, as elsewhere, were

terminated by the _protocol_. Manila was surrendered August 13th,

the day after the protocol was signed. This was the last offensive

land operation of the Spanish War. The invasion of Porto Rico cost

us 3 killed and 40 wounded.

Through the intervention of Cambon, the French Ambassador at

Washington, negotiations were opened which resulted in a protocol

which bound Spain to relinquish all sovereignty over Cuba, to cede

Porto Rico and other West India island possessions to the United

States, and it provided for a Commission to agree upon a treaty of

peace, to meet in Paris, not later than October 1, 1898; also

provided for Commissions to regulate the evacuation of Cuba and

Porto Rico.

The treaty was signed in Paris December 10, 1898; was submitted by

the President to the Senate January 11, 1899, and ratified by it,

and its ratification approved by him, February 6, 1899. The Queen

of Spain ratified the treaty March 19, 1899, and its ratifications

were exchanged and proclaimed at Washington April 11, 1899. It

provided for the cession, also, to the United States of the Philippine

Islands and the payment of $20,000,000 therefor.

The total casualties in battle, during the war, in our navy, were

17 killed and 67 wounded (no naval officer injured); and, in our

army, 23 officers and 257 men killed, and 113 officers and 1464

men wounded; grand total, 297 killed and 1644 wounded, of all arms

of the service.

The deaths from disease and causes other than battle, in camps and

at sea, were, 80 officers and 2485 enlisted men. Many died at

their homes of disease; some of wounds.

An insurrection broke out in the Philippines in February, 1899,

which is not yet suppressed.

The war was not bloody, and the end attained in the cause of humanity

and liberty is a justification of it; but whether the acquisition

of extensive tropical and distant island possessions was wise, or

will tend to perpetuate our Republic and spread constitutional

liberty, remains to be shown by the infallible test of time. Our

sovereignty over Cuba, thus far, appears to be a friendly usurpation,

without right, professedly in the interest of humanity, civilization,

and good government. Our acquisition of Porto Rico and the Philippine

Islands, all in the tropics, is a new national departure which may

prove wise or not, according as we deal justly and mercifully with

the people who inhabit them. It may be in the Divine plan that

these countries should pass under a more beneficent, enduring,

newer, and higher civilization, to be guided and dominated by a

people speaking the English tongue.

( 1) The certificate of his naturalization reads:

"Maryland ss.

"These are to certify all persons whom it may concern: That George

Keifer of Frederick County, within the Province aforesaid, born

out of the Allegiance of his most Sacred Majesty King George the

Third, etc., did, on the 3d day of September Anno Domini 1765,

Personally appear before the Justices of his Lordship's Provincial

Court, and then and there, in Term Time, between the hours of nine

and twelve in the forenoon of the same day, produced and delivered

a certificate in writing of his having received the Sacrament of

the Lord's Supper in a Protestant or Reformed Congregation in the

said Province of Maryland, within three months next before the

exhibiting of such certificate, signed by the person administering

such Sacrament, and attested by two credible witnesses, in pursuance

of an Act of Parliament made in the thirteenth year of the reign

of his late Majesty King George the Second, entitled, An Act for

naturalizing such foreign _Protestants_, and others therein mentioned,

as are settled or shall settle in any of his Majesty's Colonies in

America; and then and there made appear, that he had been an

inhabitant in some of his Majesty's Plantations seven years, and

had not been absent out of some of the said Colonies for a longer

space than two months at any one time during the said seven years;

and also then and there took the oaths of Allegiance, Abhorrency,

and Abjuration, repeated the Test, and subscribed the same, and

oath of Abjuration. In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my

hand, and affixed the seal of the said court, this 3d day of

September in the year of our Lord God, one thousand seven hundred

and Sixty-five.

"Test. Reverdy Ghiselm, Clk."

( 2) Dr. Jenner's primary investigation of the principles of

vaccination began in 1775, but was not satisfactorily completed in

England until five years later. Lady Montagu had, however, introduced

from Turkey into England, as early as 1717, inoculation for smallpox,

but from the beginning it met the fiercest opposition of physicians,

the clergy, and the superstitious public, which was never entirely

overcome in England or America.

( 3) John Uri Lloyd, Ph.M., Ph.D. (Cin.), the distinguished author

and scientist and collector of medical, etc., books, in an article

printed in the _Am. Jour. of Pharmacy_, January, 1898, on "Dr.

Peter Smith and His Dispensatory," says his book was the "first

Materia Medica 'Dispensatory' published in the West."

