The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Life, Public Services and Select
Speeches of Rutherford B. Hayes, by James Quay Howard

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: The Life, Public Services and Select Speeches of Rutherford B. Hayes

Author: James Quay Howard

Release Date: July 10, 2007 [EBook #22037]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIFE OF RUTHERFORD HAYES ***




Produced by Bryan Ness, Marcia Brooks, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced
from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Print
project.)









[Illustration: RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.]

THE LIFE

PUBLIC SERVICES AND SELECT SPEECHES

OF

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES

BY

J. Q. HOWARD

CINCINNATI
ROBERT CLARKE & CO

1876




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, by
ROBERT CLARKE & CO.

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.

Stereotyped by OGDEN, CAMPBELL & CO., Cincinnati.




CONTENTS.


CHAPTER I.

ANCESTRY.

 Line of Descent--Family Tradition--Indian Fighters--Grandfather
 Rutherford--Chloe Smith Hayes--Father and
 Mother--Characteristics--Tribute to a Sister--General Character
 of Ancestors                                                        9


CHAPTER II.

BOYHOOD AND EDUCATION.

 Birthplace--University--Springs--Kossuth's Allusion--Early
 Instructors--Sent East--College Life--Began the Study of Law--At
 Harvard Law School--Story, Greenleaf, Webster, Agassiz, and
 Longfellow--Admission to Bar                                       15


CHAPTER III.

AT THE BAR.

 Commences Practice--First Case--Partnership with Ralph P.
 Buckland--Settles in Cincinnati--Becoming Known--Literary
 Club--Nancy Farrer Case--Summons Case--Marriage--Law
 Partners--City Solicitor                                           22


CHAPTER IV.

IN THE FIELD.

 Appointed Major--Judge Advocate--Lieutenant-Colonel--South
 Mountain--Wounded--Fighting while Down--After Morgan--Battle of
 Cloyd Mountain--Charge up the Mountain--Enemy's Works Carried by
 Storm--First Battle of Winchester--Berryville                      31


CHAPTER V.

FROM MAJOR TO MAJOR-GENERAL.

 Opequan--Morass--First Over--Intrepidity--Official
 Reports--Assault on Fisher's Hill--Battle of Cedar
 Creek--Commands a Division--Promoted on Field--His Wounds--A
 Hundred Days under Fire                                            43


CHAPTER VI.

IN CONGRESS.

 Nomination--Refuses to Leave Army--Election
 Incident--Election--Course in Congress--Services on Library
 Committee--Votes on Various Questions--Submits Plan of
 Constitutional Amendments--Re-nominated by
 Acclamation--Re-elected by Increased Majority--Overwhelmed with
 Soldiers' Letters--Character as Congressman                        51


CHAPTER VII.

ELECTED GOVERNOR OF OHIO.

 Party of States Rights--Their Convention--Platform--Nomination of
 Thurman--Republican Convention and Platform--Nomination of
 General Hayes--Opening Speech at Lebanon--Thurman at
 Waverly--National Interest Aroused--Hayes
 Victorious--Inaugural--First Annual Message--Second Annual
 Message                                                            62


CHAPTER VIII.

SECOND ELECTION AS GOVERNOR.

 Re-nomination--Democratic Platform--Nomination of
 Rosecrans--Declines--Pendleton Nominated--Hayes at
 Wilmington--Election--Second Inaugural--Civil Service
 Reform--Short Addresses--Letters--Annual Message--Democratic
 Estimate of It--Davidson Fountain Address--Message of 1872--Work
 Accomplished                                                       90


CHAPTER IX.

THIRD TIME ELECTED GOVERNOR.

 The Senatorship Declined--Army Banquet Speech--Third Time
 Nominated for Congress--Glendale Speech--Declines a Federal
 Office--Making a Home--Nomination for
 Governor--Platform--Serenade Speech--Democratic Convention and
 Platform--Marion Speech of
 Hayes--Woodford--Grosvenor--Schurz--Inflation Drivel--Interest
 in the Contest--Honest Money Triumphant--Third Inaugural          124


CHAPTER X.

NOMINATION TO THE PRESIDENCY.

 Early Suggestions--Letters on Subject--Garfield Letter--Action of
 State Convention--Cincinnati Convention--Course of his Friends--
 First and Second Day's Events--Speech of Noyes--Balloting--
 Nominated on Seventh Ballot--Officially Notified--Habits--Personal
 Appearance--Family--Letter of Acceptance--Character as a Soldier,
 Magistrate, and Man--Domestic Surroundings                        143


APPENDIX.

  I. Speech at Lebanon, Ohio, August 5, 1867                       167

 II. Speech at Sidney, Ohio, September 4, 1867                     202

III. Speech on his Re-nomination, June 23, 1869                    222

 IV. Speech at Zanesville, Ohio, August 24, 1871                   231

  V. Speech at Marion, Ohio, July 31, 1875                         241

 VI. Speech at Fremont, June 25, 1876.                             256




LIFE

OF

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES.




CHAPTER I.

ANCESTRY.

     _Line of Descent--Family Tradition--Indian Fighters--Grandfather
     Rutherford--Chloe Smith Hayes--Father and Mother--Characteristics--
     Tributes to a Sister--General Character of Ancestors._


George Hayes, of Scotland, came to America by the way of England, and
settled at Windsor, in the Colony of Connecticut, in 1682. He married,
in 1683, Abigail Dibble, who was born on Long Island in 1666. From these
ancestors the direct line of descent to the Republican candidate for
President of the United States is the following:

George Hayes,       Abigail Dibble.
Daniel Hayes,       Sarah Lee.
Ezekiel Hayes,      Rebecca Russell.
Rutherford Hayes,   Chloe Smith.
Rutherford Hayes,   Sophia Birchard.

The earlier family traditions connect the name and descent of George
Hayes with the fighting plowman mentioned in Scottish history, who at
Loncarty, in Perthshire, turned back the invaders of his country, in a
narrow pass, with the sole aid of his own valorous sons.

"Pull your plow and harrow to pieces, and fight," said the sturdy
Scotchman to his sons. They fought, father and sons together, and won. A
like command seems to have come down the centuries to an American-born
son--"Tear your briefs and petitions to pieces, and fight." He also
fought, and, though sorely wounded, won. Shall the crown of valor be
withheld by a free people that was once bestowed by a Scottish king?

Daniel Hayes, the third of the ten children of George Hayes, was born at
Windsor, in 1686. At the age of twenty-three, while fighting in defense
of Simsbury--now Granby--to which town his father's family had removed,
he was captured and carried off by the French and Indians. He was held
as a prisoner in Canada for five years, and being a young man of great
physical strength and vigor, the Indians adopted him as one of their
race. His freedom was finally purchased through the intervention of a
Frenchman, the colonial assembly of Connecticut, sitting at New Haven,
having made an appropriation of public funds in aid of that specific
purpose. An account of the captivity of this early defender of New
England homes is found in Phelps' "History of Simsbury, Granby, and
Canton." The wife of Daniel Hayes was the daughter of John Lee, who was
noted for his bravery in fighting Indians.

Captain Ezekiel Hayes, who gained his title in the military service of
the Colonies, married the great-granddaughter of the Rev. John Russell,
the famous preacher of Wethersfield and Hadley, who concealed the
regicides at Hadley for many years.

Rutherford Hayes, the grandfather of the subject of our biography, was
born at New Haven, Connecticut, July 29, 1756. He married, in 1779, at
West Brattleboro, Vermont--whither he had removed the year before--Chloe
Smith, whose ancestry fill a large space in the "History of Hadley,"
several of whom lost their lives while fighting in defense their own and
neighboring towns. From this fortunate and happy union, which continued
unbroken for fifty-eight years, have sprung a race of accomplished women
and honor-deserving men. One daughter married the Hon. John Noyes, of
New Hampshire, who served in Congress 1817-19, and died in 1841, at
Putney, Vermont. A daughter of this marriage is the mother of Larkin G.
Meade, the sculptor; whose sister is the wife of William D. Howells, the
novelist, and present editor of the _Atlantic Monthly_. Another daughter
of Rutherford and Chloe Smith Hayes married the Hon. Samuel Elliott, of
Vermont, who attained distinction in Congress and as an author.

In a diary still existing, kept by Chloe Smith Hayes when she was eighty
years of age, are found evidences of this good woman's intellectual
cleverness and vigor, and abounding proofs of her fruit-bearing piety
and affectionate tenderness for her offspring and kindred. At this
advanced age she seems a philosophical observer of natural phenomena and
political events--minutely describing eclipses, floods, and storms--and,
while moralizing over the inauguration and death of President Harrison,
giving expression to the shadowy hope that wise and good men would take
the helm of government, and, rebuked by the presence of death, be taught
the lesson of mortality. Rutherford, the grandfather, bore the
commission, dated 1782, of Governor George Clinton as an officer in the
military service of the State of New York.

Rutherford Hayes, the father of Governor R. B. Hayes, was born at West
Brattleboro, Vermont, January 4, 1787. On the 19th day of September,
1813, he was married, at Wilmington, Vermont, to Sophia Birchard,
daughter of Roger Birchard and Drusilla Austin Birchard, of that place.
The Birchards had emigrated from England to Saybrook and Norwich,
Vermont, as early as 1635. They soon became men of note in Norwich and
Lebanon, and many of their descendants have continued to be men of mark
since that time. The family has had representatives in Congress from
Illinois and Wisconsin, and noted members of it in the pulpit in New
York and elsewhere.

Rutherford Hayes was engaged in business as a merchant at Dummerston,
Vermont, until 1817, in which year he removed to Delaware, Ohio, with
his family, consisting at the time of a wife and two children. In
January, 1820, a daughter--Fanny--was born, and in October of the
following year, a daughter, at the age of four, was lost. In July, 1822,
Rutherford Hayes, the father, died of malarial fever; at the age of
thirty-five; and on the 4th of the following October was born Rutherford
Birchard Hayes, the since distinguished son. Three years later, the
widowed mother was called to suffer a most distressing calamity in the
death, by drowning, of Lorenzo, aged ten, a hopeful and helpful son.

The father of Governor Hayes was a quick, bright, accurate, active
business man. He possessed both energy and executive ability. He had the
independence which intelligence gives, and his dry humor served him well
in exposing shams and exploding humbugs. He was rigidly honest, and was,
in the words of one of his neighbors, "as good a citizen as ever lived
in the town of Delaware." He could do a great deal of work, and do it
well. He was a witty, social, popular man, who made warm friends and few
enemies.

The mother of Governor Hayes united force of character with sweetness of
nature. Her self-reliant energy is shown by her making a trip, in the
summer of 1824, to Vermont and back--a distance of sixteen hundred
miles. The journey had to be performed by stage, and consumed two months
in going and returning. She made a second journey to New England when
Rutherford was nine years old. Her amiability of disposition made her
the favorite guest at the homes of her neighbors. The straightened
circumstances of a family deprived of its head required the aid of
industry and economy. She was known, in village parlance, as a "good
manager." Afflictions which would have made perfect a more faulty
character purified her own. She died in Columbus, Ohio, October 30,
1866, at the age of seventy-four. She had been a consistent member of
the Presbyterian Church for fifty years.

Mrs. William A. Platt, the sister of Governor Hayes, who died July 16,
1856, at the age of thirty-six, was a lady whose virtues and good deeds
are enduring memories in Columbus homes. The Hon. Aaron F. Perry, of
Cincinnati, in a public address, made this allusion to her worth: "Mrs.
Platt, in the prime of a happy womanhood, passed beautifully away; not
a white hair on her head, not a wrinkle on her brow, not a cloud upon
her hopes; but in the full maturity of life and love she has gone where
life and happiness are perfected." He whose character it is our duty to
make known reflects this tender light from two lives: "She loved me as
an only sister loves a brother whom she imagines almost perfect, and I
loved her as an only brother loves a sister who is perfect. Let me be
just and truthful, wise and pure and good for her sake. How often I
think of her! I read of the death of any one worthy of love, and she is
in my thoughts. I see--but all things high and holy remind me of her."

The conclusions which we draw from the examination of the records of the
ancestral descent of Rutherford B. Hayes are, that his progenitors have
in each generation displayed courage and capacity to fight limited only
by the strength of the enemy to hold out. It was a habit they had to
fight on the side in the right, and on the side that won. Three of his
immediate ancestors--Elias Birchard, Israel Smith, and Daniel
Austin--gave proofs of valor and patriotism in the War of Independence.
Another characteristic of the Hayes stock is the almost uniform tendency
toward longevity. It is a robust race, presenting an extraordinary
number of large families. The divine injunction to increase and multiply
has been obeyed with religious fidelity. Upon the whole, the stock is
good, and bids fair to become better. As men suffer discredit from
disreputable progenitors, they ought to enjoy credit from reputable
ancestors.




