before it would be adopted by every State in the Union."

     The New York _World_, the ablest Democratic newspaper in the Union,
     says:

     "Democrats in the North, as well as the South, should be fully
     alive to the importance of the new element thrust into the politics
     of the country. We suppose it to be morally certain that the new
     constitution of the State of New York, to be framed this year, will
     confer the elective franchise upon all adult male negroes. We have
     no faith in the success of any efforts to shut the negro element
     out of politics. It is the part of wisdom frankly to accept the
     situation, and get beforehand with the Radicals in gaining an
     ascendancy over the negro mind."

     The Chicago _Times_, the influential organ of the Northwestern
     Democracy, says:

     "The word 'white' is not found in any of the original
     constitutions, save only that of South Carolina. In every other
     State negroes, who possessed the qualifications that were required
     impartially of all men, were admitted to vote, and many of that
     race did vote, in the Southern as well as in the Northern States.
     And, moreover, they voted the Democratic ticket, for it was the
     Democratic party of that day which affirmed their right in that
     respect upon an impartial basis with white men. All Democrats can
     not, even at this day, have forgotten the statement of General
     Jackson, that he was supported for the presidency by negro voters
     in the State of Tennessee.

     "The doctrine of impartial suffrage is one of the earliest and most
     essential doctrines of Democracy. It is the affirmation of the
     right of every man who is made a partaker of the burdens of the
     State to be represented by his own consent or vote in its
     government. It is the first principle upon which all true
     republican government rests. It is the basis upon which the
     liberties of America will be preserved, if they are preserved at
     all. The Democratic party must return from its driftings, and stand
     again upon the immutable rock of principles."

     In Ohio the leaders of the Peace Democracy intend to carry on one
     more campaign on the old and rotten platform of prejudice against
     colored people. They seek in this way to divert attention from the
     record they made during the war of the rebellion. But the great
     facts of our recent history are against them. The principles of the
     fathers, reason, religion, and the spirit of the age are against
     them.

     The plain and monstrous inconsistency and injustice of excluding
     one-seventh of our population from all participation in a
     government founded on the consent of the governed in this land of
     free discussion is simply impossible. No such absurdity and wrong
     can be permanent. Impartial suffrage will carry the day. No low
     prejudice will long be able to induce American citizens to deny to
     a weak people their best means of self-protection for the unmanly
     reason that they are weak. Chief Justice Chase expressed the true
     sentiment when he said "the American Nation can not afford to do
     the smallest injustice to the humblest and feeblest of her
     children."

     Much has been said of the antagonism which exists between the
     different races of men. But difference of religion, difference of
     nationality, difference of language, and difference of rank and
     privileges are quite as fruitful causes of antagonism and war as
     difference of race. The bitter strifes between Christians and Jews,
     between Catholics and Protestants, between Englishmen and Irishmen,
     between aristocracy and the masses are only too familiar. What
     causes increase and aggravate these antagonisms, and what are the
     measures which diminish and prevent them, ought to be equally
     familiar. Under the partial and unjust laws of the Nations of the
     Old World men of one nationality were allowed to oppress those of
     another; men of one faith had rights which were denied to men of a
     different faith; men of one rank or caste enjoyed special
     privileges which were not granted to men of another. Under these
     systems peace was impossible and strife perpetual. But under just
     and equal laws in the United States, Jews, Protestants, and
     Catholics, Englishmen and Irishmen, the former aristocrat and the
     masses of the people, dwell and mingle harmoniously together. The
     uniform lesson of history is that unjust and partial laws increase
     and create antagonism, while justice and equality are the sure
     foundation of prosperity and peace.

     Impartial suffrage secures also popular education. Nothing has
     given the careful observer of events in the South more
     gratification than the progress which is there going on in the
     establishment of schools. The colored people, who as slaves were
     debarred from education, regard the right to learn as one of the
     highest privileges of freemen. The ballot gives them the power to
     secure that privilege. All parties and all public men in the South
     agree that, if colored men vote, ample provision must be made in
     the reorganization of every State for free schools. The ignorance
     of the masses, whites as well as blacks, is one of the most
     discouraging features of Southern society. If Congressional
     reconstruction succeeds, there will be free schools for all. The
     colored people will see that their children attend them. We need
     indulge in no fears that the white people will be left behind.
     Impartial suffrage, then, means popular intelligence; it means
     progress; it means loyalty; it means harmony between the North and
     the South, and between the whites and the colored people.

     The Union party believes that the general welfare requires that
     measures should be adopted which will work great changes in the
     South. Our adversaries are accustomed to talk of the rebellion as
     an affair which began when the rebels attacked Fort Sumter in 1861,
     and which ended when Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865. It is true
     that the attempt by force of arms to destroy the United States
     began and ended during the administration of Mr. Lincoln. But the
     causes, the principles, and the motives which produced the
     rebellion are of an older date than the generation which suffered
     from the fruit they bore, and their influence and power are likely
     to last long after that generation passes away. Ever since armed
     rebellion failed, a large party in the South have struggled to make
     participation in the rebellion honorable and loyalty to the Union
     dishonorable. The lost cause with them is the honored cause. In
     society, in business, and in politics, devotion to treason is the
     test of merit, the passport to preferment. They wish to return to
     the old state of things--_an oligarchy of race and the sovereignty
     of States._

     To defeat this purpose, to secure the rights of man, and to
     perpetuate the National Union, are the objects of the Congressional
     plan of reconstruction. That plan has the hearty support of the
     great generals (so far as their opinions are known)--of Grant, of
     Thomas, of Sheridan, of Howard--who led the armies of the Union
     which conquered the rebellion. The statesmen most trusted by Mr.
     Lincoln and by the loyal people of the country during the war also
     support it. The Supreme Court of the United States, upon formal
     application and after solemn argument, refuse to interfere with its
     execution. The loyal press of the country, which did so much in the
     time of need to uphold the patriot cause, without exception, are in
     favor of the plan.

     In the South, as we have seen, the lessons of the war and the
     events occurring since the war have made converts of thousands of
     the bravest and of the ablest of those who opposed the National
     cause. General Longstreet, a soldier second to no living corps
     commander of the rebel army, calls it "a peace offering," and
     advises the South in good faith to organize under it. Unrepentant
     rebels and unconverted Peace Democrats oppose it, just as they
     opposed the measures which destroyed slavery and saved the nation.

     Opposition to whatever the Nation approves seems to be the policy
     of the representative men of the Peace Democracy. Defeat and
     failure comprise their whole political history. In laboring to
     overthrow reconstruction they are probably destined to further
     defeat and further failure. I know not how it may be in other
     States, but if I am not greatly mistaken as to the mind of the
     loyal people of Ohio, they mean to trust power in the hands of no
     man who, during the awful struggle for the Nation's life, proved
     unfaithful to the cause of liberty and of Union. They will continue
     to exclude from the administration of the government those who
     prominently opposed the war, until every question arising out of
     the rebellion relating to the integrity of the Nation and to human
     rights shall have been firmly settled on the basis of impartial
     justice.

     They mean that the State of Ohio, in this great progress, "whose
     leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift
     artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of
     laudable pursuits for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a
     fair chance in the race of life," shall tread no step backward.

     Penetrated and sustained by a conviction that in this contest the
     Union party of Ohio is doing battle for the right, I enter upon my
     part of the labors of the canvass with undoubting confidence that
     the goodness of the cause will supply the weakness of its
     advocates, and command in the result that triumphant success which
     I believe it deserves.

_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Sidney, Ohio, Wednesday,
September 4, 1867._

     _Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens:_

     It was very plain at the beginning of the pending canvass in Ohio
     that the leading speakers of the peace party of the State were
     desirous to persuade the people that at this election they were to
     pass upon different issues from those which have been considered
     in former elections. They undertook at the beginning, generally, to
     discuss questions which have not heretofore been much considered.
     They told the people that the old issues were settled, and that in
     this canvass in particular, there would be no propriety in
     discussing the record made by men during the war; that the war was
     over; that bygones ought to be permitted to be bygones; and they
     started a considerable number of subjects for discussion, which I
     claim are either unimportant matters, or are matters which are in
     no sense party questions. For example, Judge Ranney, in a very
     elaborate speech at Mansfield, of great length, discussed perhaps a
     dozen or fifteen topics, almost all of which are in no sense party
     questions. For example, he talked about the land grants that had
     been made to the railroads, particularly to the Pacific Railroad,
     during the last few years, and of the subsidies of money that by
     law have been given to the railroad companies. Now, this is but a
     specimen of the topics discussed by Judge Ranney. It is enough to
     say, in regard to the railroads, that they were voted for
     indiscriminately by Union men and by Democrats--peace Democrats and
     war Democrats--and that they were finally made laws by the
     signature of Andrew Johnson. They are in no sense, therefore, party
     issues; and the only purpose of discussing them is, so far as I can
     see, to mislead the people, and to withdraw their attention from
     the main issues before them.

     Judge Thurman has discussed the subject of a standing army. He has
     spoken of the great expense of keeping up a standing army, and, as
     I think, has greatly exaggerated the sum requisite--naming two
     hundred and fifty millions as the annual expense of it. I suppose
     that is three or four, or perhaps five times as great as the actual
     amount: but I do not stop to argue that matter with him. I say to
     him, in regard to it, that Democrats voted for it in both houses,
     and it became a law by the signature of the president whom he
     supports. It is not, therefore, a party issue.

     I can not, in any reasonable length of time, even name the various
     topics that have been discussed in this way. Perhaps none has
     attracted more attention than the subject of finances, and the main
     issue presented by our Democratic friends on that subject has been
     this--namely, that it is for the interest of the people to pay off
     the whole of the present bonded debt by an issue of greenbacks. At
     the beginning of the canvass, the Cincinnati _Enquirer_, and, I
     think, the leading peace party paper at Columbus, and Mr.
     Vallandigham, presented this as the leading question before the
     people. The _Enquirer_ told us that Democratic conventions in forty
     counties had resolved in favor of it; and certainly if any one of
     the topics which have been presented in this way may be regarded as
     a party topic, that is one. If they have succeeded in making a new
     issue, that is one. On the 20th of last month, I spoke at Batavia,
     and I referred to that subject. I said that Judge Thurman was
     plainly committed against the issue of more greenbacks; that when
     we were in the midst of the war, and the necessities of the country
     were such that it was necessary to get money by every means in our
     power, he had told the people there was no constitutional authority
     to issue greenbacks. I said further, that in his speech at Waverly
     he had spoken of this currency as a currency of rags; and that,
     therefore, I was authorized to say he was opposed to this new
     scheme of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. That speech of mine was
     reported in the Cincinnati _Commercial_ of the next morning. On the
     following day, the 22d of August, the _Enquirer_ noticed my speech.
     I will read you the whole of the _Enquirer's_ article on that
     subject. I do this because I think, in this county as well as
     elsewhere, Democrats are claiming the votes of Union men on the
     ground that it is wise to pay off the bonded debt by an issue of
     greenbacks, and I wish to show that Judge Thurman is opposed to the
     scheme. Therefore, it is no party issue, because no party State
     convention has resolved in favor of it, and the peace party
     candidate for governor is against it. The _Enquirer_ says, under
     the caption of "Judge Thurman and the bondholders:"

     "In his speech at Batavia, Clermont county, on Tuesday, General
     Hayes, while discussing the payment of the public debt question,
     said:

     "Judge Thurman has not yet spoken distinctly on this question. But
     his well-known opinion, that even the necessities of the war did
     not authorize, under our constitution, the issue of the
     legal-tender currency, coupled with the fact that he speaks of it
     in his Waverly speech as a currency of 'rags--only rags'--warrants
     me in saying that he is probably opposed, on grounds both of
     constitutional law and of expediency, to the financial scheme of
     Mr. Vallandigham and of the Cincinnati _Enquirer_. Judge Ranney and
     Judge Jewett are also evidently unwilling to accept the inflation
     theories of the _Enquirer_. They are both opposed to taking up the
     greenbacks now in circulation by an issue of bonds bearing
     interest, and repeat the same arguments against this policy of
     Johnson's administration which were urged by the Cincinnati
     _Gazette_ and by Thaddeus Stevens and Judge Kelley, with much more
     cogency, a year or two ago."