( 4) Owing to its remarkable character we quote from his book:

"In South Carolina I was once in company with old Dr. Dilahoo, who

was noted for great skill and experience, having traveled into many

parts of the world. In the course of our conversation I asked him

what he conceived the _plague_ to be, which had been so much talked

of in the world. He readily told me that it was his opinion that

the plague is occasioned by an invisible _insect_. This insect

floating in the air, is taken with the breath into the lungs, and

there it either poisons or propagates its kind, so as to produce

that dreadful disease. This, he was confirmed, was likely to be

the truth from the experiments frequently made at Gibraltar. For

there, said he, they of the garrison, when they fear the plague,

have a way to elevate a piece of fresh meat pretty high in the air;

they put it up at night, and if it comes down sound and sweet in

the morning, they conclude there is no danger of the plague. But

if the plague is in the air, the meat will be tainted and spoiled,

and sometimes almost rotten. He was further confirmed in his

opinion of the _insect_, because in and about tobacco warehouses

the plague has never been known. I will remark: Now it is well

known that tobacco will prevent moth from eating our woolen clothes,

if we pack but little of it with them, that is the moth cannot

breed or exist, where there is a sufficient scent of the tobacco.

This scent may be death to the invisible _insects_ even after they

are drawn in with the breath and fastened upon the lungs. This

may account for tobacco being burned (as I have heard it), in many

old countries, on a chaffing dish in a room, that the people of

the house may take in the smoke plentifully with their breath, to

preserve their health and prevent pestilential disorders.

"Agreeable to this view, we may conclude that all tainted air may

bring disease and death to us. And the plague has never been

(properly speaking) in America as we know of. Yet other effluvia

taken in with the breath may have occasioned other fearful diseases,

such as the yellow fever and other bilious and contagious complaints."

--P. 14.

( 5) His grandson, James Johns, in the 30's, wandered, as a trapper,

to the Pacific coast, thence north to the mouth of the Willamette

River on the Columbia (Oregon), and there lived a bachelor and

alone until his death, about 1890. He was neither a fighting man

nor a hunter. He travelled, often alone, wholly unarmed, among

wild, savage Indians, his peaceable disposition and defenceless

condition being respected. He, it is said, would not sell his

lands at the mouth of the river, and thus forced the city of Portland

to be located twelve miles from the Columbia.

( 6) My father was not a large man, his weight being only about

one hundred and sixty pounds and height five feet, ten inches, but

my mother, while only of medium height for a woman, was of large

frame and weighed about one hundred and eighty pounds.

( 7) Solitary reading law, with time for thought and reflection,

has its advantages, more than compensating for the opportunity to

consult reports, etc., usually enjoyed by a law student in an

office.

The present Chief-Justice (Hon. David Martin) of Kansas, though

nominally a law student of mine, yet read and mastered the elementary

and principal law-books while tending, as a miller, a dry-water

country grist-mill, remote from my office.

( 8) On the recommendations of Generals Grant and Meade I was

appointed (1866) by President Johnson a Lieutenant-Colonel in the

26th Infantry, U. S. A., one of the new regular regiments provided

for after the close of the war. I declined the appointment because

I was of too restless a disposition and not educated for a soldier

in time of peace.

( 9) The Thirteenth Amendment was proclaimed ratified Dec. 18,

1865; the Fourteenth, July 28, 1868, and the Fifteenth, March 30,

1870.

(10) In the Florida Indian War of 1812 some depredations were

committed on Fisher's corn fields. For this he made a claim

originally for $8000. Congress has since paid on it $66,803, and

there was still a claim in the Forty-Third Congress for $66,848,

on which a committee of the House reported in favor of paying

$16,848, leaving $50,000 of the claim to bother future Congresses.

--_Rep_. (No. 134) _on Law of Claims_, H. of R., Forty-Third Cong.,

p. 18.

(11) Later the Forty-Seventh Congress passed an act authorizing

the distribution of about two-thirds of the whole fund to persons

whose claims were rejected by the Geneva Arbitrators in making up

the award.

(12) For an authoritative decision on the right of the National

Government to use physical force to compel obedience to its laws,

etc., see _Ex parte_ Seibold, 100 _U. S. Rep._, 371.

(13) _Proceedings Society of the Army of the Cumberland_, 1887,

pp. 115-40.

(14) Mr. Blaine was nominated for President in 1884, but was

defeated by Mr. Cleveland. Notwithstanding his duplicity towards

me, I supported him. He was disloyal to Mr. Reed, of his own State,

though he then also professed to support him.