CHAPTER II.

BOYHOOD AND EDUCATION.

     _Birthplace--University--Springs--Kossuth's Allusion--Early
     Instructors--Sent East--College Life--Began the Study of Law--At
     Harvard Law School--Story, Greenleaf, Webster, Agassiz, and
     Longfellow--Admission to the Bar._


The town of Delaware, the county seat of the county of Delaware, is
located near the center of Ohio, twenty-five miles northwest of
Columbus. It is a prosperous place of seven thousand people, the most of
whom live in comfortable-looking, newly-built homes, and has been
hitherto chiefly known for its University and its Springs. The Ohio
Wesleyan University is the most flourishing literary institution of the
great Methodist denomination in the West. The White Sulphur Spring is a
fountain of healing and happiness to the whole region around, and is
regarded with added interest since Kossuth came to drink of its waters,
and, in reply to a welcoming address, eloquently said, that "out of the
Delaware Springs of American sympathy he would fill a cup of health for
his bleeding Hungary."

Three squares from these Springs, near the center of the town, and in a
two-story brick house on William street, Rutherford Birchard Hayes was
born. This has long been Delaware's pride, and will be its fame. The
income of his widowed mother, who was bereft of her husband four mouths
before her son's birth, was derived from the rent of a good farm lying
two miles north of Delaware, on the east side of the Whetstone. This
income, used with frugality, enabled her to commence the education of
her children. They were sent first to the ordinary schools of the town.
The first teacher who enlisted the affections of her since distinguished
pupil was Mrs. Joan Murray, a most worthy woman, whose funeral Governor
Hayes quite recently attended. He began the study of the Latin and Greek
languages with Judge Sherman Finch, a good classical scholar and a good
lawyer, of Delaware, who had been at one time a tutor in Yale College.
Judge Finch heard the recitations of his pupil in his office at
intervals of leisure from the duties of his profession. The pupil taught
his sister each day what his instructor taught him.

Through the agency of his uncle, Sardis Birchard, his guardian, who at
this time took charge of his education, Rutherford was sent to an
academy at Norwalk, Ohio. Here he remained one year under the
instruction of the Rev. Mr. Chapman, a Methodist clergyman of scholarly
attainments. In the fall of 1837, to complete his preparation for
college, he was sent to quite a noted school at Middletown, Connecticut,
kept by Isaac Webb. Mr. Webb, being a graduate of Yale, made a specialty
of preparing students for admission to Yale College. His scholars came
from every part of the United States. In one year, his Ohio pupil's
preparatory course was completed. The character established by him at
this school is made known in the concluding portion of a commendatory
letter addressed by Isaac Webb, his instructor, to Mrs. Sophia Hayes,
which reads:

"The conduct of your son has hitherto done 'honor to his mother,' and
has secured our sincere respect and esteem. I hope and trust that he
will continue to be a great source of happiness to you."

The first prize for proficiency in Latin, Greek, and Arithmetic was
awarded at this academy to "R. B. Hayes."

In the fall of 1838, at the age of sixteen, young Hayes entered Kenyon
College, Ohio, after passing satisfactorily the usual examination for
admission. This institution is situated forty miles north of Columbus,
in the village of Gambier, which is celebrated for the secluded beauty
of its lawns and groves. The College was founded by Bishop Chase, with
funds collected by him in England, the principal donors being Lord
Gambier and Lord Kenyon. The institution was long under the fostering
care of Bishop McIlvaine of blessed memory.

Young Hayes excelled as a debater in the literary societies and in all
the college studies; but his tastes especially ran to logic, mental and
moral philosophy, and mathematics. In the words of a college mate, now a
very distinguished lawyer, he was remarkable in college for "great
common sense in his personal conduct; never uttered a profane word;
behaved always like a considerate, mature man." In the language of
another able member of the legal profession, who followed after him at
Kenyon: "Hayes had left a memory which was a fascination, a glowing
memory; he was popular, magnanimous, manly; was a noble, chivalrous
fellow, of great promise."

On the general points of character, conduct, and scholarship, it is
conclusive to say that, when graduation-day came, Rutherford B. Hayes
was found to have been awarded the valedictory, which was the highest
honor the faculty could bestow upon a member of his class. Although the
youngest in years, he was found the oldest in knowledge. In three
journals published in August, 1842, the month and year of his
graduation, we find exceptionally warm commendations of his valedictory
oration. The Mt. Vernon _Democratic Banner_ said: "All who heard this
oration pronounced it the best, in every point of view, ever delivered
on the hill at Gambier."

In the class with Governor Hayes were Lorin Andrews, afterward President
of the College, who fell in the war for the Union, and the Hon. Guy M.
Bryan, late member of Congress, and present speaker of the Texas House
of Representatives, who, although engaged in the rebellion, has paid a
manly tribute to his College classmate since the presidential
nomination.

In other college classes at the same time were Stanley Matthews, now one
of the ablest lawyers in the United States; Hon. Joseph McCorkle and
Hon. R. E. Trowbridge, afterward members of Congress from California and
Michigan respectively; and Christopher P. Wolcott, who subsequently
filled with high distinction the office of attorney-general of Ohio, and
was also assistant secretary of war.

Kenyon College and its graduates bestowed additional honors upon the
valedictorian of the class of 1842. In 1845, he was invited back by the
faculty to take the second degree, and deliver what is known as the
Master's oration. He was invited also by the alumni to deliver the
annual address before them, both in 1851 and in 1853. All these honors
he modestly declined.

Soon after graduating, Mr. Hayes began the study of the law in the
office of Thomas Sparrow, of Columbus. Mr. Sparrow was a lawyer of high
standing, whose integrity was proverbial. Although a Democrat in
politics, he was regarded by his political adversaries as the purest of
pure men. This worthy instructor certifies to the "great diligence" and
"good moral character" of his student on the latter's departure to
attend a course of law lectures at Harvard. A taste for the legal
profession had been very early developed by young Hayes. The proceedings
of courts had possessed to him in boyhood peculiar interest.

Judge Ebenezer Lane, long a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, an
intimate associate of Sardis Birchard, the patron uncle, had early
turned the thoughts of the guardian of the nephew in the direction of
the law.

Rutherford B. Hayes entered the law school of Harvard University, August
22, 1843, and finished the course of lectures, January 8, 1845. The law
institution was at this time under the charge of Mr. Justice Story,
whose eminence as a jurist is only surpassed by that of his bosom
friend, the great Chief Justice, John Marshall. He enjoyed the
friendship and counsel of Story, and also that of Prof. Simon Greenleaf,
who bears testimony to his diligence, exemplary conduct, and demeanor.
He kept a minute record, still preserved, of all the trials and
proceedings of the moot courts, presided over by Professors Greenleaf
and Story, and pages of authorities are cited where "R. B. Hayes"
appears as counsel for the fictitious plaintiff or defendant. It might
have been safely assumed that a young man of his quick perceptions while
in the atmosphere of Boston would make the most of his opportunities and
advantages. He attended the lectures of Prof. Longfellow on the
literature of foreign languages. He profited by the lecture-room talks
of the great scientist, Agassiz, upon the grand theme of nature.
Watching his opportunities, he heard Webster deliver his model arguments
before juries, and his great political speeches in Faneuil Hall. He
visited John Quincy Adams at his home in Quincy, with a party of his
fellow-students, who, when he learned that some of his visitors were
from Ohio, read to them a part of an address Mr. Adams was about to
deliver on the laying of the corner-stone of the Observatory on Mt.
Adams, near Cincinnati.

He renewed and prosecuted with ardor the study of the French and German
languages, both of which he now translates with ease, and speaks the
former with reasonable fluency.

Leaving with regret the classic shades of Cambridge, and parting from
fellow-students such as George Hoadly, Manning F. Force, and the since
famous orator, J. B. L. Curry, of Alabama, he returned to Ohio an
educated young man. He was fitted for the battle of life which he has
since so courageously fought, so far as America can afford facilities
for procuring a complete, symmetrical education. Impatient to begin the
struggle in his profession, he proceeded to Marietta, where the
ambulatory Supreme Court of Ohio was then sitting, and having passed
before an examining committee, composed of Messrs. Hart, Gardiner, Buel,
and Robinson, was duly admitted to practice in the courts of the State
as attorney and counsellor at law. The certificate of admission, which
is dated March 10, 1845, has so good a name attached to it as that of
Thomas W. Ewart, clerk. The Plymouth of the West had therefore the honor
of welcoming to the bar the rising son of the West.




CHAPTER III.

AT THE BAR.

     _Commences Practice--First Case--Partnership with Ralph P.
     Buckland--Settles in Cincinnati--Becoming Known--Literary
     Club--Nancy Farrer Case--Summons' Case--Marriage--Law
     Partners--City Solicitor._


The young lawyer, R. B. Hayes, full of hopefulness and ambition,
commenced the practice of the law at Lower Sandusky, now Fremont,
Sandusky county, Ohio. This growing town of Northern Ohio was selected
because it was the home of the uncle whose extensive business
connections would naturally throw more or less law business into the
nephew's hands.

His first case was one against a sheriff's sureties, the sheriff having
become insolvent. There were five or six bondsmen, who employed as many
different lawyers, who of course made a fierce fight to protect the
pockets of their clients. The pleadings were difficult under the old
practice, and the slightest technical defect in them would adroitly be
taken advantage of by the defendants' attorneys. But so accurately had
the pleadings been drawn, and so well had the case been worked up by the
young lawyer, that no flaw could be found, and his suit was at all
points successful.

After this success he had a good run of office business, and was
employed both in the defense and prosecution of criminals. In April,
1846, he entered into a law-partnership with Ralph P. Buckland, an
older practitioner in good practice. Mr. Buckland subsequently became a
conspicuous member of the Ohio Senate, and a gallant officer of the rank
of brigadier-general in the war. He became a member also of the
Thirty-ninth Congress.

One of the most important cases tried by Hayes while a member of this
firm was an action to prevent or enjoin the building of a railway bridge
across the Bay of Sandusky, on the ground of its obstructing navigation.
The cause was tried before Judge McLean, in the United States District
Court at Cincinnati. Thomas Ewing, who was one of the opposing counsel
in the case, continued to compliment Hayes during life for this maiden
effort in a United States Court.

In November, 1848, in consequence of bleeding at the lungs and other
alarming admonitions of failing health, Mr. Hayes left Fremont to pass a
winter with his friend, Guy M. Bryan, in Texas. A half year of boating,
fishing, hunting, and scouring the prairies brought about a physical
revolution. He came back as sound as a dollar--that is, a coin
dollar--and has so remained ever since.

In December, 1849, he put in execution a design for some time
contemplated, and on Christmas eve arrived in Cincinnati. He had
consulted professional friends in Cincinnati about seeking the stimulus
of a wider field for permanent occupation, and was doubtless influenced
somewhat by the advice received. One who had been with him at Harvard
wrote: "I have not flattered the face of man or woman for years, but I
think honestly that the R. B. Hayes whom I knew four years ago would be
sure to succeed at this bar, if he can afford to live and wait."
Another professional brother, on terms of intimacy, wrote: "With your
energies, talents, education, and address, you are green--verdant as
grass--to stay in a country village." On the 8th of January, 1850, the
new candidate for public and professional favor took possession of an
office on the south side of Third street, between Main and Sycamore,
opposite the Henrie House. His office companion was John W. Herron, with
whose appearance and manners the new comer seems to have been well
pleased. The first year in Cincinnati brought little professional
business, but no day was passed in idleness. His studies were
systematic, and his reading comprehensive in both law and literature.
Shakespeare, Burke, Webster, and Emerson were his inseparable
companions. He sought to widen the circle of his acquaintances, and add
daily to the number of his friends. Having been a member of the order of
Odd-Fellows and Sons of Temperance in Fremont, he united again with
those organizations in Cincinnati. The addresses he was invited to
deliver at Odd-Fellow's lodges and at many more public places were very
numerous. In this way he made reputation as a public speaker, if not
money. He was not only becoming known, but becoming favorably known.