     Commenting on the above, the _Enquirer_ says, editorially:

     "This will render it necessary for Judge Thurman to do what he
     ought to have done in his first (Waverly) speech, define his
     position distinctly on this question. As one of his friends and
     supporters, we call upon him to put a stop to these representations
     of General Hayes by giving the people his views.

     "Is he for the bondholders or the people? Does he believe that the
     debts due the bondholders should be paid in any other than the
     government money, which pays all other debts and liabilities, even
     those which were contracted in gold?

     "Is he for one currency for the bondholders and another and
     different currency for the people?

     "The Democracy of more than forty counties in Ohio have spoken out
     on this question, and we have no doubt the example will be followed
     by every county in the State. In some counties no other resolutions
     have been passed.

     "The time has passed when the people kept step to the music of
     candidates. The latter must now march with and not against the
     people. Will Judge Thurman define his position, for thousands of
     votes may depend upon it?"

     On the 27th of August, at Wapakoneta, Judge Thurman made a speech,
     which I hold in my hand--as you see, a very long speech, covering
     all of one side of the _Commercial_, and parts of two others. One
     would suppose that, a week having elapsed since the speech to which
     his attention was called had been made, that in this speech, at
     least, if this was an important issue of the canvass, we should
     have his position plainly and clearly defined. Of that long speech
     he devotes to that important question, which the _Enquirer_ says is
     the real question, and which many of your speakers doubtless here
     say is the real question, precisely eleven lines--one short
     paragraph. And the pith of that paragraph is contained in these two
     lines: "I am sorry that what I have to say on that subject for
     publication I must reserve for some future time."

     I think that this satisfactorily shows where my friend Judge
     Thurman stands on that issue, and that we therefore need no longer
     discuss it--in short, that, as a party question, it is abandoned by
     the candidate of the Democratic party. There is another phase of
     the financial question. Judge Ranney and Judge Jewett are telling
     the people that it is the policy of Secretary McCulloch to take up
     the greenback currency and issue in its stead interest-bearing
     bonds, not taxable, principal and interest, both payable in coin at
     the option of the secretary. That is true. That was the policy, and
     is the policy of Secretary McCulloch. But they go further, and say
     they are authorized to say that this is the policy of the Union
     party. I take issue with them on that statement. They offer no
     proof that it is true, except the fact that it is the policy of the
     Johnson administration; and I submit to an intelligent audience
     that the fact that Johnson and his administration are in favor of a
     measure is no evidence whatever that the Union party supports it.
     It is not for me to prove a negative, but I am prepared,
     nevertheless, to prove it. The very measure which was intended to
     carry out this policy of Secretary McCulloch to enable him to take
     up the greenback currency with interest-bearing bonds was
     introduced in Congress in March, 1866. I have here the votes upon
     that question, and I say to you that the Democratic party in both
     houses--all the members of the Democratic party in both
     houses--voted for Senator McCulloch's plan, and that Mr. Julian,
     Judge Schofield, Mr. Lawrence, all of whom I see here, and myself,
     a majority of the Republican members of Congress, voted against the
     scheme, and it became a law because a minority of the Union party,
     with the unanimous vote of the Democratic party, supported it; and
     because, when it was submitted to Andrew Johnson, instead of
     vetoing it, as he did all Union party measures, he wrote his name,
     on the 12th of April, at the bottom of it, "Approved, Andrew
     Johnson." Now, it is under that measure, and by virtue of that law,
     voted for by Mr. Finck and and Mr. LeBlond, of the Democratic party
     of Ohio, in the House of Representatives; it is by virtue of that
     law that to-day Secretary McCulloch is issuing interest-bearing
     bonds, not taxable, to take up the greenback currency of the
     country. I think, then, I am authorized in saying that these
     gentlemen are mistaken when they accuse the Union party of being in
     favor of taking up the greenback currency and putting in the place
     of it interest-bearing, non-taxable bonds.

     This investigation of two or three of the leading questions
     presented to the people at the beginning of this canvass by the
     advocates of the peace party of Ohio is, I think, sufficient to
     warrant me in saying that all of the side issues presented are
     merely urged on the people to withdraw their minds from the great
     main issue which ought to engage the attention of the American
     Nation. What is that great issue? It is reconstruction. That is the
     main question before us, and until it is settled, and settled
     rightly, all other issues sink into insignificance in comparison
     with it. Fortunately for the Union party of Ohio, events are
     occurring every day at Washington which tend more and more clearly
     to define the exact question before the people, showing that the
     main question is whether the Union shall be reconstructed in the
     interests of the rebellion or in the interests of loyalty and
     Union; whether that reconstruction shall be carried on by men who,
     during the war, were in favor of the war and against the rebellion,
     or by men who in the North were against the war, and who in the
     South carried on the rebellion. On one side of this question we see
     Andrew Johnson, Judge Black, and the other leaders of the peace
     party of the North and the unrepentant rebels of the South; and on
     the other side is the great war secretary, Stanton, with General
     Grant, General Sheridan, General Thomas, General Howard, and the
     other Union commanders engaged in carrying out the reconstruction
     acts of Congress. This presents clearly enough the question before
     the people. General Grant, in one paragraph of his letter to the
     president, said to him:

     "General Sheridan has performed his civil duties faithfully and
     intelligently. His removal will only be regarded as an effort to
     defeat the laws of Congress. It will be interpreted by the
     unreconstructed element in the South--those who did all they could
     to break up this government by arms, and now wish to be the only
     element consulted as to the method of restoring order--as a
     triumph. It will embolden them to renewed opposition to the will of
     the loyal masses, believing that they have the executive with
     them."

     This presents exactly the question before the people. We want the
     loyal people of the country, the victors in the great struggle we
     have passed through, to do the work; we want reconstruction upon
     such principles, and by means of such measures that the causes
     which made reconstruction necessary shall not exist in the
     reconstructed Union; we want that foolish notion of State rights,
     which teaches that the State is superior to the Nation--that there
     is a State sovereignty which commands the allegiance of every
     citizen higher than the sovereignty of the nation--we want that
     notion left out of the reconstructed Union; we want it understood
     that whatever doubts may have existed prior to the war as to the
     relation of the State to the National government, that now the
     National government is supreme, anything in the constitution or
     laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Again, as one of
     the causes of the rebellion, we want slavery left out, not merely
     in name, but in fact, and forever; we want the last vestige, the
     last relic of that institution, rooted out of the laws and
     institutions of every State; we want that in the South there shall
     be no more suppression of free discussion. I notice that in the
     long speech of my friend, Judge Thurman, he says that for nearly
     fifty years, throughout the length and breadth of the land, freedom
     of speech and of the press was never interfered with, either by the
     government or the people. For more than thirty years,
     fellow-citizens, there has been no such thing as free discussion in
     the South. Those moderate speeches of Abraham Lincoln on the
     subject of slavery--not one of them--could have been delivered
     without endangering his life, south of Mason and Dixon's line. We
     want in the reconstructed Union that there shall be the same
     freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the States of the
     South that there always has been in the States of the North. Again,
     we want the reconstructed Union upon such principles that the men
     of the South who, during the war, were loyal and true to the
     government, shall be protected in life, liberty, and property, and
     in the exercise of their political rights. It becomes the solemn
     duty of the loyal victors in the great struggle to see that the men
     who, in the midst of difficulties, discouragements, and dangers in
     the South were true, are protected in these rights. And, in order
     that our reconstruction shall be carried out faithfully and
     accomplish these objects, we further want that the work shall be in
     the hands of the right men. Andrew Johnson, in the days when he was
     loyal, said the work of reconstruction ought to be placed
     absolutely in the hands of the loyal men of the State; that rebels,
     and particularly leading rebels, ought not to participate in that
     work; that while that work is going on they must take back seats.
     We want that understood in our work of reconstruction. How
     important it is to have the right men in charge of this work
     appears upon the most cursory examination of what has already been
     done. President Lincoln administered the same laws
     substantially--was sworn to support the same constitution with
     Andrew Johnson--yet how different the reconstruction as carried out
     by these two men. Lincoln's reconstruction in all the States which
     he undertook to reorganize gave to those States loyal governments,
     loyal governors, loyal legislatures, judges, and officers of the
     law. Andrew Johnson, administering the same constitution and the
     same laws, reconstructs a number of States, and in all of them
     leading rebels are elected governors, leading rebels are members of
     the legislature, and leading rebels are sent to Congress. It makes,
     then, the greatest difference to the people of this country who it
     is that does the work.

     This, my friends, brings me to a proposition to which I call the
     attention of every audience that I have occasion to address, and
     that is this, that until the work of reconstruction is complete,
     until every question arising out of the rebellion relating to the
     integrity of the Nation and to human rights has been settled, and
     settled rightly, no man ought to be trusted with power in this
     country, who, during the struggle for the Nation's life, was
     unfaithful to Union and liberty. That is the proposition upon which
     I go before the people of Ohio. At the beginning of the canvass, as
     I have said, the gentlemen who are engaged in advocating the claims
     of the peace party of Ohio did not desire to have this record
     discussed. I am happy to know by this long Wapakoneta speech of
     Judge Thurman that at last they have found it necessary to come to
     the discussion of the true question. Judge Thurman, in that speech,
     invites us to the discussion of it. He says:

     "I give all of them this bold and unequivocal defiance, that there
     is no one act of my life, or one sentence ever uttered by me that I
     am not prepared to have investigated by the American people; and I
     wish them to stand up to the same rule, that I may see what is in
     their past record, and see how it tallies with what they say to the
     American people at the present time."

     He proceeds to do this. He proceeds to examine the record of
     various gentlemen connected with the Union party. Now, I am not in
     the habit of giving challenges or accepting challenges, but I
     desire, for a few minutes, to ask the attention of this audience to
     the record of my friend, Judge Thurman. He under-takes to justify
     the course he took as a leader of the peace party of Ohio, by
     telling us what Mr. Lincoln said in 1848. Now, what is it that Mr.
     Lincoln said? He made a speech during the Mexican war as to the
     title which Texas had to certain lands in dispute between the State
     of Texas and Mexico, or rather between the United States and
     Mexico. He laid down the doctrine that a revolutionary government
     is entitled to own just as much of the property of the former
     government as it has succeeded in conquering; and he says, in the
     course of that speech, that it is the right of every people to
     revolutionize; that the right of revolution, in short, belongs to
     every people; that it was the right exercised by our forefathers in
     1776. Now, that is all true--that is all correct; but how does my
     friend Judge Thurman find any justification for the rebellion in
     that? What is the right of revolution? It is the right to resist a
     government under which you live, if that government is guilty of
     intolerable oppression or injustice, but not otherwise. And that is
     the doctrine of Abraham Lincoln. Now, in order to make that a
     precedent for the rebellion, Judge Thurman is bound to take the
     position that, in the case of the rebel States, there had been acts
     of intolerable oppression and injustice done to that part of the
     country which went into rebellion. I know that the rebels, for the
     most part, did not put the rebellion upon that ground; but Judge
     Thurman now does it for them. He makes it out--or must make it out
     to sustain himself--that it was a case of revolution, growing out
     of the exercise of that right which our fathers exercised in 1776.
     Now, if Judge Thurman can show that there was justification for the
     rebellion, he has made out his case. If that rebellion was not
     justified by such circumstances--if there was no such intolerable
     injustice and oppression--he has failed in his precedent. He goes
     further, and says that Mr. Wade, Chief Justice Chase, Secretary
     Stanton, and General Butler all held sentiments before the war the
     same as the sentiments which he held then, and holds now, on the
     subject of the rights of the States. Suppose they did--suppose they
     belonged to the same party before the war--is that any defense of
     his conduct during the war? They saw fit, after the war had broken
     out, to rally to the side of their country, notwithstanding any
     notions or theories they might have held with regard to the rights
     of the States.