(15) An unwary, but doubtless well-meaning person (M. P. Follet)

of Quincy, Mass., in 1896 published a small volume on the _Speaker

of the House_, in which she gathered up these stories. She says

Keifer appointed on the elections Committee "eleven Republicans

and two Democrats"; that he appointed one nephew "Clerk to the

Speaker," another "Clerk to the Speaker's table." These and other

like falsehoods appear to have been inspired by a member who,

notwithstanding his free-trade proclivities and other objectionable

qualities and incapacities, sought to be appointed Chairman of the

Ways and Means Committee. The Committee on Elections was composed

of nine Republicans, five Democrats, and one re-Adjuster from

Virginia. The Clerk to the Speaker's table was, throughout the

Congress, a poor young man who had been a page on the floor of the

House and a resident of the State of New York, and no relative of

mine. A nephew of mine, a resident of Washington, was, for a short

time, my clerk, a purely personal position, as was also that of

private secretary.

The statement of Miss Follet that Keifer's "partisan rulings soon

won him the contempt of Republicans as well as of Democrats," is

shown to be basely untrue by the significant fact that no parliamentary

or other decision of mine was ever overruled by the House, although

my party can hardly be said to have been in the majority of the

House over all other parties.

What "partisan ruling" of mine was not heartily approved by my

party, or did not command at least the respect of the Democrats?

Miss Follet was imposed on.

(16) An incident occurred near the close of the last session of

the Forty-seventh Congress which should be mentioned. The reporters

of newspapers, through the courtesy of the House, had been assigned

a separate gallery for their convenience. This gallery, as well

as others for the convenience of visitors, was under the general

control of the Speaker, subject to the order of the House. There

were but few occupants in the reporters' gallery the last night of

the session, and there were many ladies who could not be accommodated

with seats in other galleries.

I declined, however, though repeatedly requested, to order the

reporters' gallery opened even to ladies, and I also refused to

entertain a motion by a member of the House to order it thrown open

to them; but appeals became so urgent that I, as Speaker, submitted

to the House the request of James W. McKenzie, a member from

Kentucky, for unanimous consent to open the gallery.

Here is an extract from the _Record_, showing the action taken:

"Mr. McKenzie.--I ask unanimous consent that the reporters' gallery

be thrown open to the occupation of the wives and friends of

Congressmen, who are unable to obtain seats in other galleries.

"The Speaker.--The gentleman from Kentucky asks consent that the

rules be so suspended as to permit the reporters' gallery to be

occupied by the wives and friends of members of Congress.

"There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly."--_Con.

Record_, vol. xiv., Part IV., p. 3747.

I was, under the circumstances, the only member who could not have

prevented the gallery being opened.

Notwithstanding the fact that no reporter was seriously inconvenienced

by the presence of ladies, the incident was viciously seized on by

certain reporters (and, through them, the metropolitan press) to

assail me as the enemy of the press. The truth was suppressed at

the time, and I was personally charged with wilfully opening up

the press gallery as an insult to the dignity of newspaper men,

and, with this, other false statements were published, which could

not be answered through the same medium, by me or my friends, which

made an unfavorable impression, scarcely yet removed from the public

mind.

(17) It is comparatively easy for a Speaker to preside with a

large political and friendly majority to support him, as was the

case when Colfax, Blaine, and other Speakers were in the Chair.

(18) See _Con. Record_, vol. xiii., Part V., p. 4313.

(19) _Con., etc., Rules, etc._, H. of R.; Second Sess. Forty-

seventh, Con., 358.

(20) My views of the situation in Cuba were expressed in a letter

to General Corbin, dated January 28, 1899. Appendix E.

APPENDIX B

It is due from me, and it gives me pleasure to mention some of the

deserving officers of the 110th Ohio Volunteer Infantry.

Lieutenant-Colonel Wm. N. Foster served for a time with credit.

Major Otho H. Binkley, later Lieutenant-Colonel and brevetted

Colonel by the President for distinguished services, Captain Wm.

S. McElwain, who became a Major and was killed in the battle of

the Wilderness, Captain Aaron Spangler, later a Major and brevetted

Lieutenant-Colonel for gallantry, Captains Wm. D. Alexander, Nathan

S. Smith (an eminent Presbyterian divine), Wm. R. Moore, (died of

disease while acting as Assistant Inspector-General on my staff),

Joseph C. Ullery, Joseph G. Snodgrass, Luther Brown (wounded at

Monocacy, brevetted Major for gallantry, and for a time Provost-

Marshal of a division), these all were accomplished soldiers and

fought on many fields with distinction. Lieutenants Joseph B. Van

Eaton, Wesley Devenney and Wm. H. Harry, each of whom served as

Adjutant, were all promoted from non-commissioned officers to

Lieutenant, then to Captain, each wounded, Devenney mortally at

the battle of Opequon.

Lieutenants Albert M. Starke (regimental Quartermaster), E. A.