The widely renowned literary club of Cincinnati, which he joined in
1850, and of which he remained an active member for eleven years,
awakened his social sympathies and ardent interest. To the reading of
essays, and to the discussions on political, social, and moral
questions, he always listened, and in the latter often took part. In
debate, he was strong, eager, clear, and logical. He had an aptitude at
seeing principles and getting at the kernel of questions. Among those
who during these years participated in the social or literary
entertainments of the club-room were Chief Justice Chase, Thomas Corwin,
Thomas Ewing, father and son, General Pope, General Edward F. Noyes,
Stanley Matthews, M. D. Conway, Manning F. Force, W. K. Rogers, John W.
Herron, D. Thew Wright, Isaac Collins, Charles P. James, R. D. Mussey,
and many others of ability and distinction. In January, 1852, the
opportunity for "getting a start" in his professional career came. While
making a sensible, energetic little speech in behalf of a criminal
indicted for grand larceny, named Cunningham, he attracted the attention
and won the commendation of Judge R. B. Warden, then president judge of
the criminal court, who thereupon appointed the modest young attorney
counsel for Nancy Farrer, whose case became the great criminal case of
the term, if not of the times.

Nancy Farrer had poisoned all the members of two families. She had a bad
countenance, a sinister, revolting look. It is not strange that she
should have been considered by the court and jury that tried her, and by
the entire public, a qualified candidate for the gallows. Hayes, in
defending his client, had to contend against the passions, the
indignation of the public, and the predispositions and prejudices of
judge and jury. The judge who tried the case was not the one who
appointed the comparatively unknown attorney as counsel. Hayes saw
instinctively the immense importance of the case, and knew intuitively
that a crisis had come in his career. He set laboriously to work to
establish an impregnable line of defense.

He found on examination of the proofs that the supposed murderess was
totally irresponsible, because of hereditary idiocy and insanity. Her
father had died of drunkenness in a Cincinnati hospital, and her mother
went about under the insane hallucination that she was a prophetess.
Nancy's conduct and conversations while employed in the wholesale
poisoning business showed that she had no moral comprehension of what
she was about. But the plea of insanity had been so often and so
vehemently pressed in defense of prisoners who were sane that it seemed
to be of no avail in defense of one who was not. The cry of insanity,
like that of "wolf," had been so repeatedly raised when there was no
insanity, that it was not heeded when there was. Notwithstanding an
argument which for legal learning and forensic eloquence attracted the
attention of the press and bar, and established the counsel's
reputation, the poor, insane idiot was convicted of murder in the first
degree. Hayes at once obtained a writ of error, which the district court
reserved for decision in the Supreme Court of the State. The case was
argued and determined in that court at the December term, 1858, and
reported in 2 Ohio St. Reports. R. B. Hayes appeared for plaintiff in
error, and George E. Pugh, attorney-general for the State. The earnest
and determined advocate of Nancy Farrer carried his points, obtained a
new trial, and greatly enhanced his professional reputation. The then
official reporter of the Supreme Court of Ohio, who heard this argument,
says: "It was a truly admirable effort, and the peroration was
indescribably pathetic. But on this occasion, as on all others, Mr.
Hayes was singularly modest." Although a new trial was granted, through
the concurring opinions of Justices Corwin, Thurman, and Ranney, Nancy
Farrer was never again tried. She was sent to a lunatic asylum.

Hayes next gained reputation through his connection with the notorious
James Summons murder case. He was employed by the older counsel in the
case to take notes of the testimony and record the rulings of the court.
The trial occupying many days and many differences arising between
counsel with respect to the rulings of the court, it was found that the
accuracy of the notes of the junior attorney was in every instance
confirmed by the court itself. When the time came for the final
arguments to begin, the leading counsel asked each a day for each side.
Judge Thurman, then presiding, on consultation with Judge Piatt,
announced that the court could only give the leading counsel two hours
each, but that they would allow Mr. Hayes one hour additional.
Notwithstanding the court was assured that Mr. Hayes was not strictly
employed in the case, Judges Thurman, Matthews, and Piatt insisted upon
hearing him, and he was accordingly heard. His unpremeditated argument
was clear, convincing, impassioned, and impressive. It was one of the
best speeches of his life. The case went up to the Supreme Court with
the junior as the leading counsel.

We now reach an event in the course of this narrative, which,
controlling as is the influence it has upon all lives, has been
immeasurably potent in its influence upon the life and fortunes of
Governor Hayes.

On the 30th of December, 1852, he was married to Miss Lucy W. Webb, by
Prof. L. D. McCabe, of the Ohio Wesleyan University. The marriage took
place at No. 141 Sixth street, Cincinnati, the bride's home, in the
presence of about forty friends. Lucy Ware Webb was the daughter of Dr.
James Webb and Maria Cook Webb. Dr. Webb was a popular gentleman and
successful practicing physician in Chillicothe, Ohio. In 1833, he died
of cholera in Lexington, Kentucky, where he had gone to complete
arrangements for sending to Liberia slaves set free by himself and his
father. The grandfather of Mrs. Dr. Webb was Lieutenant-Colonel Cook,
who in 1777 was serving in a regiment commanded by Colonel Andrew Ward,
in the army of the Revolution. Both Governor and Mrs. Hayes are,
therefore, descendants of soldiers of the Revolution, most worthily
uniting in their lineage jointly the dawn of the second century with the
dawn of the first. The six years following 1852 were years of full
practice and exacting labors, in which disappointments were few and
successes many. These were years in which solid foundations were laid
for as solid a reputation as it was possible for the men among whom he
moved to build up.

In January, 1854, he formed a law-partnership with R. M. Corwine and W.
K. Rogers, under the firm name of Corwine, Hayes & Rogers. This proved a
partnership of friendship as well as business, being in every way
satisfactory and agreeable. Mr. Rogers is now the close companion of his
old partner in these later and more eventful years. Mr. Corwine died a
resident of Washington City, a year or two since.

In April, 1859, he was, without solicitation, chosen city solicitor by
the city council of Cincinnati, to fill the vacancy caused by the death
of Judge Hart, and on the 9th of that month entered upon the discharge
of his official duties. His chief competitor for this office was Caleb
B. Smith, since a member of Mr. Lincoln's cabinet. The vote in the city
council on the first ballot was: Mr. Smith, 13; Mr. Disney, 12; Mr.
Hayes, 3. On the seventh ballot, Mr. Hayes had 17; Mr. Ware, 12; and Mr.
Disney, 3. On the thirteenth ballot, Mr. Hayes was declared elected,
having received 18 votes to Mr. Ware's 14. His election was due to the
vote of Mr. Toohey, a Democratic councilman of the Thirteenth Ward. The
election of Hayes to his first office was most favorably received.

The Cincinnati _Commercial_, of December 9, 1858, said: "R. B. Hayes,
Esq., one of the most honest and capable young lawyers of the city, was
elected city solicitor last night by the city council to fill the
vacancy occasioned by the death of Judge Hart. It would have been very
difficult to have made any other selection of a solicitor equally
excellent and as generally satisfactory."

The Cincinnati _Enquirer_, of the same date, said: "Mr. Hayes, the city
solicitor elect, is a lawyer of good acquirements and reputation, and is
well qualified for the position."

Charles Reemelin, in a letter to the New York _Evening Post_, wrote: "I
know of no young man in our city of higher promise than Mr. Hayes, and
we hope for him a bright future."

The estimate of the people seemed to correspond with that of the press,
for in the following spring he was elected to the office to which he had
been appointed by a majority of two thousand five hundred and
thirty-six on the popular vote. His Democratic opponent was W. T.
Forrest.

He filled the office of corporation counsel for three years, during
which time, as legal adviser of the municipal government of a great
city, he passed judgment upon questions involving large interests, and
discharged with high fidelity the duties of an important trust. As city
solicitor, the opinion which perhaps aroused the most general attention
and interest, was one delivered in February, 1859, denying the right of
the city council to contract debts for waterworks purposes, without
additional authority from the General Assembly. He was opposed to the
increase of taxation and creation of new debts, on principle. In April,
1861, in common with the entire Republican ticket, he was defeated for
re-election as city solicitor. His vote, however, was larger than that
of any candidate on his ticket. He had suffered a similar defeat in the
fall of 1856, when a candidate for Common Pleas Judge, his party being
in a decided minority in Hamilton county. Had the election of 1861
occurred two weeks later, when the great uprising came with the fall of
Sumter, the Republican war ticket, not the Democratic compromise ticket,
would have carried the day.




CHAPTER IV.

IN THE FIELD.

     _Appointed Major--Judge Advocate--Lieutenant-Colonel--South
     Mountain--Wounded--Fighting while Down--After Morgan--Battle of
     Cloyd Mountain--Charge up the Mountain--Enemy's Works Carried by
     Storm--First Battle of Winchester--Berryville._


That a loyal citizen of the antecedents, ardent patriotism, and
impulsive nature of Rutherford B. Hayes would enter the army in the war
for the Union, was to be looked for as a thing of course. He had been in
the habit of obeying every call of duty, and could not therefore disobey
when duty called loudest. He regarded the war waged for the supremacy of
the constitution and the laws as a just and necessary war, and preferred
to go into it if he knew he "was to die or be killed in the course of
it." He had been a most earnest advocate of the election of Mr. Lincoln
to the Presidency, and had been an anti-slavery man of established
convictions long before the candidacy of Fremont for the Presidency. He
did not think the Union should be destroyed to make slavery perpetual.
He desired to mitigate and finally eradicate that evil. He had prayed
for the election of General Harrison for the sake of the country; he had
cast his first vote for Henry Clay, his second for General Taylor, and
his third for General Scott. But the old Whig party having ceased to be
a living organization, he gave his whole heart to the Republican party
and its cause, and by political speeches, and in other ways, helped
forward the movement in favor of equality of rights and laws. The insult
to the flag at Fort Sumter aroused to the intensest pitch the patriotic
indignation of a united North. At a great mass-meeting held in
Cincinnati, R. B. Hayes was selected to give expression to the loyal
voice, by being made chairman of the public committee on resolutions. It
is not needful to add that these resolutions had all the fire and
intensity of the popular feeling. The knowledge that it was his purpose
to enter the Union army having reached Governor Dennison, that officer
appointed Hayes major of the Twenty-third Ohio Volunteer Infantry, June
7, 1861. With this appointment was coupled the appointments of W. S.
Rosecrans as colonel, and Stanley Matthews as lieutenant-colonel of the
same regiment. Colonel Rosecrans, with the other field-officers, had
just set to work organizing the new regiment, when Rosecrans was
appointed brigadier-general, and ordered to take command of the Ohio
troops moving in the direction of Western Virginia. Upon the promotion
of Rosecrans, Colonel E. P. Scammon, an officer of military education,
was placed in command of the Twenty-third.

After a brief period of discipline at Camp Chase the regiment was
ordered, on the 25th of July, to Clarksburgh, West Virginia, and on the
29th went into camp at Weston. We shall not follow it in this or in
subsequent campaigns, in its marching, scouting, skirmishing, or
counter-marching. It is enough to say, that in this first campaign it
assisted in clearing the whole mountainous region of Western Virginia
of a formidable enemy.

Major Hayes was appointed by General Rosecrans, on the 19th of
September, 1861, judge advocate of the department of Ohio, the duties of
which service he discharged about two months. He received his first
promotion, to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, October 24, 1861. Passing
over less important events, we come to the first serious battle in which
he was engaged.


THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN

Was fought on Sunday, September 14, 1862, a beautiful, bright September
day. The enemy were in possession of the crest of the mountain, where
the old National road crossed it. The army of McClellan, with Burnside
in advance, were pressing up that mountain by the National road as its
center. General Cox's division of Burnside's corps was in advance. The
brigade to which Lieutenant-colonel Hayes was attached was in advance of
the division. His regiment was in advance of the brigade. He was ordered
to pass up a mountain path on the left of the National road and feel for
the enemy, advancing until he struck him; to push him up the mountain if
he could; in short, to open the engagement. Lieutenant-colonel Hayes
pushed into the woods, came upon the enemy's pickets, received their
fire, and drove them in. He soon saw a strong force of the enemy coming
toward the line of his advance from a neighboring hill, and went to meet
them. Hayes charged into that force with a regimental yell, and, after a
fierce fight, drove them out of the woods in which he found them, into
an open field near the summit. He then drove them across the field,
losing many men and capturing and killing many of the enemy.