     I do not stop now to discuss the correctness of Judge Thurman's
     opinions as to the course of these men prior to the war. It is
     enough for me to say that the question I make--the question which
     the people of Ohio make--is, What was your conduct after it was
     found that there was a conspiracy to break up the Union, after war
     was upon us, and armies were raised--what was your conduct then?
     That is the question before the people. And I ask of an intelligent
     audience, what was the duty of a good citizen after that war for
     the destruction of the government and the Union had begun? Need I
     ask any old Jackson Democrat what is his duty when the Union is at
     stake? In 1806, Aaron Burr proposed this matter to Andrew Jackson,
     of making a new confederacy in the Southwest. Jackson said:

     "I hate the Dons, and I would like to see Mexico dismembered; but
     before I would see one State of this Union severed from the rest, I
     would die in the last ditch."

     That was Jackson's Democracy. Douglass said:

     "This is no time for delay. The existence of a conspiracy is now
     known; armies are raised to accomplish it. There can be but two
     sides to the question. A man must be either for the United States
     or against the United States. There can be no neutrals in this
     war--only patriots and traitors."

     There is the Douglass doctrine. But I need not go back to Jackson
     and Douglass. I have the opinions of the very gentlemen who now
     lead the peace party on this subject. Let me read you a resolution,
     introduced and passed through a Democratic convention, in 1848, by
     Clement L. Vallandigham:

     "_Resolved_, That whatever opinions might have been entertained of
     the origin, necessity or justice, by the Tories of the
     revolutionary war, by the Federalists of the late war with England,
     or by the Whigs and Abolitionists of the present war with Mexico,
     the fact of their country being engaged in such a war ought to have
     been sufficient for them and to have precluded debate on that
     subject till a successful termination of the war, and that in the
     meantime the patriot could have experienced no difficulty in
     recognizing his place on the side of his country, and could never
     have been induced to yield either physical or moral aid to the
     enemy."

     I will quote also from Judge Thurman himself. In a speech lecturing
     one of his colleagues, who thought the Mexican war was unnecessary,
     he says:

     "It is a strange way to support one's country, right or wrong, to
     declare after war has begun, when it exists both in law and in
     fact, that the war is aggressive, unholy, unrighteous, and damnable
     on the part of the government of that country, and on that
     government rests its responsibility and its wrongfulness. It is a
     strange way to support one's country right or wrong in a war, to
     tax one's imagination to the utmost to depict the disastrous
     consequences of the contest; to dwell on what it has already cost
     and what it will cost in future; to depict her troops prostrated by
     disease and dying with pestilence; in a word, to destroy, as far as
     possible, the moral force of the government in the struggle, and
     hold it up to its own people and the world as the aggressor that
     merits their condemnation. It was for this that I arraigned my
     colleague, and that I intend to arraign him. It was because his
     remarks, as far as they could have any influence, were evidently
     calculated to depress the spirits of his own countrymen, to lessen
     the moral force of his own government, and to inspire with
     confidence and hope the enemies of his country."

     He goes on further to say:

     "What a singular mode it was of supporting her in a war to bring
     against the war nearly all the charges that were brought by the
     peace party Federalists against the last war, to denounce it as an
     unrighteous, unholy, and damnable war; to hold up our government to
     the eyes of the world as the aggressors in the conflict; to charge
     it with motives of conquest and aggrandizement; to parade and
     portray in the darkest colors all the horrors of war; to dwell upon
     its cost and depict its calamities."

     Now, that was the doctrine of Judge Thurman as to the duties of
     citizens in time of war--in time of such a war as the Mexican war
     even, in which no vital interest of the country could by
     possibility suffer. Judge Thurman says that General Hayes, in his
     speech, has a great many slips cut from the newspapers, and that
     he must have had some sewing society of old ladies to cut out the
     slips for him. I don't know how he found that out. I never told it,
     and you know the ladies never tell secrets that are confided to
     them. I hold in my hand a speech of Judge Thurman, from which I
     have read extracts, and I find that he has in it slips cut from
     more than twenty different prints, sermons, newspapers, old
     speeches, and pamphlets, to show how, in the war of 1812, certain
     Federalists uttered unpatriotic sentiments. I presume he must have
     acquired his slips on that day in the way he says I acquired mine
     now.

     Now, my friends, I propose to hold Judge Thurman to no severe rule
     of accountability for his conduct during the war. I merely ask that
     it shall be judged by his own rule: "Your country is engaged in
     war, and it is the duty of every citizen to say nothing and do
     nothing which shall depress the spirits of his own countrymen,
     nothing that shall encourage the enemies of his country, or give
     them moral aid or comfort." That is the rule. Now, Judge Thurman,
     how does your conduct square with it? I do not propose to begin at
     the beginning of the war, or even just before the war, to cite the
     record of Judge Thurman. I am willing to say that perhaps men might
     have been mistaken at that time. They might have supposed in the
     beginning a conciliatory policy, a non-coercive policy, would in
     some way avoid the threatened struggle. But I ask you to approach
     the period when the war was going on, when armies to the number of
     hundreds of thousands of men were ready on one side and the other,
     and when the whole world knew what was the nature of the great
     struggle going on in America. Taking the beginning of 1863, how
     stands the conflict? We have pressed the rebellion out of Kentucky
     and through Tennessee. Grant stands before Vicksburg, held at bay
     by the army of Pemberton; Rosecranz, after the capture of
     Nashville, has pressed forward to Murfreesboro, but is still held
     out of East Tennessee by the army of Bragg. The army of the Potomac
     and the army of Lee, in Virginia, are balanced, the one against the
     other. The whole world knows that that exhausting struggle can not
     last long without deciding in favor of one side or the other. That
     the year 1863 is big with the fate of Union and of liberty, every
     intelligent man in the world knows--that on one side it is a
     struggle for nationality and human rights. There is not in all
     Europe a petty despot who lives by grinding the masses of the
     people, who does not know that Lincoln and the Union are his
     enemies. There is not a friend of freedom in all Europe who does
     not know that Lincoln and the loyal army are fighting in the cause
     of free government for all the world. Now, in that contest, where
     are you, Judge Thurman? It is a time when we need men and money,
     when we need to have our people inspired with hope and confidence.
     Your sons and brothers are in the field. Their success depends upon
     your conduct at home.

     The men who are to advise you what to do have upon them a dreadful
     responsibility to give you wise and patriotic advice. Judge
     Thurman, in the speech I am quoting from, says:

     "But now, my friends, I shall not deal with obscure newspapers or
     obscure men. What a private citizen like Allen G. Thurman may have
     said in 1861 is a matter of indifference."

     Ah, no, Judge Thurman, the Union party does not propose to allow
     your record to go without investigation because you are a private
     citizen. I know you held no official position under the government
     at the time I speak of; but, sir, you had for years been a leading,
     able, and influential man in the great party which had often
     carried your State. You were acting under grave responsibilities.
     More than that, during that year 1863, you were more than a private
     citizen. You were one of the delegates to the State convention of
     that year; you were one of the committee that forms your party
     platform in that convention; you were one of the central committee
     that carries on the canvass in the absence of your
     standard-bearers; and you were one of the orators of the party. No,
     sir, you were not a private citizen in 1863. You were one of the
     leading and one of the ablest men in your party in that year,
     speaking through the months of July, August, September, and
     October, in behalf of the candidate of the peace party. You can not
     escape as a private citizen.

     Well, sir, in the beginning of that eventful year, there rises in
     Congress the ablest member of the peace party, to advise Congress
     and to advise the people, and what does he say?

     "You have not conquered the South. You never will. It is not in the
     nature of things possible, especially under your auspices. Money
     you have expended without limit; blood you have poured out like
     water."

     Now, mark the taunt--the words of discouragement that were sent to
     the people and to the army of the Union:

     "Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers--these are your trophies. Can
     you get men to enlist now at any price?"

     Listen again to the words that were sent to the army and to the
     loyal people:

     "Ah, sir, it is easier to die at home."

     We knew that, Judge Thurman, better than Mr. Vallandigham knew it.
     We had seen our comrades falling and dying alone on the mountain
     side and in the swamps--dying in the prison-pens of the Confederacy
     and in the crowded hospitals, North and South. Yet he had the face
     to stand up in Congress, and say to the people and the world, "Ah,
     sir, it is easier to die at home." Judge Thurman, where are you at
     this time? He goes to Columbus to the State convention, on the 11th
     of June of that year, in all the capacities in which I have named
     him--as a delegate, as committeeman, and as an orator--and he
     spends that whole summer in advocating the election of the man who
     taunted us with the words, "Defeat, debt, taxation,
     sepulchers--these are your trophies."

     In every canvass you know there is a key-note. What was the
     key-note of that canvass? Who sounded it? It came over to us from
     Canada. On the 15th of July, 1863, Mr. Vallandigham wrote,
     accepting the nomination of that convention of Judge Thurman's. He
     said, in his letter:

     "If this civil war is to terminate only by the subjugation or
     submission of the South to force and arms, the infant of to-day
     will not live to see the end of it. No; in another way only can it
     be brought to a close. Traveling a thousand miles and more, through
     nearly half of the Confederate States, and sojourning for a time at
     widely different points, I met not one man, woman, or child who was
     not resolved to perish, rather than yield to the pressure of arms,
     even in the most desperate extremity. And whatever may and must be
     the varying fortune of the war, in all of which I recognize the
     hand of Providence pointing visibly to the ultimate issue of this
     great trial of the States and people of America, they are better
     prepared now, every way, to make good their inexorable purpose than
     at any period since the beginning of the struggle."

     That was the key-note of the campaign. It was the platform of the
     candidate in behalf of whom Judge Thurman went through the State of
     Ohio--all over the State--in July, August, and September, up to the
     night of the 12th of October--making his last speech just
     twenty-four hours before the glad news went out to all the world,
     over the wires, that the people of Ohio had elected John Brough by
     over one hundred thousand majority, in preference to the author of
     the sentiment, "Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers."

     And how true was that sentiment which had been endorsed by the
     peace party. I do not question the motives of men in any of my
     speeches. I merely ask as to the facts. "Better prepared," said he,
     "than ever before," on the 15th of July. On that theory, they went
     through the canvass to the end. What was the fact? On the 15th of
     July, 1863, Grant had captured Vicksburg. That gallant, glorious
     son of Ohio, who perished afterward in the Atlanta campaign, and
     whose honored remains now sleep near his old home on the lake
     shore, General James B. McPherson, on the 4th of July, had ridden
     at the head of a triumphant host into Vicksburg. On the 7th of
     July, Banks had captured Port Hudson. A few days afterward, a party
     of serenaders, calling upon Mr. Lincoln, saw that good man, who had
     been bowed down with the weight and cares of office; they saw his
     haggard face lit up with joy and cheer, and he said to them: "At
     last, Grant is in Vicksburg. The Father of Waters, the Mississippi,
     again flows unvexed to the sea."

     On the 15th of July, what else had happened? The army of Lee,
     defiantly crowding up into Pennsylvania, and claiming to go where
     it pleased, and take what it pleased, only doubting whether they
     would first capture Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New
     York, and concluding finally that it was a matter of military
     strategy first to capture the Army of the Potomac--that army, which
     had invaded Pennsylvania under such flattering auspices, was, on
     the 15th of July, when Mr. Vallandigham's letter was written,
     straggling back over the swollen waters of the Potomac, glad to
     escape from the pursuing armies of the Union, with the loss of
     thirty thousand of its bravest and best, killed, wounded, and
     captured, and utterly unable ever after during the war to set foot
     upon free soil except in such fragments as were captured by our
     armies in subsequent battles. That was the condition of the two
     great armies when Mr. Vallandigham uttered that sentiment; and on
     that sentiment my friend, Judge Thurman, argued his case through
     all that summer.