Shepherd, Wm. D. Shellenberger (twice wounded), Wm. L. Cron, John

T. Shearer, Charles M. Gross, Henry H. Stevens (killed in assault

on Petersburg, April 2, 1865), Wm. A. Hathaway (for a time Assistant

Adjutant-General on my staff, and killed at Monocacy), Alexander

Trimble (died of a wound received at battle of Opequon), George P.

Boyer, Elam Harter, John M. Smith (killed in Wilderness), Joseph

McKnight (mortally wounded in Wilderness), and Thomas J. Weakley,

each became a Captain and were all gallant and more than usually

efficient officers, most of whom were either killed or wounded in

battle. Lieutenants Joshua S. Deeter and Edward S. Simes, promoted

from privates, both wounded in the battle of Opequon, the former

mortally, were likewise gallant officers. Lieutenant Paris Horney,

who heroically fought at Winchester in June, 1863, until surrounded

and captured, died in prison at Columbia, S. C. Lieutenant Robert

W. Wiley served as my aide-de-camp and especially distinguished

himself. Lieutenant Henry Y. Rush served gallantly until broken

by disease, when he resigned and resumed his calling (minister of

the Gospel), in which he is now eminent; also as a writer. Lieutenant

James A. Fox was promoted from Sergeant-Major, served on staff

duty, and was killed leading a company in the battle of Orange

Grove.

Wm. L. Shaw was promoted to Captain from Lieutenant and brevetted

Major by the President for distinguished services. He served on

division-staff and on cavalry-corps staff duty for a time in

Rosecrans' army, and for a considerable time was my Assistant

Inspector or Assistant Adjutant-General. He was an energetic and

capable officer. Those of the regiment who bore the musket in the

ranks equally deserve mention for what they did and for the sacrifices

they made for their country; but the story of the 110th Ohio is

elsewhere told.( 1)

( 1) John W. Warrington and John B. Elam, now eminent lawyers,

the former in Cincinnati, the latter in Indianapolis, served as

private soldiers in this regiment. Elam was severely wounded at

Cold Harbor June 3, 1864, and Warrington in the successful assault

of the Sixth Corps at Petersburg April 2, 1865.

APPENDIX C

FAREWELL ORDER

"Headq'rs 2d Brig., 3d Div., 6th Corps, Army of Potomac,

"Camp near Washington, D.C., June 15th, A.D. 1865.

"General Orders No. 28.

"Officers and Soldiers: This command will soon be broken up in

its organization. It is sincerely hoped that each man may soon be

permitted to return to his home, family, and friends, to enjoy

their blessings and that of a peaceful, free, and happy people.

"The great length of time I have had to honor to command you has

led to no ordinary attachment. The many hardships, trials, and

dangers we have shared together, and the distinguished services

you have performed in camp, on the march, and upon the field of

battle, have long since endeared you to me. I shall ever be proud

to have been your commander, and will cherish a lasting recollection

of both officers and men. Your efficient services and gallant

conduct in behalf of _human rights_ and _human freedom_ will not

be overlooked and forgotten by a grateful country.

"I cannot repress the deepest feelings of sadness upon parting with

you.

"I mourn with you, and share in your sorrow, for the many brave

comrades who have fallen in battle and have been stricken down with

disease. Let us revere their memories and emulate their noble

character and goodness. A proud and great nation will not neglect

their afflicted families. The many disabled officers and soldiers

will also be cared for by a grateful people and an affluent country.

"You have a proud name as soldiers; and I trust that, at your homes,

you will so conduct yourselves that you will be honored and respected

as good citizens.

"I shall part with you entertaining the sincerest feelings of

affection and kindness for all, hoping that it may be my good

fortune to meet and greet you in future as honored citizens and

friends.

"J. Warren Keifer."

_Summary of Casualties in Regiments of the Second Brigade, Third

Division, Third and Sixth Army Corps, 1863-65_

Killed Wounded Total

Officers Officers Officers Aggregate

| En. Men.| En. Men. | En. Men.

110th Ohio Infantry . . . . . . 10 102 18 443 28 545 573

122d Ohio Infantry . . . . . . 7 92 17 432 24 524 548

126th Ohio Infantry . . . . . . 9 111 10 379 19 490 509

6th Maryland Infantry . . . . . 7 103 21 213 28 316 344

138th Pennsylvania Infantry . . 5 120 16 223 21 343 364

67th Pennsylvania Infantry . . 2 90 3 130 5 220 224

9th N. Y. Heavy Artillery . . . 14 204 16 590 30 794 824

-- --- --- ---- --- ---- ----

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 812 101 2410 155 3232 3387

APPENDIX D

"Springfield, Ohio, October 22, 1888.

"General Horatio G. Wright, Washington, D. C.