Hayes, having just given the command for a third charge, felt a stunning
blow, and found that a large musket ball had struck his left arm above
the elbow, carrying away and badly fracturing the entire bone. Fearing
an artery might be severed, he asked a soldier to bandage his arm above
the elbow, and a few minutes after, through exhaustion, he fell.
Recovering from a state of unconsciousness while down, in a few moments,
and observing that his men had fallen back to the woods for shelter, he
sprang to his feet, and, with unusual vehemence, ordered them to come
forward, which they did. He continued fighting some time at the head of
his men; but falling a second time, from exhausted strength, he kept on
giving orders, while down, to fight it out.

Major Comly, the second in command, then came to him to learn the orders
under which the regiment was fighting, and deeming it best to assume
command, owing to the critical condition of Lieutenant-colonel Hayes,
gave orders that the wounded hero should be carried from the field. In
an almost illegible narrative, written with the left hand just after the
battle, we find this modest record, by the intrepid sufferer in this
event: "While I was down I had considerable talk with a wounded
Confederate lying near me. I gave him messages for my wife and friends
in case I should not get up. We were right jolly and friendly. It was by
no means an unpleasant experience."

The enemy in this action continued to pour a most destructive fire of
musketry, grape, and canister into the Union ranks. Lieutenant-colonel
Hayes again made his appearance on the field with his wound half
dressed, and fought until carried off. Soon after, the rest of the
brigade coming up, a brilliant bayonet charge up the hill dislodged the
enemy and drove him into the woods beyond. The Twenty-third regiment in
this engagement lost within eight men of half the entire force engaged.

South Mountain is inscribed on all the standards of this gallant
regiment, and surrounds with a sad halo of glory the names of the living
and the graves of the dead.

At the time this battle was fought, Lieutenant-Colonel Hayes was not
under pay, having been mustered out of the Twenty-third regiment to take
command of the Seventy-ninth. His wound preventing him from becoming
colonel of the Seventy-ninth, he was, on the 24th of October, 1862,
appointed colonel of his own regiment, _vice_ Scammon, promoted. It was
while at home recovering from his wounds that his wealthy uncle, Sardis
Birchard, urged Colonel Hayes, to whom he was devotedly attached, to
leave the army, on the ground that he had done his share, promising to
himself and family abundant support; but he would not listen to the
suggestion, and before his wounds were healed went back.


AFTER JOHN MORGAN.

In July, 1863, while Colonel Hayes, under superior officers and in
connection with other forces, was engaged in skirmishing, scouting, and
harassing the enemy in Southwestern Virginia, an episode occurred which
illustrates his force and decision of character and energy in action.
Happening to ride to Fayetteville, a distance of fifteen miles from
camp, to learn the news, he was startled by the telegraph operator with
the intelligence that John Morgan was in Ohio, and was at that moment
making for Gallipolis to recross the Ohio river. Here was a cry of help
from home. His own State invaded, and his own friends and kindred in
danger! His decision was instantaneous to go to the rescue. He sent over
the wires to his adjutant, then at Charleston, the message: "Are there
any steamboats at Charleston?" And being informed there were two, he
instantly ordered them to be sent to Luke creek, the highest navigable
point on the Kanawha. Colonel Hayes then galloped back to camp, and,
after bringing all his powers of persuasion to bear, succeeded in
getting permission to take two regiments and a section of artillery, and
go in pursuit of Morgan. In thirty minutes after the orders were read to
the soldiers, the column was on its march. The road was mountainous, the
darkness dense, the route almost impassable, but the Kanawha river was
reached at the break of day. The steamers were both in sight, and on
these the eager men and the artillery were embarked. By daylight the
next morning this timely succor was at Gallipolis. That town was saved
from a rebel raid, and the hot pursuit of John Morgan commenced. Warned
by spies, he had turned his retreat in the direction of Pomeroy. Hayes
re-embarked his force, and steamed up after him. Again disembarking his
men, Hayes came in collision with the raider, who retreated after
getting a taste of the quality of his adversary. But Morgan being beset
on all sides was forced to surrender, and was made a prisoner with many
of his men. Their next raiding was done from the inside to the outside
of the walls of the Ohio penitentiary.


BATTLE OF CLOYD MOUNTAIN.

In the spring of 1864, General Crook moved with an army of about six
thousand men to cut the main lines of communication between Richmond and
the great Southwest. In this expedition Colonel Hayes commanded a
brigade. General Crook, who is called "Gray Fox" by the warriors of
Sitting Bull, is one of the shrewdest generals in the world in the way
of tricking an enemy. On this expedition he marched up the Kanawha, and
sent his music and one regiment toward the White Sulphur Springs, while
his army went the other way. He charged his music to make noise enough
for an army of ten thousand. The enemy, who were fortified on the road
by which Crook's army was actually to pass, left Fort Breckenridge, and
marched off fifty or sixty miles in the direction that Crook's band of
music had gone. His army then hurried on, and marched right into the
fort without firing a shot. To have taken it without stratagem would
have cost much delay and many lives. In the meantime, the enemy hurried
back, and, collecting an army under General Jenkins, fortified a
position on the crest of Cloyd mountain. The base of the mountain was
skirted with a stream of water two or three feet deep, and the approach
to it was through a meadow five or six hundred yards wide. The enemy,
who were strongly entrenched, opened upon Crook's force so soon as it
reached the road that was within range of their artillery. It was
evident the fortifications could not be carried without very determined
fighting. A small force, after making a stout struggle, dropped back
repulsed. Crook ordered Colonel Hayes' brigade to cross Cloyd's meadow,
charge up the hill, and take the batteries. Hayes formed in the edge of
the woods, and marched out with as perfect a line as ever was formed on
parade. He moved on, and was soon under fire. The enemy opened heavily,
bringing down men along the whole line. A slow double-quick was ordered,
the alignments being kept good until the edge of the woods was reached.

The fortifications could not be seen. There was only in sight a woody
hill, and below it a stream to cross. Hayes, the brigade following,
dashed through the creek to the foot of the last hill, which was so
steep that the cannon could not be depressed sufficiently to damage
them. After halting for a minute to take breath, the brigade charged,
with a terrific yell, up the hill. The instant they passed the curve of
the hill, as fearful a fire met them as men are ever called to face. The
whole line seemed falling, officers and men going down by scores. But
not a man stopped; all who were not hit went on. Hayes shouted to his
men to push on to the enemy's works. They were carried by assault, many
of the enemy being bayoneted beneath ingenious barricades that they
deemed impregnable. The enemy were killed or driven out, and their
cannon captured. For ten minutes it was a desperate, give-and-take,
rough-and-tumble fight. The artillerymen attempted to reload when the
assaulting party was not ten paces distant. The enemy retreated to a
second ridge of the mountain, and made a determined effort to form a
line, but the pursuit was too hot for the effort to be successful.
Reinforcements arriving, they endeavored to make a third stand, but were
easily driven off in full retreat. Thus ended the battle on the
mountain, where the enemy's fort on its summit was carried by storm.


BATTLE OF WINCHESTER.

What is known as the first battle of Winchester, fought July 24, 1864,
illustrates the pluck and endurance of Hayes under disaster. Here, as in
the last battle, he commanded a brigade in a division of General Crook's
army, of West Virginia. Two brigades, under Colonel Mulligan and Colonel
Hayes, were ordered to go out and meet what was supposed to be a
reconnaissance in force of the enemy. Hayes was ordered to join his
right on Mulligan's left, and charge with him. They were to attack
whatever there was in front. They could see only two skirmish lines in
front. Hayes soon saw appearances of the enemy off on the left. Mulligan
was informed there were signs of an enemy forward on the right.
Indications were correct. The enemy were coming down upon them in
overpowering force on both flanks and in front. Mulligan said his orders
were to go forward, and he was going forward. Hayes thought it was as
well to go forward as to go any other way, as there could be but one
result. Soon after charging, the enemy opened a deadly fire with
artillery on the left flank, and infantry close in front. In five
minutes Colonel Mulligan fell, pierced with five balls. The enemy had
double the force in front, and overlapped the right flank a quarter of a
mile. This was a better place to be out of than in. The lines melted
away under the destructive fire. The deafening roar of artillery and
musketry prevented all commands from being heard. The Hayes brigade fell
slowly back to a hill inaccessible to cavalry. There it formed, and held
back the yelling pursuers. At this point Lieutenant-Colonel Comly was
wounded. The cavalry, whose failure to furnish information of the
presence of the enemy had brought on the disaster, had disappeared from
the scene. Colonel Hayes' brigade, which was exposed to the cavalry of
the enemy, marched in a half square, fighting steadily in front and on
both flanks. Once the brigade was concealed in a belt of woods until the
enemy's cavalry came within pistol-shot, when the whole line suddenly
rose and poured its fire into their ranks. After that, the pursuit
ceased. From morning until midnight, Colonel Hayes, having lost his
horse, was fighting and encouraging his men on foot, saving his command
from annihilation, and displaying personal bravery of the highest order.


BATTLE OF BERRYVILLE.

This was one of the fiercest fights of the war. It was between a South
Carolina and Mississippi division, under General Kershaw, and six
regiments of the Kanawha division.

The occasion of this battle was this: Sheridan sent a body of cavalry to
get in the rear of Early's army and cut off his supplies. To do this
there were two roads up the pike--one through Winchester and one ten
miles east of Winchester. Ten miles east of this place, through
Berryville, was the enemy's headquarters, and Sheridan's object was to
throw a force past them which would turn and strike them in the rear. In
order to protect that body so that it could get back again--not be cut
off on its line of retreat--Crook was ordered to take possession of the
pike where the road from Winchester crosses it. The enemy, understanding
the plan, moved to take possession of the same crossing. They first
attacked with a small force, and were driven back. Being reinforced,
they drove back in turn the regiments in advance of the Union force.
Colonel Hayes had a line a quarter of a mile long sheltered behind a
terrace wall, the ground in front being level with the top of the wall.
He sat on his horse watching the tumultuous advance of the enemy. The
Union advance lines, being driven back in precipitate retreat, ran right
over Hayes' brigade. The enemy followed close on their heels. Hayes let
them get within two rods, when the whole brigade rose, and with a yell
delivered a deadly volley at the enemy's legs. They then jumped upon the
terrace and charged bayonet, driving the pursuing enemy back like a
flock of sheep. He pushed them to their second or reserve lines, where
they rallied at dark, and stubbornly maintained their ground.

Colonel Hayes' brigade went at double quick pace into action, their
leader at the head of the column. The Twenty-third and Thirty-sixth
Ohio, and the Fifth and Thirteenth Virginia, constituted at this time
his brigade. From dark until almost ten o'clock the cannonading was
continuous and the fighting terrible. Hayes, although never more exposed
to danger, enjoyed the grand illumination and the thrilling excitement.
Both divisions withdrew at the same hour, and the engagement was not the
next day renewed. In this short action Colonel Hayes, by his courage and
gallantry, added to his popularity as an officer among both officers and
men.




CHAPTER V.

FROM MAJOR TO MAJOR-GENERAL.

     _Opequan--Morass--First Over--Intrepidity--Official
     Reports--Assault on Fisher's Hill--Battle of Cedar Creek--Commands
     a Division--Promoted on Field--His Wounds--A Hundred Days under
     Fire._


BATTLE OF OPEQUAN.

Sheridan's battle of Winchester, or Opequan, was fought on the 19th of
September, 1864. The battle had a bad beginning, but a glorious ending.
There were five hours of staring disaster, and five of inspiring
victory. Sheridan, in assuming the offensive, in September, was
compelled to fight Early in the latter's chosen and particularly
advantageous position, at the mouth of a narrow ravine near Winchester.

Concerning the earlier, or disastrous part of the engagement, it is
sufficient for our present purpose to say that Sheridan moved all except
one corps of his entire army down this gorge, deployed in the valley
beyond, fought a bloody fight, and was driven back in confusion along
his line of advance. At noon the enemy were rejoicing over the victory,
and their friends in Winchester were jubilant. The reserves of Sheridan
were sent for. General Crook, in person, brought the reserve corps into
action at one o'clock. He made for the enemy's left flank, and pushed
direct for a battery on their extreme left. The brigade of Colonel Hayes
was in front, supported by Colonel White's old brigade. The order was
to walk fast, keep silent until within one hundred yards of the guns,
and then with a yell charge at full speed. These brigades had passed
over a ridge and were just ready to begin the rush, when they came upon
a deep morass, forty yards wide, with high banks. The enemy's fire now
broke out with fury. Of course the line stopped. To stop was death, to
go on was probably the same; but the order was "Forward." Colonel Hayes
was the first to plunge in; but his horse, after frantic struggling,
mired down hopelessly in the middle of the boggy stream. He sprang off
and succeeded in reaching the enemy's side. The next man over was
Lieutenant Stearne, adjutant of the Thirty-sixth Ohio.