     But wisdom was not learned even at the close of 1863 by this peace
     party. Things were greatly changed in the estimation of every loyal
     man. We had now not merely got possession of the Mississippi
     river--we had not merely driven the army of Lee out of
     Pennsylvania, never again to return, but the battle of Mission
     Ridge and the battle of Knoxville had been fought. That important
     strategic region, East Tennessee, was now within our lines. From
     that abode of loyalty, the mountain region of East Tennessee, we
     could pierce to the very heart of the Southern Confederacy. We were
     now in possession of the interior lines, giving us an immense
     advantage, and we were in a condition to march southeast to Atlanta
     and northeast to Richmond; yet with this changed state of affairs,
     where is my friend Judge Thurman? Advising the people? What is he
     advising them to do? He says Allen G. Thurman was a private
     citizen. Not so. He held no official position, I know, under the
     government. Fortunately for the people of this country, they were
     not giving official positions in Ohio to men of his opinions and
     sentiments at that time. [A voice, "They won't now, either."] But
     he was made delegate at large from the State of Ohio to the
     convention to meet at Chicago to nominate a president and form a
     platform on which that nominee should stand. Mr. Vallandigham was a
     district delegate and one of the committee to form a platform, and
     he drew the most important resolution. The principal plank of that
     platform is of his construction. You are perfectly familiar with
     it. It merely told the people that the war had been for four years
     a failure, and advised them to prepare to negotiate with this
     Confederate nation on our Southern borders. Well, when this advice
     was given to the Nation, we were still in the midst of the war, and
     were prosecuting it with every prospect of success. What had been
     accomplished in 1863 enabled us, with great advantages, to press
     upon the rebellion. I remember well when I first read that
     resolution declaring the war a four years' failure. It came to the
     army in which I was serving on the same day that the news came to
     us that Sherman had captured Atlanta. We heard of both together.
     The war a four years' failure, said the Chicago convention. I well
     remember how that evening our pickets shouted the good news to the
     pickets of the enemy. What good news? News that a convention
     representing nearly one-half of the people of the North had
     concluded that the war was a failure? No such news was shouted from
     our-picket line. The good news that they shouted was that Sherman
     had captured Atlanta.

     This, my friends, is a part of that record which we are invited to
     examine by my friend Judge Thurman. I ask you to apply to it the
     principle that whoever, during the great struggle, was unfaithful
     to the cause of the country is not to be trusted to be one of the
     men to harvest and secure the legitimate fruits of the victory,
     which the Union people and the Union army won during the rebellion.
     In the great struggle in 1863 in Ohio, I had not an opportunity to
     hear the eloquent voice of John Brough, which I knew stirred the
     hearts of the people like the sound of a trumpet, but I read, as
     occasion offered, his speeches, and I saw not one in which he did
     not warn the young men--warn the Democrats of Ohio--that if they
     remained through that struggle opposed to this country, the conduct
     particularly of leading men would never be forgotten, and never
     forgiven. Now, in this canvass, I merely have to ask the people to
     remember the prediction of honest John Brough, and see that that
     prediction is made good.

     It is not worth while now to consider, or undertake to predict,
     when we shall cease to talk of the records of those men. It does
     seem to me that it will, for many years to come, be the voice of
     the Union people of the State that for a man who as a leader--as a
     man having control in political affairs--that for such a man who
     has opposed the interests of his country during the war, "the post
     of honor is the private station." When shall we stop talking about
     it? When ought we to stop talking about that record, when leading
     men come before the people? Certainly not until every question
     arising out of the rebellion, and every question which is akin to
     the questions which made the rebellion, is settled. Perhaps these
     men will be remembered long after these questions are settled;
     perhaps their conduct will long be remembered. What was the result
     of this advice to the people? It prolonged the war; it made it
     impossible to get recruits; it made it necessary that we should
     have drafts. They opposed the drafts, and that made rioting, which
     required that troops should be called from all the armies in the
     field, to preserve the peace at home. From forty to a hundred
     thousand men in the different States of this Union were kept within
     the loyal States to preserve the peace at home. And now, when they
     talk to you about the debt and about the burden of taxation,
     remember how it happened that the war was so prolonged, that it was
     so expensive, and that the debt grew to such large proportions.

     There are other things, too, to be remembered. I recollect that at
     the close of the last session of Congress, I went over to
     Arlington, the estate formerly of Robert E. Lee, and I saw there
     the great National cemetery into which that beautiful place has
     been converted. I saw the graves of 18,000 Union soldiers, marked
     with white head-boards, denoting the name of each occupant, and his
     regiment and company. Passing over those broad acres, covered with
     the graves of the loyal men who had died in defense of their
     country, I came upon that which was even more touching than these
     18,000 head-boards. I found a large granite, with this inscription
     upon it:

     "Beneath this stone repose the remains of two thousand one hundred
     and eleven unknown soldiers, gathered, after the war, from the
     field of Bull Run and the route to the Rappahannock. Their remains
     could not be identified, but their names and deaths are recorded in
     the archives of their country, and its grateful citizens honor them
     as of their noble army of martyrs. May they rest in peace.
     September, 1866."

     I say to those men who were instrumental and prominent in
     prolonging the war, by opposing it, that when honeyed words and
     soft phrases can erase from the enduring granite inscriptions like
     these, the American people may forget their conduct; but I believe
     they will not do so until some such miracle is accomplished.

     That is all I desire to say this afternoon upon the record of the
     peace party of Ohio. A few words upon another topic that is much
     discussed in this canvass, and that is the proposed amendment to
     the constitution of the State of Ohio. At the beginning, I desire
     to say, that there may be no misunderstanding--and I suppose there
     is no misunderstanding upon that subject--that I am in favor of the
     adoption of that amendment, and I trust that every Union man, and
     every Democrat too, will vote for it next October. And why do I say
     this? Let us discuss it a moment. It consists of four parts.
     First, it disfranchises any man who becomes a resident of the State
     of Ohio, or who was a citizen of Ohio, who fought in the rebellion
     against the country. Isn't that right? If you want that to go into
     your constitution, vote for the amendment. It disfranchises every
     man who, being liable to the draft, when the country needed them at
     the front--when the soldiers doing their duty at the front were
     anxiously looking for their aid--it disfranchises every man who, at
     such time, ran away to escape the draft. Isn't that right? In the
     next place, it disfranchises every man who deserted his comrades at
     the front, and ran away to vote the peace party ticket at the rear.
     Isn't that right? It disfranchises him whether he voted that ticket
     or not, I may observe. If you want these provisions in your State
     constitution, vote for the amendment. In the next place, it gives
     the right of suffrage to all the negroes of Ohio. Mark the phrase:
     I have not said impartial suffrage or manhood suffrage. I wish to
     be understood. It gives the suffrage to the negroes of Ohio upon
     the same terms that it is given to white men. The reason I am in
     favor of that is because it is right.

     Let me have the ears of my Democratic friends on that question a
     moment. If Democracy has any meaning now that is good--any
     favorable meaning--it is that Democracy is a government of the
     people, by the people, and for the people. It is a government in
     which every man who has to obey the laws has a part in making the
     laws, unless disqualified by crime. Then the proposition I am for
     is a Democratic proposition. Again, it is according to the
     principles upon which good men have always desired to see our
     institutions placed, namely, that all men are entitled to equal
     rights before the law. They are not equal in any other respect.
     Nobody claims that they are. But we propose to give to each man the
     same rights which you want for yourself. It is, in short, obeying
     the rule of the Great Teacher: "Do unto others as ye would that
     others should do unto you." Abraham Lincoln said: "No man is good
     enough to govern another without that other man's consent." Is not
     that true? Good as you think you are, are you good enough
     absolutely to govern another man without that other man's consent?
     If you really think so, just change shoes with that other man, and
     see if you are willing to be governed yourself, without your
     consent, by somebody else. The declaration of independence says
     governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
     governed. Now, don't you see there is no way by which one man can
     give consent to be governed by another man in a republican
     government except by the ballot? There is no way provided by which
     you can consent to give powers to a government except by the
     ballot. Therefore every man governed under our system is entitled
     to the ballot.

     So much for principle. One word now as to why our Democratic
     friends oppose it. I remember their opposing the extension of
     suffrage once under circumstances that made many of us think they
     were doing wrong. During the years 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864, I
     was a citizen of the Fifteenth ward, in Cincinnati; I had lived
     there ever since it was a ward. All the property I had in the world
     was taxed there, real or personal; and there was a party in Ohio of
     loyal Union men, who said I and others who were with me ought to
     have a right to vote, although I was not in the Fifteenth ward, but
     was serving the country in the field against the rebels. The
     Democratic party in Ohio--these very peace men--said no. Why did
     they say I should not vote? I never heard but one good reason, and
     that was the apprehension they had that if the soldiers did vote,
     they wouldn't vote the Democratic ticket. That's what's the matter.
     Now, I suspect we have the same difficulty on this proposition; I
     suspect that the real trouble is that they fear if the colored man
     has a vote, they have dealt so hardly with him these last few years
     that when he comes to vote he will vote against the Democratic
     party. That's what's the matter. Why, for the sake of political
     power, these Democrats of Ohio have not been unwilling to look
     kindly toward the colored man. Do you remember we once had black
     laws in Ohio which kept the colored men out of the State? Who
     repealed those laws? Why did they do it? The Democratic party did
     it, because they could get political power by it. I suspect that if
     it were quite certain that the colored vote would elect Allen G.
     Thurman Governor of Ohio, our Democratic friends would not object
     to it at all. What, then, do I say to the Union men? This objection
     may be very good for the Democrats, but it is not a wise one for
     you.

     I commend to you Union men who are a little weak on this question,
     or perhaps I should say a little strong, the example of the Union
     men of the country during the war. Abraham Lincoln thought, in
     1862, it was wise to proclaim freedom to the slaves. Many good
     Union men thought it was unwise--thought Mr. Lincoln was going too
     far or too fast--but the sequel justified the wisdom of Abraham
     Lincoln. Again, he thought it was wise that colored men should be
     placed in our armies. There were good soldiers and good Union men
     who thought it was unwise. They feared that Mr. Lincoln was going
     too fast or too far, but events justified it. Now, everybody agrees
     that in both cases Abraham Lincoln was right. Now, the example I
     commend to our Union friends who are doubting on this great
     question is the example of those Union men during the war who
     doubted the wisdom of these other measures. Greatly as they were
     opposed to the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, strongly as they
     were opposed to the enlistment of colored soldiers, I say to you I
     never heard of one good Union man, in the army or out of it, who
     left his party because of that difference with Mr. Lincoln. I
     commend that example to the Union men who now doubt about colored
     suffrage. The truth is, that every step made in advance toward the
     standard of the right has in the event always proved a safe and
     wise step. Every step toward the right has proved a step toward the
     expedient; in short, that in politics, in morals, in public and
     private life, the right is always expedient.

     I thank you, fellow-citizens, for your kind attention.

_Speech of_ GOVERNOR HAYES, _on his re-nomination, delivered June 23,
1869._

     Twice since the organization of existing political parties the
     people of Ohio have trusted the law-making power of the State in
     the hands of the Democratic party. They first tried the experiment
     twelve years ago, and such were the results that ten years elapsed
     before they ventured upon a repetition of it. Two years ago, in a
     time of reaction, which was general throughout the country, the
     Democratic party, by a minority of the popular vote, having large
     advantages in the apportionment, obtained complete control of the
     legislature in both of its branches. They came into power,
     proclaiming that the past ought to be forgotten; that old issues
     and divisions should be laid aside; that new ideas and new measures
     required attention; and they were particularly emphatic and earnest
     in declaring that the enormous burdens of debt and taxation under
     which the people were struggling made retrenchment and economy the
     supreme duty of the hour.

     These were their promises, and the manner in which they were kept
     is now before the people for their judgment. Disregarding the
     well-known and solemnly-expressed will of Ohio, they began the
     business of their first session by passing fruitless resolutions to
     rescind the ratification of the 14th amendment to the constitution
     of the United States.