"_My Dear Friend_,--After expressing to you that high regard I have

always had for you, and also expressing the hope that your health

is good, also that of your family, I have the honor to call your

attention to the following matter, of some interest to you no doubt.

"General R. S. Ewell, of date of December 20, 1865, in the form of

a report addressed to General R. E. Lee, to be found in Vol. XIII.,

_Southern Historical Papers_, page 247, in speaking of the battle

of Sailor's Creek, after having concluded his general report of

this battle says:

'I was informed at General Wright's headquarters, whither I was

carried after my capture, that 30,000 men were engaged with us when

we surrendered, viz., two infantry corps and Custer's and Merritt's

divisions of cavalry, the whole under command of General Sheridan.'

"On page 257, same book, in a note appended to a report of the same

battle, by General G. W. C. Lee, he says:

'I was told, after my capture, that the enemy had two corps of

infantry and three divisions of cavalry opposed to us at Sailor's

Creek.'

"Now, as I know you commanded the infantry engaged on the Union

side in that battle from first to last, and that no infantry troops

save of your corps there fought under you, that only a portion of

the Third Division (in which I was then serving) was present, and

General Frank Wheaton's division of the Sixth Corps was the only

other infantry division there, though I am not quite sure that his

entire division was up and engaged in the battle at the time of

the assault, overthrow, and destruction of General Ewell's forces,

and my recollection is quite clear that General G. W. Getty's

Division of your corps did not arrive on the field in time for the

battle, I am certain Generals Ewell and G. W. C. Lee have fallen

into a grave error. We certainly captured more men in the Sailor's

Creek battle than Ewell and G. W. C. Lee say were engaged on the

Confederate side.

"Since the war, there seems to be a disposition to disparage the

Northern soldiers by representing a small number of Confederate

troops engaged with a very large number of Union troops. The above

is to my mind simply an illustration of what I find running through

the reports, letters, and speeches of Southern officers.

"As I am writing something from time to time in a fugitive way,

and may some time write with a view to a more connected history of

the war, in so far as it came under my personal observation, I

should be very much obliged to you if you will write me a letter

on this subject as full as you feel that you have time, and allow

me to make such use of it as I may think best. I wish I had a copy

of your report of this battle, etc. Where can I get it?

"Believe me yours, with the highest esteem,

"J. Warren Keifer."

"Washington, November 3, 1888.

"1203 N Street, N. W.

"Dear General Keifer:

"I have never seen or before heard of the report of General R. S.

Ewell to which you refer, in which you say he states that he was

informed at my headquarters, to which he was carried after his

capture at Sailor's Creek, 'that 30,0000 men were engaged with us

when we surrendered--viz., two infantry corps, and Custer's and

Merritt's divisions of cavalry--the whole under the command of

General Sheridan.'

"General Ewell was entirely mistaken in regard to the strength of

the infantry opposed to him. Instead of two infantry corps, there

were only two divisions--the First and Third of the Sixth Corps,

the Second Division not having come up till the battle was nearly

over, and taking no part in the fight. He may have been correct

as regards to two divisions of cavalry, though I had not supposed

it to be so strong. Its part in the battle was important, as, by

getting in the rear of the Confederate force, the latter, after

being broken by the infantry attack, and its retreat cut off, was

compelled to surrender. I never knew accurately the number captured,

but General Sheridan and myself estimated it at about 10,000.

"Of course, the statement of General G. W. C. Lee, to which you

refer, is also erroneous as regards the strength opposed to the

Confederate force.

"You are quite correct in your statement that you know I commanded

the infantry engaged on the Union side in that battle, from first

to last. General Sheridan was with me as our troops were coming

up, but he left before the battle commenced, to join the cavalry,

as I supposed, and I was not aware that he claimed to be in command

of the combined infantry and cavalry force till some time subsequent

to the battle, when he called upon me for a report. This I declined

to make, on the ground that I was under the orders of General Meade

only, the commander of the Army of the Potomac. General Grant, to

whom the matter was referred by General Sheridan, having decided

that I should make a report to the latter, I sent him a copy of my

report of the battle, which I had already made to General Meade.

I regret that I have no copy of the report, or I should send it to

you with pleasure. I presume that it will soon be published in

the official records of the Rebellion. All the records of the

Sixth Corps were turned in to the Adjutant-General of the Army, as

required by the Army Regulations, on the discontinuance of our

organization, and are, I presume, accessible to any who desire to

examine them.

"With the most sincere good wishes for your health and prosperity,

"I am, very truly yours,

"H. G. Wright,

"General J. Warren Keifer, Springfield, Ohio."

APPENDIX E

"Headquarters First Division, Seventh Army Corps,

"Camp Columbia, Havana, Cuba, January 28, 1899.