Shot and shell were falling in the water as they crossed, and were still
falling. When Hayes regained the opposite bank he motioned rapidly, with
his cap in hand, for his men to come over. Some held back, but many
plunged into the bog, and struggled across to their leader. Some sank to
their chins while holding their arms and ammunition over their heads.
Before fifty men had gotten over, Hayes shouted: "Men, right up the
bank," and there were the rebel batteries without any support. So the
artillerymen were bayoneted in the act of loading their guns. They never
dreamed that any Union force could cross the barrier before them. The
batteries were captured, the enemy's position successfully flanked, and
his whole force driven back five hundred yards to a second line of
defense. Here, strongly posted, he delivered a fearfully destructive
fire. The advancing line was brought to a standstill by the storm of
grape and balls. Officers in advance were falling faster than others,
but all were suffering. Things began to look dark. At the most critical
moment, a large body of Sheridan's splendid cavalry, with swords drawn,
wound slowly around the right, then at a trot, and finally, with shouts,
at a gallop, charged right into the rebel lines. Hayes, now in command
of the division, his division commander having fallen, pushed on, and
the enemy in utter confusion fled. Crook's command carried the forts
which covered the heights, and Hayes led the advance of that command.
His division entered Winchester in pursuit of Early far in advance of
all other troops. The spirit of Early's brave army was broken. Its loss
in this battle was nearly seven thousand men.

The day following the battle of Opequan, Stanton telegraphed Sheridan:
"Please accept for yourself and your gallant army the thanks of the
President and the department for your great battle and brilliant victory
of yesterday." An official report of Colonel Comly, commanding the
Twenty-third Ohio, thus refers to Colonel Hayes, division commander: "He
is everywhere exposing himself recklessly, as usual. He was the first
one over the slough; he has been in advance of the line half the time
since; his adjutant-general has been severely wounded; men are dropping
all around him; but he rides through it all as if he had a charmed
life."


FISHER'S HILL.

The assault on South Mountain, or Fisher's Hill, occurred on the 22d of
September, three days after the battle of Opequan. Sheridan was in hot
pursuit of Early, and had followed him up the Shenandoah valley,
overtaking him in position at Fisher's Hill. This is a ridge stretching
across the valley where it is only about three miles wide. There is a
creek running in front of the ridge. Early had fortified the ridge, and
was in strong position. Sheridan was disposed to attack him in front,
trusting to the demoralization from the recent defeat for an easy
victory.

Crook insisted upon trying to turn their left flank. It was finally
determined that it could be done. He was ordered to take Hayes'
division, which led the advancing column. Crook and Hayes rode side by
side at the head of the men. Pretty soon Crook and every officer, except
Hayes, dismounted. The latter had a horse that could go wherever a man
could. The command went up mountains, pushed their way through woods,
and slid down ravines and gorges. When the enemy's left was supposed to
be passed, they turned by the flank and bore down on his rear. Hayes
galloped down a ravine, flanked by mountains, until he came right upon
the enemy's guns. He rode back, ordered his division to charge with a
yell, and the enemy, seized with a panic, fled. The charge was one of
great impetuosity, each man trying to reach the entrenchments first.
Every gun was captured. The brilliancy of this victory consisted in
flanking the enemy from the side of a mountain, where Early said only a
crow could go. But Colonel Hayes climbed there on horseback, at the head
of his command.


CEDAR CREEK.

On the 19th of October, 1864, was fought the battle of Cedar creek, so
memorable in the annals of war. It wiped out Early and his army. It gave
the rebel general Gordon a seat in the United States Senate. It made
Sheridan lieutenant-general. It made Colonel Hayes a brigadier-general
and Governor of Ohio.

Sheridan, supposing Early's army too much broken by recent defeats to be
dangerous, had gone on a visit to Washington, leaving his force in
command of General Wright. It was posted near Middletown, in the rear of
Cedar creek, and on both sides of the Winchester pike. Ten miles to the
westward, beyond the creek, were the enemy's camps. Two things induced
Early to risk one more battle--the absence of Sheridan, and his own
reinforcement with twelve thousand men. Early left camp on the night of
the 18th, and, passing round with his entire army between Massanutten
mountain and the north fork of the Shenandoah, forded the Shenandoah at
midnight, and noiselessly formed in line of battle in the rear and on
the flank of the Union army. The plan of attack was a bold one, and
seemed the inspiration of genius. The ford that gave the enemy a
crossing, which should have been well guarded by cavalry, was stupidly
left exposed. At daylight, while Thoburn's division were sleeping in
their camps, Early's onslaught was made. Generals Gordon, Pegram,
Kershaw, and Wharton charged with the rebel yell upon the left rear of
Crook's entire command. The assault, under the circumstances, was
inevitably successful, and the whole Union force was hurled back on the
Nineteenth corps and the Kanawha division, commanded by Colonel Hayes.
The enemy overlapped both flanks, and pushed forward with irresistible
impetuosity. Crook's command had already lost seven pieces of artillery,
and was in rapid retreat. The men meeting the enemy's charge, knowing
that they were outflanked and the enemy had gotten in their rear, fought
desperately, but not hopefully. The whole line was pushed slowly back.
Colonel Hayes, on seeing his right breaking up, rode over and with
vehemence gave orders to stand firm. But the line melted away, leaving
him alone and exposed. A whole volley came aimed at him, filling the air
and killing his horse with twenty balls. The horse going at great speed
when it fell, threw its rider with great violence to the ground,
dislocating an ankle and badly bruising him from the head down. He rose,
and though fired at by the pursuing enemy at forty paces, escaped
further wounds or capture. Colonel Hayes procured the horse of his
orderly, and with great exertion gradually brought his men to a stand.
Here they were alternately preparing their breakfasts, and when orders
were given, instantaneously forming lines.

At ten o'clock the Union army received a reinforcement more powerful
than was the enemy's of twelve thousand men. Sheridan had come, and with
him confidence had come. He almost instantaneously inspired a beaten
army with his own electric energy and unconquerable hope. "Boys, we must
go back to our camps," he said; and they went. The army was recreated
into a compact, advancing, aggressive organization. "The whole line will
advance," said Sheridan, and it advanced.

The enemy was charged a first and a second time, with infantry in the
center and cavalry on the left and right. Custer's cavalry kept swooping
down on the rebel flank, gathering them in as a sickle gathers grain.
The gallant Colonel Hayes, too modest to seek promotion, though long
discharging the duties of a major-general, as commander of a veteran
division, fought in the center, forcing back the rebel line to Cedar
creek. Here it broke in confusion, abandoning seventy pieces of
artillery, arms, camps, and transportation. The pursuit ceased not until
there was no longer an enemy to pursue. Early this time "stayed
whipped." In the Shenandoah valley he ceased to take much interest in
subsequent events.

It was on the field of this most complete victory of the war that
Sheridan clasped the hand of Hayes and said: "Colonel, from this day
forward you will be a brigadier-general." Ten days after the battle the
commission came. The gallant Crook presented him with the insignia of
his new rank, and he wore them. On March 13, 1865, he was promoted to
the rank of brevet major-general "for gallant and distinguished services
during the campaign of 1864 in West Virginia, and particularly at the
battles of Fisher's Hill and Cedar Creek, Virginia."

General Hayes was wounded four times in battle. From one wound he has
never entirely recovered. He was struck by a shell, just below the knee,
while on horseback. He did not get off his horse at the time, but
remained at the front throughout the battle. The wound now troubles him
when ascending stairs. According to the excellent authority of
Adjutant-General Hastings, Hayes was under fire sixty days in 1864. He
must therefore have been exposed to death on one hundred days during the
war.

A soldier who would thus risk life and limb to preserve the Union is
perhaps entitled to have something to say concerning the government of
it. He who is willing to die for the republic, will see that the
republic suffers no harm.

The qualities of General Hayes as a soldier will be reviewed when we
come to speak of his characteristics as a civil magistrate and as a
man.




CHAPTER VI.

IN CONGRESS.

     _Nomination--Refuses to Leave Army--Election
     Incident--Election--Course in Congress--Services on Library
     Committee--Votes on Various Questions--Submits Plan of
     Constitutional Amendments--Re-nominated by Acclamation--Re-elected
     by Increased Majority--Overwhelmed with Soldiers'
     Letters--Character as Congressman._


On the 6th of August, 1864, while General Hayes was absent from Ohio in
the field, he was nominated by the Republican Convention of the Second
Congressional District of Cincinnati for Congress. This was the result
of the spontaneous action of his friends, and was brought about through
their agency alone. The nomination was neither sought nor desired. The
following extract from a letter written in camp, and bearing date July
30, 1864, makes known the then existing state of the case:

"As to the canvass that occurs, I care nothing at all about it; neither
for the nomination nor for the election. It was merely easier to let the
thing take its own course than to get up a letter declining to run, and
then to explain it to everybody who might choose to bore me about it."

The first information of the nomination for Congress was conveyed to
General Hayes through the letter of a friend written the day after the
convention met, which information was received on Monday, August 22d,
while preparing for battle, and on the same day he did a "good thing" in
the way of taking prisoners while charging on the rebel lines. Two days
after, with the enemy in front, he wrote this "private" letter on the
subject of going home to canvass:

     CAMP OF SHERIDAN'S ARMY,

     NEAR CHARLESTOWN, VA., _August_ 24, 1864.

     FRIEND S.:--Your favor of the 7th came to hand on Monday. It was
     the first I had heard of the doings of the Second District
     Convention. My thanks for your attention and assistance in the
     premises. I cared very little about being a candidate, but having
     consented to the use of my name I preferred to succeed. Your
     suggestion about getting a furlough to take the stump was certainly
     made without reflection. An officer fit for duty who at this crisis
     would abandon his post to electioneer for a seat in Congress ought
     to be scalped. You may feel perfectly sure I shall do no such
     thing. We are, and for two weeks past have been, in the immediate
     presence of a large rebel army. We have skirmishing and small
     affairs constantly. I am not posted in the policy deemed wise at
     headquarters, and can't guess as to the prospects of a general
     engagement. The condition and spirit of this army are good and
     improving. I suspect the enemy are sliding around us toward the
     Potomac. If they cross we shall pretty certainly have a meeting.

     Sincerely,

     R. B. HAYES.

An incident of this canvass caused at the time it occurred intense
feeling and indignation. The Democrats were having a large mass meeting
in Cincinnati, with an immense procession. Among the banners or
transparencies carried in the procession was one large,
coarsely-executed affair, representing General Hayes dodging bullets
while running from the enemy. As Hayes was at that very moment at the
front fighting the enemy, this assault in the rear was not deemed by
Union-loving men to fall within the rules of legitimate political
warfare. Some soldiers of the "Old Kanawha" division happening to be at
home recovering from wounds, had their indignation aroused to such an
uncontrollable pitch that they insisted upon ignominiously trampling
down the libelous transparency and its bearer. They had seen General
Hayes bare his breast a hundred times to the bullet-storm of battle, and
thought they were better judges of what constituted courage than men who
stayed at home occupying their time in passing resolutions that the war
was a "failure." These old veteran comrades of Hayes were moving in
compact line to charge on the procession, when a number of good
citizens, in the interest of order and to prevent a riot, had the
obnoxious banner removed. It is but just to say that Democrats of the
better sort totally disapproved of this public indecency and excuseless
outrage.

During the canvass for Congress, and while in the thickest of the bloody
fight at Opequan, the soldiers under General Hayes kept crying out: "We
will gain a victory to-day, Colonel, and elect you to Congress;" "One
more charge, and you go to Congress!" These brave defenders of the
Republic well knew the effect of a Union victory upon a pending
election. When the soldiers' vote was taken on Tuesday, the 11th of
October, not a man in the Twenty-third or Thirty-sixth Ohio regiment
voted the Democratic ticket, and but fifty-three voted the Peace ticket
in the entire division commanded by General Hayes. The result of his
first contest for Congress, or rather candidacy, for there was no
contest on his part, was his triumphant election by a majority of two
thousand four hundred and fifty-five votes. His competitor was Joseph
C. Butler, a banker, capitalist, and most respectable gentleman. Eight
days after the election, the battle of Cedar Creek was fought, so that
the news of two victories came to the faithful soldier at the same time.
Conducting a congressional campaign on the front, rear, and flanks of
the enemy, worked well. To Hayes the cause of the Union was such a
sacred cause that he could not cease fighting the enemies of that Union
so long as there remained an armed enemy to fight.