     They placed on the statute book visible admixture bills, to deprive
     citizens of the right of suffrage--a constitutional right long
     enjoyed and perfectly well settled by repeated decisions of the
     highest court having jurisdiction of the question.

     They repealed the law allowing, after the usual residence, the
     disabled veterans of the Union army to vote in the township in
     which the National Soldiers' Home is situated; and enacted a law
     designed to deprive of the right of suffrage a large number of
     young men engaged in acquiring an education at "any school,
     seminary, academy, college, university, or other institution of
     learning." To prevent citizens who were deprived of their
     constitutional rights by these acts from obtaining prompt relief in
     the Supreme Court, they passed a law prohibiting that court from
     taking up causes on its docket according to its own judgment of
     what was demanded by public justice, in any case "except where the
     person seeking relief had been convicted of murder in the first
     degree, or of a crime the punishment of which was confinement in
     the penitentiary."

     I believe it is the general judgment of the people of Ohio that the
     passage of these measures, unconstitutional as some of them are,
     and unjust as they all are, was mainly due to the fact that the
     classes of citizens disfranchised by them do not commonly vote with
     the Democratic party. The Republican party condemns all such
     legislation, and demands its repeal.

     On the important subject of suffrage, General Grant, in his
     inaugural message, expresses the convictions of the Republican
     party. He says: "The question of suffrage is one which is likely
     to agitate the public so long as a portion of the citizens of the
     Nation are excluded from its privileges in any State. It seems to
     me very desirable that this question should be settled now, and I
     entertain the hope and express the desire that it may be by the
     ratification of the fifteenth amendment to the constitution."

     During the canvass which resulted in the election of the late
     Democratic legislature the Republicans were charged with having
     used $800,000, raised for the relief of soldiers' families, to pay
     the State debt, and this charge was insisted upon, notwithstanding
     a majority of the Democratic members had supported the measure. The
     idea was everywhere held out that if the Democratic party were
     successful this money would be restored to the relief fund and
     expended for the benefit of the soldiers. The failure to redeem
     this pledge is aggravated by the fact that the legislature, by a
     strictly party vote in the Senate, refused to provide for the
     support of soldiers' destitute orphans at homes to be established
     without expense to the State by the voluntary contributions of
     patriotic and charitable people.

     But of all the pledges upon which the Democratic party obtained
     power in the last legislature, the most important, and those in
     regard to which the just expectations of the people have been most
     signally disappointed, are their pledges in relation to financial
     affairs--to expenditure, to debt, and to taxation. Upon this
     subject the people are compelled to feel a very deep interest. The
     flush times of the war have been followed by a financial reaction,
     and for the last three or four years the country has been on the
     verge of a financial crisis. The burdens of taxation bear heavily
     upon labor and upon capital. The Democratic party, profuse alike of
     accusations against their adversaries, and of promises of
     retrenchment and reform, were clothed with power to deal with the
     heaviest part of these burdens, viz: with the expenditures, debts,
     assessments, and taxes which are authorized by State legislation.
     The results of their two years of power are now before the people.
     They are contained in the 65th and 66th volumes of the Laws of
     Ohio. Let any Republican diligently study these volumes, and he
     will fully comprehend the meaning of Job when he said, "Oh, that
     mine adversary had written a book." No intelligent man can read
     carefully these volumes, and note the number and character of the
     laws increasing the expenses and liabilities of the State and
     authorizing additional debts and additional taxation for city and
     village, for county and township purposes, without having the
     conviction forced upon him that the gentlemen who enacted these
     laws hold to the opinion that the way to increase wealth is to
     increase taxation, and that public debts are public blessings.

     When the late Democratic Legislature assembled they found the
     revenue raised yearly in Ohio by taxation to pay the interest on
     the State and local debts and for State and local expenditures was
     $20,253,615.34. This is at the rate of almost forty dollars for
     every vote cast in the State at the last election, and exceeds
     seven dollars for each inhabitant of the State. Of this large sum
     collected annually by direct taxation less than one-fifth or
     $3,981,099.79 was for State purposes, and more than four-fifths or
     $16,272,515.34 was for local purposes. The increase of taxation for
     State purposes during the last few years has been small, but many
     items of taxation for local purposes are increasing rapidly. The
     taxation, for example, in the thirty-three cities of the State has
     increased until, according to the report of the auditor of State,
     "in several the rates of levy exceed three per cent, and the
     average rate in all is but little short of three per cent." In this
     condition of the financial affairs of the State, and in the
     embarrassed and depressed condition of the business of the country,
     the duty of the legislature was plain. They were to see that no
     unnecessary additional burdens were imposed upon the people--that
     all wholesome restraints and limitations upon the power of local
     authorities to incur debts and levy taxes should be preserved and
     enforced, and especially that no increase of liabilities should be
     authorized except in cases of pressing necessity.

     Now consider the facts. These gentlemen professed to be
     scrupulously strict in their observance of the requirements of the
     constitution. Yet under provisions which contemplate one
     legislative session in two years they held two sessions in the same
     year, and three sessions in their term of two years. They were in
     session two hundred and sixty days--longer than was ever before
     known in Ohio, and at an expense of $250,624.10--more than double
     that of their Republican predecessors.

     They created between thirty and forty new offices at a cost to the
     people for salaries, fees, and expenses of at least $75,000 per
     annum. They added to the State liabilities for various purposes
     about $1,500,000. In order to avoid an increase of taxes levied for
     State purposes they diminished the sum levied to pay the State
     debt, and increased the levy for other State purposes almost
     $600,000.

     The acts of the last legislature in relation to local debts and
     local taxes are of the most extraordinary character. These acts
     relate to raising money for county purposes, for township purposes,
     for city and village purposes, and for special purposes. These
     taxes or debts are levied or incurred under the direction of county
     commissioners, township trustees, or of city or village councils,
     who derive their authority exclusively from State legislation. The
     State legislature has therefore the control of the whole matter.
     Now, the general statement which I wish to make, and which I
     believe is sustained by the facts, is, that the late Democratic
     legislature authorized greater local pecuniary burdens to be
     imposed upon the people of Ohio, without their consent, than were
     ever before authorized by any General Assembly, either in peace or
     war, since the organization of our State government.

     Sixty or seventy different acts were passed authorizing debts to be
     contracted, amounting in the aggregate to more than $25,000,000. A
     large part of them bear eight per cent interest, and a very small
     part bear less than seven and three-tenths per cent interest. And
     they passed seventy or eighty acts by which additional taxes were
     authorized to the amount of over $10,000,000.

     Now it is to be hoped, as to a considerable part of the local debts
     and local taxes authorized by the late Democratic legislature, that
     the people will not be burdened with them. It is to be hoped that
     county commissioners, city councils, and other local boards, will
     show greater moderation and economy in the exercise of their
     dangerous and oppressive powers under the laws than was exhibited
     in their enactment. But in any event, nothing is more certain than
     that the people of Ohio have great reason to apprehend that the
     evil consequences of these laws will be felt in their swollen tax
     bills for many years.

     It is probable that many of the acts to which I have alluded,
     creating additional offices, incurring State liabilities, and
     authorizing local debts and taxes were required by sound policy.
     But a candid investigation will show that the larger part of these
     enormous burdens of expenditure, debt, and taxation could and ought
     to have been avoided.

     The last legislature afforded examples of many of the worst evils
     to which legislative bodies are liable--long sessions, excessive
     legislation, unnecessary expenditures, and recklessness in
     authorizing local debts and local taxes. These evils "have
     increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished." Let there
     be reform as to all of them. Especially let the people of all
     parties insist that the parent evil--long legislative
     sessions--shall be reformed altogether. Let the bad precedent of
     long sessions, set by the last legislature, be condemned, and the
     practice of short sessions established. With the average rate of
     taxation in the cities and large towns of the State--nearly three
     per cent.--legitimate business and industry can not continue to
     thrive, if the rate of taxation continues to increase. With the
     rates of interest for public debts ranging from seven and
     three-tenths per cent to eight per cent, the reckless increase of
     such debts must stop, or will seriously affect the prosperity of
     the State. These are subjects which deserve, and which, I trust,
     will receive, the profound attention of the people in the pending
     canvass.

     It is said that one of the ablest Democratic members of the last
     legislature declared at its close that "enough had been done to
     keep the Democratic party out of power in Ohio for twenty years."
     Let the Republican press and the Republican speakers see to it that
     the history of the acts of that body be spread fully before the
     people, and I entertain no doubt that the declaration will be
     substantially made good.

     It is probable that the discussions of the present canvass will
     turn more upon State legislation and less upon National affairs
     than those of any year since 1861. Neither senators nor
     representatives in Congress are to be chosen. But it is an
     important State election, and will be regarded as having a bearing
     on National politics. The Republicans of Ohio heartily approve of
     the principles of General Grant's inaugural message, and are
     gratified by the manner in which he is dealing with the leading
     questions of the first three months of his administration.

     Under President Johnson, Secretary McCulloch hoarded millions of
     gold, to enable him to maintain a wretched rivalry with the gold
     gamblers of New York city. The Nation was defrauded of its just
     dues, and the National debt increased from November 1, 1867, to
     November 1, 1868, $35,625,102.82. General Grant began his financial
     policy by revoking his predecessor's pardons of revenue robbers,
     and by cutting down expenses in all directions; and Secretary
     Boutwell disposes of surplus gold in the purchase of
     interest-bearing bonds to the amount of two millions a week, and in
     his first quarter reduces the National debt more than twenty
     millions of dollars.

     The two Democratic Johnsons, Andrew and Reverdy, furnished their
     ideas of a foreign policy in the Johnson-Clarendon treaty. They
     undertook to settle the American claims against England on account
     of the Alabama outrage by the award of a Commission, one-half of
     whose members were to be chosen by England and the other half by
     the United States; and, in case of a disagreement, an umpire was to
     be chosen by lot. That is to say, a great National controversy,
     involving grave questions of international law, and claims of
     undoubted validity, amounting to millions of money, was to be
     decided by the toss of a copper! The administration of General
     Grant crushed the disgraceful treaty, and proposes to deal with
     England on the principle laid down in General Grant's inaugural.
     The United States will treat all other Nations "as equitable law
     requires individuals to deal with each other;" but, "if others
     depart from this rule in their dealings with us, we may be
     compelled to follow their precedent."

     On the great question of reconstruction, in what a masterly way and
     with what marked success has General Grant's administration begun.
     Congress had fixed its day of adjournment, and all plans for
     reconstructing the three unrepresented States had been postponed
     until next December. At this junction General Grant, on the 7th of
     April last, sent to Congress a special message recommending that
     before its adjournment it take the necessary steps for the
     restoration of the State of Virginia to its proper relations to the
     Union. As the ground of his recommendation he said: "I am led to
     make this recommendation from the confident hope and belief that
     the people of that State are now ready to co-operate with the
     National government in bringing it again into such relations to the
     Union as it ought as soon as possible to establish and maintain,
     and to give to all its people those equal rights under the law
     which were asserted in the declaration of independence, in the
     words of one of the most illustrious of its sons."

     The message of the president was referred, in the House of
     Representatives, to the Committee on Reconstruction. That committee
     the next day reported a bill for the reconstruction of Virginia,
     and also of Mississippi and Texas. The character of the bill
     sufficiently appears by the first two sections relating to
     Virginia:

     "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
     United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the President
     of the United States, at such time as he may deem best for the
     public interest, may submit the constitution which was framed by
     the convention which met in Richmond, Virginia, on Tuesday, the 3d
     day of December, 1867, to the registered voters of said State, for
     ratification or rejection; and may also submit to a separate vote
     such provisions of said constitution as he may deem best.

     "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That at the same election the
     voters of said State may vote for and elect members of the General
     Assembly of said State and all the officers of said State provided
     for by the said constitution, and for members of Congress; and the
     officer commanding the district of Virginia shall cause the lists
     of registered voters of said State to be revised and corrected
     prior to such election, and for that purpose may appoint such
     registrars as he may deem necessary. And said election shall be
     held and returns thereof made in the manner provided by the
     election ordinance adopted by the convention which framed said
     constitution."