"General Henry C. Corbin,

"Adjutant-General U.S.A.,

"Washington, D.C.

"_Sir_.--I dislike to take your time, but I hope you will pardon me

for writing you this purely unofficial letter, relative to the

situation in Cuba as it appears to me after a month's investigation

while serving here. Necessarily, to keep in bounds, I must generalize

and not always give reasons for opinions. This is not written in

any spirit of criticism, or of dissatisfaction with my own position

here; in fact, I am satisfied with my command, and am very well

treated by everybody about and around me. Major-Generals Brooke

and Lee are both very kind to me. But to the subject. I shall

not attempt to exhaust it.

"Cuba is now prostrate and her people quiet. This applies to all

classes,--Cubans, Spaniards, citizens, and soldiers,--including

those who upheld the insurrection and those who did not, and whether

living in cities or in country districts. I say this after having

been in touch with officers and soldiers of the Cuban army, and

others.

"The reconcentrados are about all dead, and the few living are too

weak to soon recover, even if fed. The attempts to feed them are,

necessarily, largely failures, and must continue to be until some

provision can be made to organize and remove the helpless, broken

families from congested places, where it is impossible to house

them comfortably, and place them in homes in the country districts.

These people are still dying under our eyes. The food we give

them they are not strong enough to eat, save the rice. Some of my

officers were recently shown at San Jose de las Lajas, this province,

one coffin (kept for convenience on a hand-cart) that had recently

done duty in the burial of about five thousand Cubans. But instances

need not be given when it is known that above seven hundred thousand

Cuban non-combatants have been killed or have died of starvation

in the past two or three years, many of them not buried, but their

bones picked by the buzzards. The island is a charnel-house of

dead. Every graveyard has piles of exposed human bones, and the

earth has been strewn with them outside of cities and towns. There

were many killed who were not actual insurgents, but Cubans, women

and children included. The deaths left broken families; many

orphans, who do not know who their parents were. Many owners of

land and their entire families and friends have been killed or

died, and there is no one to claim the land. This in some of the

richest districts is quite the rule.

"Outside of a little circle about Havana, the plantations in general

have been destroyed, including houses and other buildings, fruit

trees, banana plants, cane fields, farm implements, stock, etc.,

and the wells filled up, first being polluted by throwing dead

bodies of Cubans and animals in them.

"The soil is marvellously rich. It shows no signs of exhaustion

by cultivation, and I think it never will. Tobacco, sugar-cane,

pineapples, oranges, bananas, plantain, etc., to say nothing of

corn, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, onions, beans, grasses, etc.,

will grow, if given the slightest chance. Two, three, and as high

as four crops can easily be grown in one year. You will say, Why

do not the people grow them? They have no bread to eat while they

labor, nor have they any oxen or mules,--horses are out of the

question and not suitable to till land here,--or seed, or implements,

or anything. They die in the midst of the most extraordinary

riches.

"Owners of much of the land in the interior districts, who have

survived, are as helpless as the poorest laborers.

"The exceptions are confined to remote little valleys, and mountain

places where the insurgents held constant control, and there too

they are poor, having in the past, and still, to maintain the Cuban

soldiers, regular and irregular.

"Only provisions for food for a short time and means to get animals,

farm implements, etc., will end the present conditions and put the

people of the island on the road to prosperity. Spasmodic issues

of army rations give only temporary relief and tend to encourage

idleness.

"Another race of people might come, but they could not soon get

titles to lands, if ever.

"There is no civil government here, not even in form. Gomez and

his insurgent followers are still in their mountain fastnesses,

and whatever of organizations they have are irregular, and military.

They are biding their time for something, not yet fully developed.

"Our government here is military, disguise it as we may. If it

were anything else, it would soon fail. All attempts at a

hermaphroditical government here must also fail, as it has everywhere.

It must be all American or all Cuban. The Spaniards here, though

they predominate in the principal cities, do not yet count as a

factor, although they are for annexation; this to save their estates

and for personal safety. Any attempts to build up a Cuban government

by the use of a few Cubans and Spaniards in Havana and other cities,

no matter what their character for intelligence and peaceableness

may be, must end in disaster, and a little later, in a wild repetition

of war and bloodshed. Those who organized and maintained, through

the dreadful years of the past, the insurrection against Spanish

power and suffered so much in their estates and families, are going

to have a say in the future control of this island, and if it is

to be annexed to the United States, they will have to be consulted

or a bloody guerilla war will ensue. They are now exhausted, and

tired and sick of war, but they are used to it, and familiar with

death, and already they are preparing and calculating on a war much

easier for them to wage against the United States than against

Spain, as the United States is not expected to be so barbarous in

the treatment of their remaining women and children; and such people

can reasonably calculate on help from sympathizers, adventurers,

etc., of other countries, especially South American, and people of

kindred races and instincts. The cry of freedom and liberty is

always seductive and brings friends.