The war being ended, he took his seat on the first day of the first
session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, which assembled December 4, 1865.
Among the able or notable men in that Congress were Shellabarger,
Bingham, Schenck, Spaulding, and Garfield, from Ohio, and Thad. Stevens,
Conkling, Kerr, E. B. Washburne, A. H. Rice, Raymond, Niblack, John A.
Griswold, Farnsworth, Orth, Cullom, Dawes, Blaine, Voorhees, and
Randall, from other States. The first session was mainly occupied with
the question of reconstruction. The central questions during the
subsequent sessions were those growing out of the impeachment of
President Johnson. General Hayes voted consistently with his party on
these two classes of questions. He was the only new member, except one,
who was given the chairmanship of a committee, being placed at the head
of the joint committee of the House on Library. The other members were
Wm. D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, and Calvin T. Hurlburd, of New York. As
chairman of the committee on the Library of the United States, to employ
the language of its accomplished librarian, he had "a clear discernment
and quick apprehension of all things that needed to be done;" he "threw
his influence in favor of the most liberal and permanent improvement."

During his term of service on the committee, the Library was expanded by
the addition of two wings, increasing threefold its space. The "Force
Historical Library" was added, to the acquisition of which General Hayes
devoted months of zealous labor. It is now one of the most valuable
parts of the great Library. He procured in the House the passage of the
Senate bill to transfer the Library of the Smithsonian Institution to
the Library of Congress. He introduced a joint resolution to extend the
privileges of the Library to a larger class of public officers. He
reported back and recommended the passage of a copyright bill for
securing to the Library copies of all books, pamphlets, maps, etc.,
published in the United States.

In dealing with the subject of art while on this committee, Hayes showed
artistic taste and judgment. He voted to reject works without merit,
such as busts and portraits, and favored giving government commissions
to real artists of conceded genius and established standing.

One of the first votes of General Hayes in Congress was cast in favor of
this resolution:

"That the public debt created during the late rebellion was contracted
upon the faith and honor of the nation; that it is sacred and inviolate,
and must and ought to be paid, principal and interest; and that any
attempt to repudiate or in any manner impair or scale the said debt
should be universally discountenanced by the people, and promptly
rejected by Congress if proposed."

Early in the session a resolution was introduced "that the committee on
appropriations be instructed to bring in a bill increasing the
compensation of members of Congress." Mr. Hayes voted for Mr. E. B.
Washburne's motion to lay the resolution on the table. This is the whole
of his record on the back pay and front pay questions. General Hayes
during the session voted for a resolution commending President Johnson
for declining to accept presents, and condemning the practice as
demoralizing in its tendencies and destructive of public confidence.
This vote needs no explanation to enable it to be understood.

He also submitted the following resolution, which was read, considered,
and agreed to:

"That the committee on military affairs be instructed to inquire into
the expediency of providing by law for punishing by imprisonment or
otherwise any person who, as agent or attorney, shall collect from the
government money due to officers, soldiers, or sailors, or to their
widows or orphans, for services in the army or navy, or for pensions or
bounties, and who shall fraudulently convert the same to his own use;
and to report by bill or otherwise."

This was timely action aimed to remedy what has since become a gross
abuse and most serious evil. Its purpose was to check robbery and secure
to soldiers and sailors their own.

In 1865, General Hayes submitted to leading Republicans in Congress, and
subsequently to the Republican caucus, these resolutions, which became
the basis of the action of the party:

"_Resolved_, That it is the sense of the caucus that the best if not the
only mode of obtaining from the States lately in rebellion guarantees
which will be irreversible is by amendments of the national
constitution.

"_Resolved_, That such amendments to the national constitution as may be
deemed necessary ought to be submitted to the house for its action at as
early a day as possible, in order to propose them to the several states
during the present sessions of their legislatures.

"_Resolved_, That an amendment, basing representation on voters instead
of population, ought to be promptly acted upon, and the judiciary
committee is requested to prepare resolutions for that purpose, and
submit them to the house as soon as practicable."

When the ratification of the amendments taking their origin from these
resolutions became a matter of supreme concern, Mr. Orth and Mr. Cullom,
now the Republican candidates for Governor in Indiana and Illinois, in
conjunction with Mr. Hayes, drafted the following letter, which was
signed by Republican members of Congress and forwarded to Governor
Brownlow, of Tennessee:

"The undersigned members of Congress respectfully suggest, that, as
Governor of the State of Tennessee, you call a special session of the
legislature of your state, for the purpose of ratifying the
constitutional amendment submitted by the present Congress to the
several states for ratification, believing that upon such ratification
this Congress will, during its present session, recognize the present
state government of Tennessee and admit the state to representation in
both houses of Congress."

The session of the legislature was called, the fourteenth amendment
ratified, and the Tennessee members admitted to seats in Congress in
July, 1866. This ratification was the one required to render the
amendment valid.

In the fall of 1865, General Hayes delivered very earnest political
speeches in about twenty counties in Ohio, in advocacy of the election
of his military comrade, General Jacob D. Cox, as governor of the state.
We find many of these speeches partially reported, and from one
delivered in the West end, in Cincinnati, September 28, we take this
extract:

"The Democratic plan of reorganization is this: The rebels, having laid
down their arms and abandoned their attempt to break up the Union, are
now entitled, as a matter of right, to be restored to all the rights,
political and civil, which they enjoyed before the rebellion, precisely
as if they had remained loyal. They are to vote, to hold office, to bear
arms, immediately and unconditionally. There is to be no confiscation
and no punishment, either for leaders or followers--no amendment or
change of the constitution by way of guaranty against future
rebellion--no indemnity for the past, and no security for the future.
The Union party objects to this plan, because it wants, before rebels
shall again be restored to power, an amendment to the constitution which
shall remove all vestiges of slavery, and an amendment which shall
equalize representation between the States having a large negro
population and the States whose negro population is small."

In August, 1866, General Hayes received the endorsement of a
re-nomination to Congress by acclamation. There was no opposing
candidate. He entered at once into the canvass. He delivered a speech
almost every afternoon or evening until the day of the election. He
frequently spoke outside of his own district, to aid his friends. The
questions at issue were the reconstruction measures of Congress and of
President Johnson, and the merits of the new constitutional amendments.
In a public speech delivered in the Seventeenth Ward, in Cincinnati,
September 7, 1866, he discussed at great length the questions of the
day. In conclusion he said:

     "The Union party is prepared to make great sacrifices in the
     future, as in the past, for the sake of peace and for the sake of
     union, but submission to what is wrong can never be the foundation
     of a real peace or a lasting union. They can have no other sure
     foundation but the principles of eternal justice. The Union men
     therefore say to the South: 'We ask nothing but what is right; we
     will submit to nothing that is wrong.' With undoubting confidence
     we submit the issue to the candid judgment of the patriotic people
     of the country, under the guidance of that Providence which has
     hitherto blessed and preserved the Nation."

The canvass was an active and exciting one; but General Hayes was
re-elected over a competitor of so high standing as Theodore Cook, by a
majority of two thousand five hundred and fifty-six. It is noticeable
that while there was a Republican loss of seven hundred in the first
district, compared with the vote for Congressmen in 1864, in the second
district there was a gain of one hundred over the vote of two years
before.

General Hayes took his seat in the Fortieth Congress, which convened
March 11, 1867. He was re-appointed chairman of the library committee,
with John D. Baldwin, of Massachusetts, and J. V. L. Pruyn, of New
York, as associate members. General Hayes' three years in Congress were
almost continuously employed in exacting labors in looking after the
pensions and pay of soldiers, and in making provision for their
families. Cincinnati had sent a great many soldiers into the war, and
all who had wants sent their petitions to the only representative of
Hamilton county who had served in the army. The soldiers of his old
division, scattered over the country, sent their applications to him as
a sympathizing friend. He had as many as seven hundred cases of this
kind on hand at one time. His time was therefore necessarily consumed in
running to the departments and in answering soldiers' correspondence.
This service of love was of course gratuitously and most cheerfully
rendered; but it withdrew him more or less from his duties on the floor
of Congress.

He was not consequently a speech-maker in Congress, but a business-doer.
His innate good sense taught him that the public business was pushed
forward, not by talking much, but by talking little. Like Schurz, who
became the intellectual leader of the Senate, like Senator Edmunds and
most strong men, he kept silent while new to the business of
legislation. He was constantly consulted by the chief men in his party
because he possessed that most essential quality in a public man--good
judgment. He did no talking for himself, but an immense deal of working
for others. Every soldier was his constituent, whether he lived in Maine
or Nebraska. He placed self not first, but last.

He had no thought of fame or higher place, but silently served those
that loved him, and to the maimed or needy tried to make the burdens and
loads of life lighter. He doubtless thought that "he who lives a great
truth is incomparably greater than he who but speaks it."




CHAPTER VII.

ELECTED GOVERNOR OF OHIO.

     _Party of State Rights--Their Convention--Platform--Nomination of
     Thurman--Republican Convention and Platform--Nomination of
     Hayes--Platform--Opening Speech at Lebanon--Thurman at
     Waverly--National Interest aroused--Hayes Victorious--
     Inaugural--First Annual Message--Second Annual Message._


The questions at issue in the great political canvass of 1867, in Ohio,
were closely allied to the one whether the National Government had a
constitutional right to maintain its existence. It was many years after
the war of the Rebellion before the Democratic party could be induced to
admit that the war had settled anything. The question of State or
National supremacy or sovereignty, settled a hundred times by argument
and twice by arms, was still persistently argued by them as an open
question. The State Supremacy or State Rights party fought the
constitution at the time of its adoption, on the ground that it
established a supreme central government, and were defeated. They
opposed putting down the Whisky Rebellion, in Pennsylvania, under the
leadership of Jefferson and Randolph, and were outvoted in the Cabinet
by Washington, Hamilton, and Knox. They forced their disintegration
doctrines into the Supreme Court, and were there vanquished by the
resistless logic of Chief Justice Marshall. The same old doctrine
assumed the form of nullification under the teachings of Calhoun in
South Carolina, and was stamped out by Jackson. It appeared again in the
great debate between Hayne and Webster, and was annihilated, so far as
argument can put an end to any heresy. But it reappeared in 1861, with
Davis, Stephens, Lee, and Breckenridge as its most powerful advocates
and exponents.

The identical questions discussed in Washington's Cabinet, when there
was a Whisky Insurrection to be put down, were discussed by Lincoln and
Davis, by Meade and Lee, at Gettysburg, and by Grant and Pemberton, at
Vicksburg. Is a State or is the Republic supreme, has been the central
question dividing parties for a hundred years. The Democracy are still
talking about "sovereign and independent states," as if there were more
than one sovereign State on the continent--the Republic itself.

The Democratic State Convention, which met at Columbus, January 8, 1867,
forgetting that "war legislates," continued harping on the old State
Rights theme. The temporary chairman of the convention, Dr. J. M.
Christian, varied the monotony a little when he elegantly said: "We have
come here not only to celebrate an honored day, but to nominate men of
noble hearts, determined to release the State from the thralldom of
niggerism, and place it under the control of the Democratic party."

Mr. George H. Pendleton, the permanent chairman, delivered a rhetorical
State rights speech, in which he said: "The Democratic party has always
maintained the rights of the States as essential to the maintenance of
the Union."

The platform or resolutions of the convention, reported by Mr. C. L.
Vallandigham, contained a great deal of the same sort of thing,
supplemented with this resolution: "That the Radical majority in the
so-called Congress have proved themselves to be in favor of negro
suffrage by forcing it upon the people of the District of Columbia,
against their almost unanimous wish, solemnly expressed at the polls; by
forcing it upon the people of all the territories, and by their various
devices to coerce the people of the South to adopt it; that we are
opposed to negro suffrage, believing it would be productive of evil to
both whites and blacks, and tend to produce a disastrous conflict of
races."

The convention nominated, by acclamation, Hon. Allen G. Thurman for
Governor. Judge Thurman had served one term in Congress and five years
upon the Supreme Bench of the State, and was a gentleman of high
personal character, and a lawyer of extended reputation and commanding
abilities.