     It will be seen that by this bill the people of Virginia were to
     proceed in the work of reconstruction at such time as the president
     might deem best, and that such reconstruction in all its parts was
     to be on the basis of equal political rights. The constitution to
     be submitted was framed by a convention, in the election of which
     colored citizens participated, and of which colored men were
     members. The "registered voters" who are to vote on its
     ratification or rejection, and also for members of the General
     Assembly, for State officers and for members of Congress, include
     the colored men of Virginia; and if the constitution is adopted, it
     secures to them equal political rights in that State. The
     remaining sections of the bill provide for the reconstruction of
     Mississippi and Texas on the same principles, and left the time and
     manner to the discretion of the president.

     This bill was reported to the House of Representatives and
     unanimously agreed upon by a committee, of which four members were
     Democrats. The most distinguished Democratic representatives of the
     States of New York and Pennsylvania advocated its passage. Out of
     about seventy Democratic members of the House, only twenty-five
     voted against it, and the only Democratic members from Ohio who
     voted on the passage of the bill, voted for it.

     It thus appears that upon the recommendation of General Grant even
     the Democratic party of Ohio, by their representatives in Congress,
     voted for equal political rights in Virginia, Mississippi, and
     Texas! And to-day the great body of the people of those States,
     Democrats and Conservatives as well as Republicans, have yielded
     assent to that great principle. In view of these facts I submit
     that I am fully warranted in saying that General Grant has begun
     the work of reconstruction in a masterly way and with marked
     success.

     Again thanking you for the honor you have done me, I repeat, in
     conclusion, what I said two years ago. The people represented in
     this convention mean that the State of Ohio in the great progress,
     "whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men, to lift
     artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of
     laudable pursuits for all, and to afford all an unfettered start
     and a fair chance in the race of life," shall tread no more steps
     backward. I shall enter upon my part of the labors of the canvass
     believing that the Union Republican party is battling for the
     right, and with undoubting confidence that the goodness of the
     cause will supply the weakness of its advocates, and command in the
     result that triumphant success which it deserves.

_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Zanesville, Ohio,
Thursday, August 24, 1871._

     The change of principles which a majority of the late Democratic
     State Convention at Columbus decided to make, commonly called the
     new departure, lends to the pending political contest in Ohio its
     chief interest. Indeed, there is no other salient feature in the
     Democratic platform. Resolutions in the usual form were adopted on
     several other political topics; but the main discussion, and the
     absorbing interest of the convention, was on the question of
     accepting as a finality the series of Republican measures which is
     generally regarded as the natural and legitimate result of the
     overthrow of the rebellion, and which is embodied in the last three
     amendments to the constitution.

     Certain influential Democratic leaders in Ohio had become satisfied
     by the repeated defeats of their party that no considerable number
     of Republicans would ever aid the Democratic party to obtain power
     until it fully and explicitly accepted in good faith, as a final
     settlement of the questions involved, the leading Republican
     measures resulting from the war. They were convinced that
     Republicans generally regarded these measures of such vital
     importance that, until they were irrevocably established, other and
     minor questions would not be allowed to divide that great body of
     patriotic people who rallied together in support of the government
     during its struggle for existence. The important principles which
     Republicans claim should be accepted as settled are:

     1. That the National power is the Supreme power of the land, and
     that the doctrine that the States are in any proper sense
     sovereign, including as it does the right of nullification and
     secession, is no longer to be maintained.

     2. That all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
     subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens thereof, and entitled
     to equal rights, civil and political, without regard to race,
     color, or condition.

     3. That the public debt resulting from the war is of binding
     obligation, and must be fully and honestly paid.

     Mr. Vallandigham, with that boldness and energy for which he was
     distinguished, undertook the task of forcing his party to take the
     position required to make success possible in Ohio. In this work,
     he was encouraged, and probably aided, by the counsel and advice of
     that other eminent Democratic leader, Chief Justice Chase. The
     first authentic announcement of the new movement in Ohio was made
     by the Montgomery County Democratic Convention, held at Dayton, on
     the 18th day of May last. The speech and resolutions of Mr.
     Vallandigham in that body contained much sound Republicanism. He
     still clung to a general assertion of the State rights heresy, but
     accepted the last three constitutional amendments "as a settlement,
     in fact, of all the issues of the war," and "pledged" the
     Democratic party to the faithful and absolute enforcement of the
     constitution as it now is, "so as to secure equal rights to all
     persons, without distinction of race, color, or condition." On the
     subject of the National debt, and of currency, he was equally
     explicit. He declared "in favor of the payment of the public debt
     at the earliest practicable moment consistent with moderate
     taxation; that specie is the basis of all sound currency; and that
     true policy requires a speedy return to that basis as soon as
     practicable without distress to the debtor class of people."

     Surely, here was a long stride away from the Democracy of the last
     ten years, and toward wholesome Republican ideas. If a Democratic
     victory could be gained by adopting Republican principles, the
     framer of the Dayton platform was not lacking in political
     sagacity. Unfortunately for the success of the scheme, no Ohio
     Democrat of conspicuous position, except Mr. Chase, is known to
     have approved Mr. Vallandigham's resolutions as a whole. The chief
     justice wrote to Mr. Vallandigham the well-known letter of May 20,
     in which he warmly congratulated him on the movement which was to
     return "the Democratic party to its ancient platform of progress
     and reform."

     This was perfectly consistent with the previous opinions and public
     conduct of Mr. Chase. He had supported the three amendments to the
     constitution, and notwithstanding the censure of his Democratic
     associates, he had been signally active and influential in
     procuring the ratification by Ohio of the fifteenth amendment. In
     addition to this, he was probably the only prominent Western
     Democrat who was for the payment of the public debt in coin, and
     in favor of a speedy return to specie payments.

     When the convention assembled, on the first of June, neither the
     talents and energy of Mr. Vallandigham nor the great name and
     authority of the chief justice were sufficient to carry through, in
     all its parts, the Dayton programme. The financial resolutions were
     stricken out and the oft-defeated greenback theory, slightly
     modified, was inserted in its place. Other important paragraphs of
     Mr. Vallandigham were also omitted, in which "secession, slavery,
     inequality before the law, and political inequality" were described
     as "belonging to the dead past" and "buried out of sight." This
     left as the new departure two resolutions, which were adopted only
     after strong opposition.

     "1. _Resolved, by the Democracy of Ohio_, That denouncing the
     extraordinary means by which they were brought about, we recognize
     as accomplished facts the three several amendments to the
     constitution, recently adopted, and regard the same as no longer
     political issues before the country.

     "2.... The Democratic party pledges itself to the full, faithful,
     and absolute enforcement of the constitution as it now is, so as to
     secure equal rights to all persons under it, without distinction of
     race, color, or condition."

     The Democratic managers claim that by this movement they have taken
     such a position that, at least equally with the Republicans, they
     are entitled to the confidence and support of the early and earnest
     friends of the principles of the three recent constitutional
     amendments. They claim at the same time, in the same breath, that
     they are entitled also to the confidence of the Democratic people
     whom they have hitherto taught that the amendments were ratified by
     force and fraud; that they are revolutionary and void, and that
     they are a dangerous departure from the principles of the fathers
     of the republic, and destructive of all good government.

     Now, the important question presented is, whether it is safe and
     wise to trust these amendments for interpretation, construction,
     and execution to the party which, from first to last, has fiercely
     opposed them. The safe rule is, if you want a law fairly and
     faithfully administered, entrust power only to its friends. It will
     rarely have a fair trial at the hands of its enemies. These
     amendments are no exception to this rule.

     What the country most needs, and what good citizens most desire in
     regard to these great measures is peace--repose. They wish to be
     able to rest confidently in the belief that they are to be enforced
     and obeyed. They do not want them overthrown by revolutionary
     violence or defeated by fraud. They do not wish them repealed by
     constitutional amendments, abrogated by judicial construction,
     nullified by unfriendly legislation, State or National, or left a
     dead letter by non-action on the part of law-makers or executive
     officers. Has the time come when the country can afford to trust
     the Democratic party on these questions? Consider the facts.

     The new departure is by no means generally accepted by the
     Democratic party, and where accepted the conversion is sudden and
     recent, and against the protest of a large element of sincere and
     inflexible Democrats.

     The only State touching the borders of Ohio which has been reliably
     Democratic for the last five years is Kentucky. She sends to
     Congress an undivided Democratic delegation of two senators and
     nine representatives. At the late election, notwithstanding the
     heroic efforts of her Republicans under the splendid leadership of
     General Harlan, the Democratic organs are able to rejoice that they
     still hold the State by from thirty to forty thousand majority.
     Where did the Democrats of Kentucky, in their canvass, stand on the
     new departure? They marched in the old Democratic path. They turned
     no back somersault to catch Republican votes. On the very day that
     the Ohio Democracy were wrangling in convention over the bitter
     dose, Governor Leslie, addressing the Democracy of Lewis county,
     said: "As to the new amendments, I am out and out opposed to them.
     I care not who in Indiana, Ohio, or elsewhere may be for them.
     Those amendments were engrafted upon the constitution of the
     country, and proclaimed to the country as part and parcel of the
     constitution by force and by fraud, and not in the legitimate way
     laid down in the constitution. Ten States of this Union were tied
     hand and foot, and bayonets were presented to their breasts to make
     them consent against their will to the passage of these amendments.
     The procuring of these amendments was a fraud upon this people, and
     upon the people of the whole United States, and having been thus
     obtained, I hold that they ought to be repealed. There may be some
     Democrats who are not for their repeal, but the great body of our
     party is for it."

     The Democratic candidate for lieutenant-governor, Mr. Carlisle, was
     equally decided. Said he: "In the first place, I do not think that
     the resolution passed by the Ohio Democracy, declaring that these
     constitutional amendments are no longer political issues before the
     country, will have the effect which they appear to have supposed it
     would.

     "Instead of withdrawing them as subjects of political discussion,
     it will give them far more prominence than they ever had
     heretofore, and they will be confronted with them throughout the
     entire canvass. The only way in which any question can be withdrawn
     from the arena of political discussion is for both parties to
     ignore it altogether.

     "This can not be done as to these amendments, because they present
     real living issues, in which the people feel a very deep interest.
     They are not dead issues, and politicians can not kill them by
     resolutions. The Ohio Democrats seem to recognize this to some
     extent at least, for they have simply attempted to turn the
     discussion away from the validity and merits of the amendments
     themselves to the question of their construction. In this I think
     they have made a grievous mistake."

     In Indiana, the last authoritative Democratic utterance on this
     subject, was the passage, in January last, by the Senate of that
     State, of the following resolution, offered by Mr. Hughes, every
     Democrat supporting it:

     "_Resolved_, That Congress has no lawful power derived from the
     constitution of the United States, nor from any other source
     whatever, to require any State of the Union to ratify an amendment
     proposed to the constitution of the United States as a condition
     precedent to representation in Congress; that all such acts of
     ratification are null and void, and the votes so obtained ought not
     to be counted to affect the rights of the people and the States of
     the whole Union, and that the State of Indiana protests and
     solemnly declares that the so-called fifteenth amendment is not
     this day, nor never has been in law, a part of the constitution of
     the United States."

     It is not necessary to go to neighboring States for Democratic
     authorities, to show how far the new departure is from modern
     Democracy.

     When this question was last debated before the people of Ohio, the
     Democratic position on the principle of the fifteenth amendment,
     and on its constitutional validity, if _declared_ adopted, was thus
     stated:

     Speaking of the principle of the amendment, Judge Thurman said: "I
     tell you it is only the entering wedge that will destroy all
     intelligent suffrage in this country, and turn our country from an
     intelligent white man's government into one of the most corrupt
     mongrel governments in the world."