"The Cuban people now being recognized here, with rare exceptions,

had nothing to do with maintaining the insurrection, but remained

within the cities and lines of the Spanish army, pretending to be

loyal to Spain, if they were not so in fact. They were too cowardly

to fight, and too avaricious to render material aid to those in

the field. All such are under the ban of suspicion in the eyes of

the real Cuban insurgents, no matter what their pretensions may

be. Any government organized with such persons at the head will,

sooner or later, be overthrown in blood, if not otherwise. The

Cubans, like other people, desire offices, and the war-patriots of

Cuba are no exceptions, and will fight for power, and when the test

comes the mass of Cubans in and out of the cities will be with the

real insurgent leaders. Already the latter are resolving not to

take office until they are recognized and given a full share of

power.

"Ignoring such people now is easy; later they will defy our country

and be its eternal enemies, with the civilized world in sympathy

with them. The Spaniards, other foreigners, and home-staying Cuban

politicians are the people who now get a hearing, but wait and

listen for what is to come! Our people will appear to the real

Cubans as their despoilers and oppressors, instead of liberators.

"I am in favor of annexation, and the sooner the better, but the

Cuban patriots must first form a government, provisional or otherwise,

and consent to annexation. This at first would have been easy,

even now possible, to be brought about, but we are fast drifting

away from annexation or a peaceful solution of the great and

scandalous Cuban problem confronting us.

"The Cuban people are not to be despised; they are a mixed race it

is true, but they have talked of and fought for freedom too many

years not to know something of the sweet fruits of individual

liberty. They are polite and affable, but yet suspicious, as all

people are who have been oppressed. It is said they may be resentful

of the real or imaginary wrongs they have suffered from the Spaniards.

Grant this. Who would not, with their homes as open graveyards

strewn with the dead of their families, etc.? It is not best or

safe to believe all the tales told of Gomez and his followers by

the Spaniards or city Cubans.

"However, I do not believe that a reorganization, with the insurgents

fairly recognized, would be as bad as these interested people claim,

or would be half so bloody as any organized civil government will

prove to be with them left out. Woe to the Spaniard in the island

if war again breaks out here! Gomez is at the head of the Cuban

military forces, but there are others, generally good men, who are

recognized heads of the Cuban insurgent civil power. These are

the people who will have to be dealt with, or they will deal with

whatever power may be set up.

"The Cuban is not so ignorant as is often claimed. Generally all

classes can read and write. Now they have no redress for wrongs

against person or property. (They have no civil courts; only a

little remaining semblance of Spanish authority in a few places.)

"With a simple form of civil government they could soon have this,

and they could be schooled in the primary principles of civil

government, such as self-reliance, knowledge of their just rights,

duty to others, and others' duty to them. Cubans have more need

of justices of the peace than of justices of a Supreme Court. The

people want and need quick redress against trespassers, and in the

collection of debts, etc.

"A simple code of laws, primitive in character, but comprehensive

and easily understood, yet adequate to bring speedy relief, is what

is now most needed. Such laws could be passed by a provisional

legislative body. Light taxes for a few years should be assessed.

Good land laws with a reasonable law of limitations should be made.

Land titles then soon would be settled. The established government

should take up and lease, pending the adjustment of titles, all

tillable and unoccupied land. Much of this land, even the best of

it (which would be cheap at two hundred dollars per acre), would

escheat for the want of living owners or descendants. The escheated

lands would make a large revenue for the State. Much of the land

in cultivation is capable of netting each year, with only fair

cultivation in tobacco, etc., one thousand dollars per acre. These

lands have had, and soon should have again, a value of from two to

five hundred and often one thousand dollars per acre.

"Cuba (under Spanish semi-barbaric rule for four hundred years)

could be transformed from a graveyard of open graves, the feeding-

ground and paradise of vultures, to the richest and most ideally

beautiful and most enchanting spot on the face of the earth, with

a prosperous population on a high plane of civilization. Even the

tropical diseases in Havana and other coast cities would disappear

before modern methods of sanitation. In general, outside of a few

cities, the island is healthful, notwithstanding the contaminating

effect of the pestilential cities. Yellow fever, smallpox, and a

few infectious diseases exist here continually, but they soon would

disappear.

"The property owners, in spite of high taxes, have lived in this

island in 'barbaric luxury,' partaking somewhat of _splendor_.

This will be the case again, and much intensified, when touched by

a civilization that regards the rights of man.