The Republican State Convention assembled at Columbus, June 19, 1867, to
nominate candidates for governor, lieutenant-governor, and other State
officers. The three candidates most talked of for governor were Hon.
Samuel Galloway, Adjutant-General B. R. Cowen, and General Hayes, then
representing the Second District in Congress. Mr. Galloway had served in
Congress, had long been one of the most active members of the Republican
party, and was popular because of his abilities as a stump speaker.
General Cowen had devoted much time to the organization of the State in
his own interest as a candidate, and was possessed of considerable
managing ability. Public opinion, however, in Northern, Southern, and
Western Ohio had concentrated upon General R. B. Hayes before the
convention met. The times seemed to demand a military man for leader,
and, in the language of the Cincinnati _Commercial_, there were "no
better military records than his, if they are to be rated by brave,
faithful, steadfast service." General J. D. Cox was not a candidate for
re-nomination. General Hayes was the idol of the soldiers. As early as
1865, his old division, while he himself was absent on a distant field
of duty, held a meeting between skirmishes with the enemy, and passed
resolutions nominating him for Governor of Ohio for the canvass of that
year. The soldiers went so far as to send circulars to the different
counties of the State, embodying their resolutions. When General Hayes
first heard of these proceedings he gave immediate and peremptory
instructions to have them stopped. He forbade the use of his name in
such connection, on pain of his permanent displeasure.

The Convention of June, 1867, was almost imprudently courageous in the
enunciation of sound, but then unpopular, principles. It placed the
Republican party "on the broad platform of impartial manhood suffrage as
embodied in the proposed amendment to the State Constitution," and
appealed to the "intelligence, justice, and patriotism of the people of
Ohio to approve it at the ballot-box." The platform emphasized the
point--always well taken--that the United States is a Nation.

On this platform General Hayes was nominated for Governor on the first
ballot, receiving two hundred and eighty-six votes to two hundred and
eight cast for Mr. Galloway. The nomination was accepted for him by a
friend in his absence. The honor which came to him unsought was borne
with the modesty of a soldier.

On the evening of the nominations, Mr. Fred. Hassaurek delivered in
Columbus a very able speech in favor of manhood equality, in the course
of which he said: "The men who now lead and officer the Democratic party
are the most dangerous enemies of the country, of its peace, prosperity,
and welfare. Let both sections of the country unite to give a final,
crushing blow to the influence of Democratic leaders. Let the serpent be
fully expelled from Paradise, and our country will soon be a Garden of
Eden again."

General Hayes, having resigned his seat in Congress, opened the campaign
of '67 in a comprehensive speech, delivered at Lebanon, August 5,
aggressive in tone and full of bristling points. It was equivalent to a
charge along the whole of the enemies' line--a species of tactics which
he had learned the advantage of in the valley of the Shenandoah. We
refer the reader to this clear, resolute, vigorous speech, reprinted in
full in the Appendix, for the grounds upon which the Republican leader
demanded a popular verdict against his political adversaries. The speech
showed that he deserved the eulogies of the press which followed his
nomination, among which were those of Colonel Donn Piatt--a judge of
ability, to say the least--who had written: "The people will find his
utterances full of sound thought, and his deportment modest, dignified,
and unpretending.... Possessed of a high order of talent, enriched by
stores of information, General Hayes is one of the few men capable of
accomplishing much without any egotistical assertion of self." General
James M. Comly had said: "More than four years' service in the same
command gave the writer ample opportunity to know that no braver or more
dashing and enterprising commander gave his services to the Republic
than General Hayes. He was the idol of his command. No man of his
soldiery ever doubted when he led. In principle he is as radical as we
could desire. His vote has been given in Congress on every square issue
for the right. He is no wabbler or time-server. He no more dodges votes
than he did bullets."

Judge Thurman--now Senator A. G. Thurman--opened the campaign on the
Democratic side in an elaborate speech, delivered at Waverly, August
5th, and reported in the Cincinnati _Commercial_ of August 6th. He
vigorously defended the course and action of the Peace Democracy in
Ohio, and assailed Mr. Lincoln and his administration with an
extravagance of language that weakened the force of many of his
arguments during the campaign. He intemperately asserted that there was
"scarcely a provision of the Constitution" that had not been
"shamelessly and needlessly trampled under foot" by "these enemies of
our Government," including as "enemies" the Congress and Cabinet that
supported and maintained the war for the Union. These and other
unfortunate allusions, such as that to the "poison of Abolitionism,"
enabled General Hayes to effectively retort at Sidney, and at other
points. So much of the Sidney speech as refers to Judge Thurman's
Waverly speech is reproduced in our Appendix.

The contest waxed warm between these able antagonists, and the number of
speeches that each delivered was only limited by his powers of physical
endurance. Meetings were held night and day, from the beginning until
the close of the canvass. Much more than the governorship was involved.
A United States Senator, for six years, was to be chosen by the incoming
Legislature. But, above all, the vital principle of manhood suffrage,
and the righteousness or unrighteousness of the war to preserve the
Union, were issues to be decided.

As the contest grew in magnitude it aroused a national interest. Morton,
Julian, Orth, and Governor Baker came from Indiana to aid Hayes in the
struggle; Shelby M. Cullom, and John A. Logan from Illinois; Schurz from
Missouri; Governor Harriman from New Hampshire; Chandler from Michigan;
and Gleni W. Schofield from Pennsylvania. The home talent--and no State
ever had more--was in the field in force. There were men of conceded
abilities, such as Aaron F. Perry, Shellabarger, Hassaurek, W. H. West,
Judge Storer, and John A. Bingham, and men of reputation like Governors
Cox and Dennison, Galloway, John C. Lee, and Senators Wade and Sherman,
who manifested the most earnest interest in the canvass.

Judge Thurman was not so ably seconded, although Vallandigham,
Pendleton, Ranney, H. J. Jewett, Durbin Ward, George W. McCook, Frank H.
Hurd, and other well-known leaders contributed aid to the extent of
their ability.

In this canvass General Hayes gave proofs of that boldness and moral
audacity for which he is remarkable. In every community in which he went
he was besought by committee-men, soldiers, and others, to say nothing
about the suffrage amendment. Negro suffrage, at that time, was
exceedingly unpopular. He rejected, with some feeling, these timid
counsels. He maintained, everywhere, the inherent justice of equality at
the polls and before the law, and insisted that the man who was willing
to give up his life for the Union should have a voice in its government.
By this bold course he made votes for the amendment, but lost votes for
himself. The result of the campaign had this peculiar feature, that
while General Hayes and the Republican State ticket were elected, the
main issue of the contest was defeated by fifty thousand majority. The
prejudices of a hundred years could not be removed in a hundred days.
Had Judge Thurman and his aids concentrated the fire of their batteries
upon the suffrage redoubt--the weak point in their adversaries'
lines--they would probably have gained a sweeping victory. As it was,
Thurman carried the Legislature, and secured a seat in the United States
Senate. General Hayes was elected by the small majority of two thousand
nine hundred and eighty-three votes, running somewhat ahead of his
ticket.

He was inaugurated as Governor of Ohio, in the rotunda of the Capitol,
January 13, 1868. On that occasion, in the presence of the Legislature
and judicial departments of the State Government, and a large concourse
of citizens, he delivered the following inaugural address:

     _Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives, and
     Fellow-Citizens:_

     The duty devolved on the governor by the constitution of
     communicating by message to the General Assembly the condition of
     the State, and of recommending such measures as he deems
     expedient, has been performed at the present session by my
     predecessor, Governor Cox, in a manner so thorough and
     comprehensive that I do not feel called upon to enter upon a
     discussion of questions touching the administration of the State
     government.

     I can think of no better reward for the faithful performance of the
     duties of the office which I am about to assume than that which, I
     believe, my immediate predecessor is entitled to enjoy,--the
     knowledge that in the opinion of his fellow-citizens of all parties
     he has, by his culture, his ability, and his integrity, honored the
     office of Governor of Ohio, and that he now leaves it with a
     conscience satisfied with the discharge of duty.

     I congratulate the members of the General Assembly that many of the
     questions which have hitherto largely engaged the attention of the
     law-making power, and divided the people of the State, have, in the
     progress of events, either been settled, or, in the general
     judgment of the people, been transferred for investigation and
     decision to the National government. The State debt, taxation, the
     currency, and internal improvements, for many years furnished the
     prominent topics of discussion and controversy in Ohio. In the year
     1845 the State debt reached its highest point. It amounted to
     $20,018,515.67, and in the same year the total taxable property of
     the State was $136,142,666. With a disordered currency, with
     business prostrated, with labor often insufficiently rewarded, the
     burden of this debt was severely felt, and questions in regard to
     it naturally entered into the partisan struggles of the time. Now
     the State debt is $11,031,941.56; the taxable property of the State
     amounts to $1,138,754,779; and there is no substantial difference
     of opinion among the people as to the proper mode of dealing with
     this subject.

     State taxation was formerly the occasion of violent party contests.
     Now men of all parties concur in the opinion that, as a general
     rule, every citizen ought to be taxed in proportion to the actual
     value of his property, without regard to the form in which he
     prefers to invest it; and differences as to the measures by which
     the principle is practically applied rarely enter into political
     struggles in Ohio.

     Party conflicts and debates as to State laws in relation to banking
     and the currency constitute a large part of the political history
     of the State. But the events of the last few years have convinced
     those who are in favor of a paper currency that in the present
     condition of the country it can best be furnished by the National
     Government, either by means of National banks or in the form of
     legal tender treasury notes. State legislatures are therefore
     relieved from the consideration of this difficult and perplexing
     subject.

     Internal improvements made by State authority, so essential to
     growth and prosperity in the early history of the State, no longer
     require much consideration by the General Assembly. Works of a
     magnitude too great to be undertaken by individual enterprise will
     hereafter be, for the most part, accomplished by the government of
     the Nation.

     The part which patriotism required Ohio to take in the war to
     suppress rebellion demanded important and frequent acts of
     legislation. Fortunately the transactions of the State growing out
     of the war have been, or probably can be, closed under existing
     laws, with very little, if any, additional legislation.

     If not mistaken as to the result of this brief reference to a few
     of the principal subjects of the legislation of the past, the
     present General Assembly has probably a better opportunity than any
     of its predecessors to avoid the evil of too much legislation.
     Excessive legislation has become a great evil, and I submit to the
     judgment of the General Assembly the wisdom of avoiding it.

     One important question of principle as old as our State government
     still remains unsettled. All are familiar with the conflicts to
     which the policy of making distinctions between citizens in civil
     and political rights has given rise in Ohio. The first effort of
     those who opposed this policy was to secure to all citizens
     equality of civil rights. The result of the struggle that ensued is
     thus given by an eminent and honored citizen of our State: "The
     laws which created disabilities on the part of negroes in respect
     of civil rights were repealed in the year 1849, after an obstinate
     contest, quite memorable in the history of the State. Their repeal
     was looked upon with great disfavor by a large portion of the
     people as a dangerous innovation upon a just and well-settled
     policy, and a vote in that direction consigned many members of the
     legislature to the repose of private life. But I am not aware that
     any evil results justified these apprehensions, or that any effort
     was ever made to impose the disabilities. On the contrary, the new
     policy, if I may call it so, has been found so consistent with
     justice to the negroes and the interests of the whites that no
     one--certainly no party--in Ohio, would be willing to abandon it."

     An effort to secure to all citizens equal political rights was made
     in the State constitutional convention of 1851. Only thirteen out
     of one hundred and eight members in that body voted in its favor;
     and it is probable that less than one-tenth of the voters of the
     State would then have voted to strike the word "white" out of the
     constitution.

     The last General Assembly submitted to the people a proposition to
     amend the State constitution so as to abolish distinctions in
     political rights based upon color. The proposition contained
     several clauses not pertinent to its main purpose, under which, if
     adopted, it was believed by many that the number of white citizens
     who would be disfranchised would be much greater than the number of
     colored citizens who would be allowed the right of suffrage.
     Notwithstanding the proposition was thus hampered, it received
     216,987 votes, or nearly forty-five per cent of all the votes cast
     in the State. This result shows great progress in public sentiment
     since the adoption of the constitution of 1851, and inspires the
     friends of equal political rights with a confident hope that in
     1871, when the opportunity is given to the people, by the
     provisions of the constitution, to call a constitutional
     convention, the organic law of the State will be so amended as to
     secure in Ohio to all the governed an equal voice in the
     government.