     On its validity, if declared adopted, General Ward said:
     "Fellow-citizens of Ohio, I boldly assert that the States of this
     Union have always had, both before and since the adoption of the
     constitution of the United States, entire sovereignty over the
     whole subject of suffrage in all its relations and bearings. Ohio
     has that sovereignty now, and it can not be taken from her without
     her consent, even by all the other States combined, except by
     revolutionary usurpation. The right to regulate suffrage as to the
     organization of its own government, and the election of officers
     under it, is an inalienable attribute of sovereignty, which the
     State could not surrender without surrendering its sovereign
     existence as a State. To take from Ohio the power of determining
     who shall exercise the right of suffrage is not an amendment of the
     constitution, but a revolutionary usurpation by the other States,
     in no wise constitutionally binding upon her sovereignty as a
     State."

     These opinions are still largely prevalent in the Democratic party.
     When a new departure was announced at Dayton, the leading organ of
     the party in this State said:

     "There are matters in the Montgomery county resolutions which, it
     is very safe to say, will not receive the approval of the State
     convention, and which should not receive its endorsement. They have
     faults of omission and commission. They evince a desire to sail
     with the wind, and as near the water as possible without getting
     wet. The Democracy everywhere believe that the constitution was
     altered by fraud and force, and do not intend to be mealy-mouthed
     in their expression of the outrage, whatever they may agree upon as
     to how the amendments should be treated in the future, for the sake
     of saving, if possible, what is left of constitutional liberty."

     After the scheme was adopted in convention, the common sentiment
     was well expressed by the editor who said that "the platform was
     made for present use, and is marked with the taint of insincerity."

     The speeches of Colonel McCook and other Democratic gentlemen
     exhibit, when carefully read, clearly enough the character of the
     new departure.

     In accepting his nomination, Colonel McCook said: "Let me speak now
     upon the fifteenth amendment, which confers the right of suffrage
     upon the blacks. It was no legitimate consequence of the war; it
     was no legitimate consequence of secession; but it was passed in
     the exigency of a political party, that they might have control as
     much in Ohio as in those States in the South. I opposed it, as I
     did the fourteenth, from the beginning, and I have no regrets over
     that opposition. But now a word more upon it. If it contained
     nothing but this provision for suffrage there would be but little
     objection in it; but it contains a provision intended to confer
     power upon Congress which is dangerous to the liberties of the
     country, and the dangers can only be avoided by having Democratic
     Congresses in the future, who will trust no power to the executive
     which bears the purse and sword to interfere with our elections."

     When interrogated on this subject at Chardon, he said: "When he
     received the nomination he had said that no black man who had
     received the right to vote under the 15th amendment ever could have
     it taken away. Repealing the 15th amendment would not take it away;
     that amendment is no more sacred, but just as sacred as any other
     part of the constitution; but repealing it could not take away a
     right." He was asked as to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments: "Do
     you regard them as in the same sense and to the same extent parts
     of the constitution as other portions?" He answered: "Yes,
     certainly. Can not men see the difference between opposing the
     adoption of a measure and yielding when it has been adopted, and
     opposition has become useless?" He was asked: "Are these amendments
     never again to become political questions?" "I have no authority or
     power to answer such a question. How can I answer as to all the
     future? How can I tell what the Democracy of New York or any other
     State may do? But how can they become political questions, now that
     they are acquiesced in by almost the entire people of the country?"

     Mr. Hubbard, the chairman of Colonel McCook's first meeting, said:
     "The Democrats did not dispute that this amendment, which was
     adopted by constitutional forms, was valid; but, while accepting
     it, call it a 'new departure.' If you please, we don't surrender
     the right to make such returns to the old constitution as we may
     deem expedient. It is a future question that we are not bound to
     discuss."

     The gentleman who has the second place on the Democratic ticket,
     Mr. Hunt, says: "There is no reasoning, and certainly no
     circumstance, which can give the 13th amendment more binding force
     than either of the other two amendments. If the 13th amendment
     abolished slavery, then the title to vote under the 15th amendment
     is as perfect as the title to liberty. The fact that they have been
     declared a part of the constitution does not preclude any
     legitimate discussion as to their expediency. Proper action will
     never be barred, for the statute of limitation will run with the
     constitution itself. Experience may teach the necessity of a change
     in any provision of the organic law, and any legislation to be
     permanent must conform to the living sentiment of the people."

     These paragraphs furnish no adequate reply to the questions which
     an intelligent and earnest Republican, who believes in the wisdom
     and value of the amendments, would put to these distinguished
     gentlemen, when they ask him for his vote. He would ask: "If the
     Democratic party shall obtain the controlling power in the general
     government, in its several departments, executive, legislative, and
     judicial, and in the State governments, what would it do? Would it
     faithfully execute these amendments, or would it not rather use its
     power to get rid of them--either by constitutional amendment, by
     judicial decision, by unfriendly legislation, or by a failure or
     refusal to legislate?" Before the "new departure" can gain
     Republican votes, its friends must answer satisfactorily these
     questions. The speeches I have quoted fail to furnish such answers.
     Colonel McCook objects to the 15th amendment, because "it contains
     a provision intended to confer power upon Congress which is
     dangerous to the liberties of the country." Now, what is this
     dangerous provision? It reads: "Section 2. The Congress shall have
     power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Each of
     the three recent amendments contains a similar provision. Without
     this provision, they would be inoperative in more than half of the
     late rebel States. The complaints made of these provisions warn us
     that in Democratic hands the legislation required to give force and
     effect to these provisions would be denied.

     But the most significant part of these speeches are the passages
     which refer to the repeal of the amendments. Mr. Hubbard said: "We
     don't surrender the right to make such returns to the old
     constitution as we may deem expedient. It is a future question that
     we are not bound to discuss." Colonel McCook says: "How can I
     answer for all the future? How can I tell what the Democracy of New
     York or any other State may do?" Mr. Hunt says: "The fact that they
     have been declared a part of the constitution does not preclude any
     legitimate discussion as to their expediency. Proper action will
     never be barred." The meaning of all this is that the Democratic
     party will acquiesce in the amendments while it is out of power.
     Whether or not it will try to repeal them when it gets power is a
     question of the future which they are not bound to discuss. Or as
     another distinguished gentleman has it, this question is "beyond
     the range of profitable discussion." In reply to these gentlemen,
     the well-informed Republican citizen when asked to vote for the new
     departure, is very likely to adopt their own phraseology, and to
     say, Whether I shall vote your ticket or not is a question of the
     future which it is not now proper to discuss--"it is beyond the
     range of profitable discussion;" and if he has the Democratic
     veneration for Tammany hall, he will say with Colonel McCook, "How
     can I tell what the Democracy of New York may do?"

     Notwithstanding the decision of the late convention, it is probable
     that the real sentiment of the Democracy of Ohio is truly stated by
     the Butler county Democrat:

     "Our position then, is, that while we regard the so-called
     amendments as gross usurpation and base frauds--not a part of the
     Federal constitution _de facto_ nor _de jure_--and, therefore, acts
     which are void, we will abide by them until a majority of the
     people of the States united shall, at the polls, put men in power
     who shall hold them to be null and of no effect. We adhere
     strictly, on this point, to the second resolution of Hon. L. D.
     Campbell, adopted at the Democratic convention held in this county
     last May; and to refresh the minds of our readers we reproduce it
     here:

     "2. That now, as heretofore, we are opposed to all lawlessness and
     disorder, and for maintaining the supremacy of the constitution and
     laws as the only certain means of public safety, and will abide by
     all their provisions until the same shall be amended, abrogated, or
     repealed by the lawfully constituted authorities."

     The new departure has certainly very little claim to the support of
     Republican citizens. What are its claims on honest Democrats?

     Colonel McCook, to make the new departure palatable to his
     Democratic supporters, tells them that a repeal of the fifteenth
     Amendment would fail of its object. That the right to vote, once
     exercised by the black man, can not be taken away. Is this sound
     either in law or logic? By the fifteenth amendment no State can
     deny the right to vote to any citizens on account of race or color.
     Suppose that amendment was repealed; what would prevent Kentucky
     from denying suffrage to colored citizens? Plainly nothing. And in
     case of such repeal it is probable that in less than ninety days
     thereafter every Democratic State would deny suffrage to colored
     citizens, and the great body of Democratic voters would heartily
     applaud that result. The truth is, no sound argument can be made,
     showing or tending to show that the new departure is consistent
     with the Democratic record. Hitherto Democracy has taught that, as
     a question of law, the amendments were made by force and fraud, and
     are therefore void; that, as a question of principles, this is a
     white man's government, and that to confer suffrage on the colored
     races--on the African or Chinaman--would change the nature of the
     government and speedily destroy it. Now the new departure demands
     that Democrats shall accept the amendments as valid, and shall take
     a pledge "to secure equal rights to all persons, without
     distinction of race, color, or condition." Sincere Democrats will
     find it very difficult to take that pledge, unless they are now
     convinced that their whole political life has been a great mistake.

     When an individual changes his political principles--turns his coat
     merely to catch votes--he is generally thought to be unworthy of
     support, I entertain no doubt that the people of Ohio, at the
     approaching election, will, upon that principle, by a large
     majority, condemn the Democratic party for its bold attempt to
     catch Republican votes by the new departure.

_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Marion, Lawrence County,
Ohio, July 31, 1875._

     _Fellow-citizens of Lawrence County:_

     It is a gratification for which I wish to make my acknowledgments
     to the Republican committee of this county, to have the privilege
     of beginning, in behalf of the Republicans of Ohio, the oral
     discussions of this important political canvass before the people
     of Lawrence county. Although my residence is separated from yours
     by the whole breadth of the State, we are not strangers. We have
     met before on similar occasions, and some of you were my comrades
     in the Union army during a considerable part of the great civil
     conflict which ended ten years ago. Those who had the honor and the
     happiness to serve together during that memorable struggle are not
     likely to forget each other. We shall forever regard those four
     years as the most interesting period of our lives.

     The great majority of the people of Lawrence county, citizens as
     well as soldiers, have also good reason to recall the events and
     scenes of that contest with satisfaction and pride.

     The official records of the State show how well Lawrence county
     performed her part in the war for the Union. From the beginning to
     the end, with the ballot at home and with the musket in the field,
     this county stood among the foremost of all the communities in the
     United States in devotion to the good cause. And since the Nation's
     triumph, Lawrence county, sooner or later, but never too late to
     rejoice in the final and decisive victory, has supported every
     measure required to secure the legitimate results of that triumph.
     You have done your part forever to set at rest the great questions
     of the past. It is settled that the United States constitute a
     Nation, and that their government possesses ample power to maintain
     its authority over every part of its territory against all
     opposers. It is settled that no man under the American flag shall
     be a slave. It is settled that all men born or naturalized in the
     United States and within its jurisdiction shall be citizens
     thereof, and have equal civil and political rights. It is settled
     that the debt contracted to save the Nation is sacred, and shall be
     honestly paid. You may well be congratulated that on all of these
     questions you fought and voted on the right side.

     Fortunately, there is still further cause for congratulation. Our
     adversaries, who were on the wrong side of all of these questions,
     and who opposed us on all of them to the very last, are now
     compelled to be silent in their platform on every one of them. Not
     a single one of their fourteen resolutions raises any question on
     any of these long-contested subjects. It is not strange that they
     are silent. I do not choose on this occasion to recall the
     predictions of evil which they so confidently made when discussing
     the measures to which I have referred. It is enough for my present
     purpose to point to the grand results. When the Republican party,
     with Abraham Lincoln as president, received the government from the
     hands of the Democratic party, fifteen years ago, the Union of the
     fathers was destroyed. A hostile Nation, dedicated to perpetual
     slavery, had been established south of the Potomac, and claimed
     jurisdiction over one-third of the people and territory of the
     Republic. These States were "dissevered, discordant,
     belligerent"--our land was rent with civil feud, and ready to be
     drenched in fraternal blood. Now, behold the change! The Union is
     re-established on firmer foundations than ever before. Brave men in
     the South, who were then in battle array against us, now stand side
     by side with Union soldiers, with no shadow of discord between
     them. Slavery, which was then an impassable gulf between the
     hostile sections, is now gone; and good men of the South unite with
     good men of the North in thanking God that it is forever a thing of
     the past. Then there was no freedom of speech or of the press--no
     friendly mingling together of the people of the two sections of the
     country. Now the people of the South receive and greet as a
     fellow-citizen and a friend the vice-president--a citizen of
     Massachusetts, and an anti-slavery man from his youth; and
     Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina send their distinguished
     sons to celebrate with New England the centennial anniversaries of
     the early battles of the Revolution. The men of the North and the
     men of the South are now everywhere coming together in a spirit of
     harmony and friendship which this generation has not witnessed
     before, and which has not existed, until now, since Jefferson was
     startled by that "fire-ball in the night"--the Missouri
     question--more than fifty years ago.