"The ease and comfort possible in such a place as this are too

great to be appreciated by such plain hard-working persons as you

and I. But----

"Yours most respectfully,

"J. Warren Keifer,

"Major-General Volunteers."

APPENDIX F

List of officers who served (at some time) on the division staff

of Major-General Keifer in the Spanish War.

_Personal Staff_

Captain Horace C. Keifer (Ohio), 3d U. S. Vol. Engineers, Aide.

First Lieutenant Albert C. Thompson, Jr. (Ohio), U. S. Vol. Signal

Corps, Aide.

First Lieutenant Edward T. Miller (Ohio), U. S. Vol. Signal Corps,

Aide.

Second Lieutenant Dwight E. Aultman (U.S.A.), 2d U. S. Artillery,

Aide.

Second Lieutenant Lewis W. Brander (Va.), 3d U. S. Vol. Infantry,

Aide.

_Division Staff_

Major Benjamin Alvord (U.S.A.), Chief Ordnance Officer. (U.S.V.)

Major George L. Hobart (N. J.), Assistant Adjutant-General.

(U.S.V.)

Major William S. Scott (U.S.A.), Assistant Adjutant-General.

(U.S.V.)

Major John Gary Evans (S. C.), Inspector-General. (U.S.V.)

Major James M. Moody (N. C.), Chief Commissary of Subsistence.

(U.S.V.)

Major James M. Arrasmith (U.S.A.), Chief Commissary of Subsistence.

(U.S.V.)

Captain J. E. B. Stuart (Va.), Commissary of Subsistence. (U.S.V.)

Major Noble H. Creager (Md.), Chief Quartermaster. (U.S.V.)

Major William J. White (Ohio), Chief Quartermaster. (U.S.V.)

Captain Fred W. Cole (Fla.), Quartermaster. (U.S.V.)

Major John L. Chamberlain (U.S.A.), Chief Ordnance Officer. (U.S.V.)

Major Godfrey H. Macdonald (U.S.A.), Chief Ordnance Officer.

(U.S.V.)

Major Hugh H. Gordon (Ga.), Chief Engineer Officer. (U.S.V.)

Major D. M. Appel (U.S.A.), Chief Surgeon.

Major Francis C. Ford (Texas), Surgeon. (U.S.V.)

Major Eduard Boeckmann (Minn.), Chief Surgeon. (U.S.V.)

Major Jefferson R. Kean (U.S.A.), Chief Surgeon. (U.S.V.)

Dr. Sidney Myers (Ky.), Contract Surgeon.

First Lieutenant O. C. Drew (Texas), 1st Texas Vol. Inf., Provost-

Marshal.

First Lieutenant E. P. Clayton (Ill.), 4th Ill. Vol. Inf., Provost-

Marshal.

APPENDIX G

Farewell Address

"Headquarters First Division, Seventh Army Corps,

"Camp Columbia, Havana, Cuba, March 29, 1899.

"This Division will soon cease to exist by the muster out of the

volunteer regiments composing it. I assumed command of it at Miami,

Florida, July 6, 1898, and have commanded it (when not exercising

a higher command including it) from that time at Miami, Florida,

to August 6th; at Camp Cuba Libre, Jacksonville, Florida, to October

20th; at Camp Onward, Savannah, Georgia, to December 27th; at Camp

Columbia, near Havana, Cuba, to the present.

"Through changes in regiments and other organizations, about twenty

thousand officers and soldiers have served in the Division.

"Although not engaged in battle, the dangers from disease in tropical

camps have been great, and many have died or have become broken in

health. The Division has performed important service in maintaining

the high standard of the volunteer soldier in time of war, and in

doing guard duty in Cuba, preparatory to establishing a new

civilization and a free government for a long-oppressed people.

The varied trials and hardships of a soldier's life have been

bravely and manfully met by the officers and soldiers of the

Division. I have been proud to command it; and have only the

warmest friendship for all who composed it. I will always take a

deep interest in them. I am especially thankful to the officers

who have from time to time served on my staff, for their loyalty

to me, and their efficiency and zeal in performance of duty.

"I have now served in the Volunteer Army of the United States of

America, in the Civil War and the war with Spain, five years, and

on May 12, 1899, I will sheath my sword (in all probability) forever,

conscious that I have tried to do my duty to my country.

"The troops of this Division will therefore be the last I shall

ever command in peace or war. In sadness I bid all who compose

the Division a farewell, wishing each officer and enlisted man

success in the civil pursuits to which he is soon to return.

"J. Warren Keifer,

"Major-General of Volunteers.

"Official:

"Horace C. Keifer, Captain 3d U. S. Vol. Engrs., A.D.C."

INDEX

[omitted]