     In this era of good feeling and reconciliation a few men of morbid
     temperament, blind to what is passing before them, still talk of
     "bayonets" and "tyranny and cruelty to the South" and seek in vain
     to revive the prejudices and passions of the past. But there is
     barely enough of this angry dissent to remind us of the terrible
     scenes through which we have passed, and to fill us with gratitude
     that the house which was divided against itself is divided no
     longer, and that all of its inhabitants now have a fair start and
     an equal chance in the race of life.

     Let us now proceed to the consideration of some of the questions
     which engage the attention of the people of Ohio. The war which the
     Democratic party and its doctrines brought upon the country left a
     large debt, heavy taxation, a depreciated currency, and an
     unhealthy condition of business, which resulted two years ago in a
     financial panic and depression, from which the country is now
     slowly recovering. With this condition of things the Democratic
     party in its recent State convention at Columbus undertook to deal.

     The most important part--in fact the only part of their platform in
     Ohio this year which receives or deserves much attention, is that
     in which is proclaimed a radical departure on the subject of money
     from the teachings of all of the Democratic fathers. This Ohio
     Democratic doctrine inculcates the abandonment of gold and silver
     as a standard of value. Hereafter gold and silver are to be used as
     money only "where respect for the obligation of contracts requires
     payment in coin." The only currency for the people is to be paper
     money, issued directly by the general government, "its volume to be
     made and kept equal to the wants of trade," and with no provision
     whatever for its redemption in coin. The Democratic candidate for
     lieutenant-governor, who opened the canvass for his party, states
     the money issue substantially as I have. General Carey, in his
     Barnesville speech, says:

     "Gold and silver, when used as money, are redeemable in any
     property there is for sale in the Nation; will pay taxes for any
     debt, public or private. This alone gives them their money value.
     If you had a hundred gold eagles, and you could not exchange them
     for the necessaries of life, they would be trash, and you would be
     glad to exchange them for greenbacks or anything else that you
     could use to purchase what you require. With an absolute paper
     money, stamped by the government and made a legal tender for all
     purposes, and its functions as money are as perfect as gold or
     silver can be!"

     This is the financial scheme which the Democratic party asks the
     people of Ohio to approve at the election in October. The
     Republicans accept the issue. Whether considered as a permanent
     policy or as an expedient to mitigate present evils we are opposed
     to it. It is without warrant in the constitution, and it violates
     all sound financial principles.

     The objections to an inflated and irredeemable paper currency are
     so many that I do not attempt to state them all. They are so
     obvious and so familiar that I need not elaborately present or
     argue them. All of the mischief which commonly follows inflated and
     inconvertible paper money may be expected from this plan, and in
     addition it has very dangerous tendencies, which are peculiarly its
     own. An irredeemable and inflated paper currency promotes
     speculation and extravagance, and at the same time discourages
     legitimate business, honest labor, and economy. It dries up the
     true sources of individual and public prosperity. Over-trading and
     fast living always go with it. It stimulates the desire to incur
     debt; it causes high rates of interest; it increases importations
     from abroad; it has no fixed value; it is liable to frequent and
     great fluctuations, thereby rendering every pecuniary engagement
     precarious and disturbing all existing contracts and expectations;
     it is the parent of panics. Every period of inflation is followed
     by a loss of confidence, a shrinkage of values, depression of
     business, panics, lack of employment, and widespread disaster and
     distress. The heaviest part of the calamity falls on those least
     able to bear it. The wholesale dealer, the middle-man, and the
     retailer always endeavor to cover the risks of the fickle standard
     of value by raising their prices. But the men of small means and
     the laborer are thrown out of employment, and want and suffering
     are liable soon to follow.

     When government enters upon the experiment of issuing irredeemable
     paper money there can be no fixed limit to its volume. The amount
     will depend on the interest of leading politicians, on their whims,
     and on the excitement of the hour. It affords such facility for
     contracting debt that extravagant and corrupt government
     expenditure are the sure result. Under the name of public
     improvements, the wildest enterprises, contrived for private gain,
     are undertaken. Indefinite expansion becomes the rule, and in the
     end bankruptcy, ruin, and repudiation.

     During the last few years a great deal has been said about the
     centralizing tendency of recent events in our history. The
     increasing power of the government at Washington has been a
     favorite theme for Democratic declamation. But where, since the
     foundation of the government, has a proposition been seriously
     entertained which would confer such monstrous and dangerous powers
     on the general government as this inflation scheme of the Ohio
     Democracy? During the war for the Union, solely on the ground of
     necessity, the government issued the legal tender, or greenback
     currency. But they accompanied it with a solemn pledge in the
     following words of the act of June 30, 1864:

     "Nor shall the total amount of United States notes issued or to be
     issued ever exceed four hundred millions, and such additional sum,
     not exceeding fifty millions, as may be temporarily required for
     redemption of temporary loans."

     But the Ohio inflationists, in a time of peace, on grounds of mere
     expediency, propose an inconvertible paper currency, with its
     volume limited only by the discretion or caprice of its issuers, or
     their judgment as to the wants of trade. The most distinguished
     gentleman whose name is associated with the subject once said "the
     process must be conducted with skill and caution, ... by men whose
     position will enable them to guard against any evil," and using a
     favorite illustration he said, "The secretary of the treasury ought
     to be able to judge. His hand is upon the pulse of the country. He
     can feel all the throbbings of the blood in the arteries. He can
     tell when the blood flows too fast and strong, and when the
     expansion should cease." This brings us face to face with the
     fundamental error of this dangerous policy. The trouble is the
     pulse of the patient will not so often decide the question as the
     interest of the doctor. No man, no government, no Congress is wise
     enough and pure enough to be trusted with this tremendous power
     over the business, and property, and labor of the country. That
     which concerns so intimately all business should be decided, if
     possible, on business principles, and not be left to depend on the
     exigencies of politics, the interests of party, or the ambition of
     public men. It will not do for property, for business, or for labor
     to be at the mercy of a few political leaders at Washington, either
     in or out of Congress. The best way to prevent it is to apply to
     paper money the old test sanctioned by the experience of all
     Nations--let it be convertible into coin. If it can respond to this
     test, it will, as nearly as possible, be sound, safe, and stable.

     The Republicans of Ohio are in favor of no sudden or harsh
     measures. They do not propose to force resumption by a contraction
     of the currency. They see that the ship is headed in the right
     direction, and they do not wish to lose what has already been
     gained. They are satisfied to leave to the influences of time and
     the inherent energy and resources of the country the work that yet
     remains to be done to place our currency at par. We believe that
     what our country now needs to revive business and to give
     employment to labor, is a restoration of confidence. We need
     confidence in the stability and soundness of the financial policy
     of the government. That confidence has for many months past been
     slowly but steadily increasing. The Columbus Democratic platform
     comes in as a disturbing element, and gives a severe shock to
     reviving confidence. The country believed, and rejoiced to believe,
     that Senator Thurman expressed the sober judgment of Ohio, when he
     spoke last year in the Senate on this subject. The senator said,
     March 24, 1874:

     "Never have I spoken in favor of that inflation of the currency,
     which, I think I see full well, means that there shall never be any
     resumption at all. That is the difference. It is one thing to
     contract the currency, with a view to the resumption of specie
     payment; it is another thing neither to contract nor enlarge it,
     but let resumption, come naturally and as soon as the business and
     production of the country will bring it about. But it is a very
     different thing indeed to inflate the currency with a view never in
     all time to redeem it at all. And that is precisely what this
     inflation means. It means demonetizing gold and silver in
     perpetuity, and substituting a currency of irredeemable paper,
     based wholly and entirely upon government credit, and depending
     upon the opinion and the interests of the members of Congress and
     their hopes of popularity, whether the volume of it shall be large
     or small. That is what this inflation means. Sir, I have never said
     anything in favor of that. I am too old-fashioned a Democrat for
     that. I can not give up the convictions of a life-time, whether
     they be popular or unpopular."

     April 6th, when the Senate inflation bill was debated, he said:

     "It simply means that no man of my age shall ever again see in this
     country that kind of currency which the framers of the constitution
     intended should be the currency of the Union; which every sound
     writer on political economy the world over says is the only
     currency that defrauds no man. It means that so long as I live, and
     possibly long after I shall be laid in the grave, this people shall
     have nothing but an irredeemable currency with which to transact
     their business--that currency which has been well described as the
     most effective invention that ever the wit of man devised to
     fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow.
     I will have nothing to do with it."

     How great the shock which was given to returning confidence by the
     Democratic action at Columbus abundantly appears by the manner in
     which the platform is received by the Liberal and the English and
     the German Democratic press throughout the United States. The
     Liberal press and the German press, so far as I have observed, in
     the strongest terms condemn the platform. They speak of it as
     disturbing confidence, shaking credit, and threatening repudiation.
     A large part of the Democratic press of other States is hardly less
     emphatic. It would be strange, indeed, if this were otherwise. In
     Ohio, less than two years ago, the convention which nominated
     Governor Allen resolved, speaking of the Democratic party, that "it
     recognizes the evils of an irredeemable paper currency, but
     insists that in the return to specie payment care should be taken
     not to seriously disturb the business of the country or unjustly
     injure the debtor class." There was no inflation then. Now come the
     soft-money leaders of the Democratic party, and try to persuade the
     people that the promises of the United States should only be
     redeemed by other promises, and that it is sound policy to increase
     them.

     The credit of the Nation depends on its ability and disposition to
     keep its promises. If it fails to keep them, and suffers them to
     depreciate, its credit is tainted, and it must pay high rates of
     interest on all of its loans. For many years we must be a borrower
     in the markets of the world. The interest-bearing debt is over
     seventeen hundred millions of dollars. If we could borrow money at
     the same rate with some of the great Nations of Europe, we could
     save perhaps two per cent per annum on this sum. Thirty or forty
     millions a year we are paying on account of tainted credit. The
     more promises to pay an individual issues, without redeeming them,
     the worse becomes his credit. It is the same with Nations. The
     legal tender note for five dollars is the promise of the United
     States to pay that sum in the money of the world, in coin. No time
     is fixed for its payment. It is therefore payable on
     presentation--on demand. It is not paid; it is past due; and it is
     depreciated to the extent of twelve per cent. The country
     recognizes the necessities of the situation, and waits, and is
     willing to wait, until the productive business of the country
     enables the government to redeem. But the Columbus financiers are
     not satisfied. They demand the issue of more promises. This is
     inflation. No man can doubt the result. The credit of the Nation
     will inevitably suffer. There will be further depreciation. A
     depreciation of ten per cent diminishes the value of the present
     paper currency from fifty to one hundred millions of dollars. Its
     effect on business would be disastrous in the extreme. The present
     legal tenders have a certain steadiness, because there is a limit
     fixed to their amount. Public opinion confides in that limit. But
     let that limit be broken down, and all is uncertainty. The authors
     of this scheme believe inflation is a good thing. When this subject
     was under discussion, a few years ago, the Cincinnati _Enquirer_
     said "the issue of two millions dollars of currency would only put
     it in the power of each voter to secure $400 for himself and
     family to spend in the course of a life-time. Is there any voter
     thinks that is too much--more than he will want?" This shows what
     the platform means. It means inflation without limit; and inflation
     is the downward path to repudiation. It means ruin to the Nation's