     But whatever reasonable doubts may be entertained as to the
     probable action of the people of Ohio on the question of an
     extension of the right of suffrage when a new State constitution
     shall be formed, I submit with confidence that nothing has occurred
     which warrants the opinion that the ratification by the last
     General Assembly of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of
     the United States was not in accordance with the deliberate and
     settled convictions of the people. That amendment was, after the
     amplest discussion upon an issue distinctly presented, sanctioned
     by a large majority of the people. If any fact exists which
     justifies the belief that they now wish that the resolution should
     be repealed, by which the assent of Ohio was given to that
     important amendment, it has not been brought to the attention of
     the public. Omitting all reference to other valuable provisions, it
     may be safely said that the section which secures among all the
     States of the Union equal representation in the House of
     Representatives and in the electoral colleges in proportion to the
     voting population, is deemed of vital importance by the people of
     Ohio. Without now raising the grave question as to the right of a
     State to withdraw its assent, which has been constitutionally given
     to a proposed amendment of the Federal constitution, I respectfully
     suggest that the attempt which is now making to withdraw the assent
     of Ohio to the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution be
     postponed until the people shall again have an opportunity to give
     expression to their will. In my judgment, Ohio will never consent
     that the whites of the South, a large majority of whom were lately
     in rebellion, shall exercise in the government of the Nation as
     much political power, man for man, as the same number of white
     citizens of Ohio, and be allowed in addition thereto thirty members
     of Congress and of the electoral colleges, for colored people
     deprived of every political privilege.

     In conclusion, I am happy to be able to adopt as my own the
     sentiments so fitly expressed by the speaker of the House of
     Representatives of the present General Assembly. I sincerely hope
     that the legislation of the General Assembly and the administration
     of the State government in all its branches may be characterized by
     economy, wisdom, and prudence; that statesmanship, patriotism, and
     philanthropy may be manifest in every act, and that all may be done
     under the guidance of that Providence which has hitherto so
     signally preserved and blessed our State and Nation.

Certain principles are laid down in this address. One is that every
citizen ought to be taxed in proportion to the actual value of his
property. Another is that too much legislation is an evil to be avoided.
A third is that equality of civil rights justly belongs to all citizens,
notwithstanding the vote at the recent election to the contrary; and a
fourth, that representation according to voting population is a sound
principle, and the people of Ohio must stand by the Fourteenth Amendment
to the National Constitution. The Democratic legislature were
endeavoring to withdraw Ohio's previous ratification. This admirable
address needs no further comment.

Governor Hayes took an active part in the State canvass of 1868, being
assisted by Hon. James G. Blaine, who spoke with marked effect in
Columbus, October 9th.

At the session of the legislature in November, 1868, the governor
delivered his first annual message.

     _Fellow-citizens of the General Assembly:_

     Upon your assembling to enter again upon the duty of legislating
     for the welfare of the people of Ohio, the Governor is required by
     the constitution to communicate to you the condition of the State,
     and to recommend such measures as he shall deem expedient. The
     reports of the executive officers of the State, and of the heads of
     the State institutions, are required by law to be made to the
     Governor on or before the 20th day of November of each year. Since
     that date, sufficient time has not elapsed for the publication of
     the reports, and I shall therefore not be able, at the opening of
     your present session, to lay before you a detailed exposition of
     the affairs of the various departments of the State government. It
     will be my purpose in this communication to invite your attention
     to a few brief suggestions in relation to some measures which are
     deemed important, and which may be considered and acted upon, if
     you think it advisable, in advance of the publication of the
     official reports.

     The financial affairs of the State government are in a satisfactory
     condition. The balance in the treasury on the 15th of November,
     1867, was $677,990.79; the receipts during the last fiscal year
     were $4,347,484.82; making the total amount of funds in the
     treasury, during the year, $5,025,475.61.

     The disbursements during the year have been $4,455,354.86; which
     sum has been paid out of the treasury from the several funds, as
     follows, viz:

     General revenue fund                            $1,518,210.35
     Canal fund                                          14,939.39
     National road fund                                  18,829.36
     Sinking fund                                     1,472,226.33
     Common school fund                               1,426,868.80
     Bank redemption fund                                    16.95
     Soldiers' claims fund                                3,781.68
     Soldiers' allotment fund                               482.00
         Balance in treasury, November 15, 1868         570,120.75
                                                      ------------
     Total                                            5,025,475.61


     The amount of the public funded debt, November
         15, 1867, was                              $11,031,941.56

     During the year, the redemptions were--
     On the loan of 1860              $14,650.67
     Of foreign union loan of 1868    191,166.00
     Of domestic loan of 1868         136,088.13
     Of loan of 1870                  157,361.33
                                      ----------    499,266.13
                                                    ----------
     Debt outstanding, November 15, 1868        $10,532,675.43

     Small temporary appropriations are required as promptly as
     practicable for each of the following objects, the existing
     appropriations having been exhausted, viz: Expenses of the
     Presidential election; expenses of the General Assembly, trustees
     of benevolent institutions, care of state-house, gas for
     state-house, expenses of legislative committees, binding for the
     State, and the new idiotic asylum.

     In pursuance of an act passed March 18, 1867, a board of
     commissioners, consisting of Aaron F. Perry, of Hamilton county,
     Charles E. Glidden, of Mahoning county, and James H. Godman,
     auditor of State, was appointed by my predecessor, Governor Cox,
     whose duty it was "to revise all the laws of this State relating to
     the assessment and taxation of property, the collection,
     safe-keeping, and disbursement of the revenues, and all the laws
     constituting the financial system of the State," and to report
     their proceedings to the next session of the General Assembly. The
     report of the commission was laid before you at your last session.
     It disclosed many imperfections and inconsistencies in the existing
     legislation touching the finances and the urgent necessity for an
     elaborate revision of that legislation. Their report was
     accompanied by eight separate bills, consolidating the present
     laws, removing contradictions, and supplying defects, but
     introducing no radical change in the general principles of our
     financial system. These bills have already been somewhat considered
     by both branches of the General Assembly, but no definite action
     upon them has yet been had. I respectfully recommend an early
     consideration of the bills, and their adoption, with such
     amendments as, in your judgment, the public interests may require.

     The destruction of the central lunatic asylum by fire, during the
     night of the 18th inst., causing the death, by suffocation, of six
     of the patients, and incalculable distress and suffering to the
     remainder, will require investigation and prompt action on your
     part. In rebuilding the asylum, the erection of a fire-proof
     building will occur to you as alike the suggestion of prudence and
     humanity.

     This calamity also suggests the propriety of examining the
     condition of the other institutions of the State, with a view to
     providing them with every proper means of security against a
     similar disaster.

     The interests of common school education, in my opinion, will be
     promoted by the early adoption of county superintendency, as
     provided in a bill on that subject now pending in one branch of the
     General Assembly. I therefore earnestly recommend the consideration
     and passage of the bill.

     The commissioner of common schools is required, in the discharge of
     his duties, to pay out each year, for traveling expenses, about
     $700. The propriety of refunding to him, out of the State treasury,
     his traveling expenses, will probably not be called in question.

     During the last summer, a cattle disease, commonly known as the
     Spanish or Texas cattle fever, occasioned much alarm in the grazing
     counties of the State, and in a few localities caused serious loss.
     On the recommendation of the State board of agriculture, in the
     absence of effective legislation, it was deemed proper to appoint
     commissioners to take such measures as the law authorized to
     prevent the spread of the disease. A proclamation was issued to
     prevent, as far as practicable, the introduction, movement, or
     transportation of diseased cattle within the limits of the State.
     The railroad companies and the owners of stock promptly complied
     with the requirements referred to, and the injury sustained by the
     cattle interest was happily not extensive. It is believed that,
     upon investigation, it will be found necessary to confer, by law,
     upon a board of commissioners appointed for that purpose, or upon
     the executive committee of the State board of agriculture, power to
     "stamp out" the disease wherever it appears, by destroying all
     infected cattle, and to prohibit or regulate the transportation or
     movement of stock within the State during the prevalence of the
     disease. To the end that proper investigation may be had, I
     respectfully recommend that authority be given to appoint five
     commissioners to attend a meeting of commissioners of other States,
     to be held for the consideration of this subject, at Springfield,
     Illinois, on the 1st of December next--said commissioners to report
     the results of their investigation in time for action by the
     present General Assembly.

     I submit to your consideration the importance of providing for a
     thorough and comprehensive geological survey of the State. Many
     years ago a partial survey was prosecuted under many difficulties
     and embarrassments, which was fruitful of valuable results. It is,
     beyond doubt, that such a work as it is now practicable to carry
     out will, by making known the mining, manufacturing, and
     agricultural resources of the State, lead to their development to
     an extent which will, within a few years, amply reimburse the State
     for its cost.

     The annual report of pardons granted and the commutations of the
     sentences of convicts required by law; a statement in detail of the
     expenditure of the governor's contingent fund; the semi-annual
     report of the commissioners of the sinking fund, for May; copies of
     proclamations issued during the last year; and an acknowledgment of
     the presentation to the State of several of the portraits of former
     governors of Ohio, are transmitted herewith.

     The most important subject of legislation which, in my judgment,
     requires the attention of the General Assembly at its present
     session, relates to the prevention of frauds upon the elective
     franchise. Intelligent men of all parties are persuaded that at the
     recent important State and National elections great abuses of the
     right of suffrage were practiced. I am not prepared to admit that
     the reports commonly circulated and believed in regard to such
     abuses, would, so far as the elections in Ohio are concerned, be
     fully sustained by a thorough investigation of the facts. But it is
     not doubted that even at the elections in our own State frauds were
     perpetrated to such an extent that all good citizens earnestly
     desire that effective measures may be adopted by you to prevent
     their repetition. No elaborate attempt to portray the consequences
     of this evil is required. If it is allowed to increase, the
     confidence of the people in the purity of elections will be lost,
     and the exercise of the right of suffrage will be neglected. To
     corrupt the ballot box is to destroy our free institutions. Let all
     good citizens, therefore, unite in enacting and enforcing laws
     which will secure honest elections.

     I submit to your judgment the propriety of such amendments to the
     election laws as will provide, first, for the representation of
     minorities in the boards of the judges and clerks of the elections;
     and second, for the registration of all the lawful voters in each
     township, ward, and election precinct, prior to the election.

     That the boards of elections ought to be so constituted that
     minorities as well as majorities will have a fair representation in
     them, is so plainly just that in some parts of the State, even in
     times of the highest political excitement, such representation has
     been obtained, in the absence of law, by arrangement between the
     committees of the rival political parties. It is not probable that
     any mode of selecting judges and clerks of elections can be adopted
     which will, in every case, accomplish this object. But in all cases
     where the strength of the minority is half, or nearly half as great
     as that of the majority, the desired representation of the minority
     may be insured with sufficient certainty by several different
     plans. For example, it may be provided that at the election of the
     three judges who are to decide all questions at the polls, each
     elector may be allowed to vote for two candidates only, and that
     the three candidates having the highest number of votes shall be
     declared elected, and in like manner that, at the election of the
     two clerks of elections, each elector may vote for one candidate
     only, and that the two candidates receiving the highest number of
     votes shall be declared elected.

     I do not lay much stress on the particular plan here suggested, but
     your attention is invited to the importance of a fair
     representation of the minority in all boards of elections, not
     doubting that your wisdom will be able to devise a suitable measure
     to accomplish it.

     All parts of the State of Ohio are now so closely connected with
     each other, and with other States, by lines of railway, that great
     and constantly increasing facilities are afforded for the
     perpetration of the class of frauds on the elective franchise,
     commonly known as "colonizing." In the cities, men called
     "repeaters," it is said, are paid wages according to the number of
     unlawful votes they succeed in casting at the same election.

     The increase of population adds to the difficulty of detecting and
     preventing fraudulent voting, in whatever mode it may be practiced.
     It is manifestly impossible, amid the hurry and excitement of an
     election, that the legal right to vote, of every person who may
     offer his ballot, should be fully and fairly investigated and
     decided. The experience of many of the older States has proved that
     this can best be done at some period prior to the election, so as
     to give to every legal voter, in an election precinct, an
     opportunity to challenge the claim of any person whose right is
     deemed questionable. Laws to accomplish this have been in force in
     several other States for many years, and have been carried out
     successfully and with the general approval of the people. Believing
     that an act providing for the registration of all legal voters is
     the most effective remedy yet devised for the prevention of frauds
     on the sacred right of suffrage, and that a registry law can be so
     framed that it will deprive no citizen, either native born or
     naturalized, of his just rights, I respectfully recommend to your
     earnest consideration the propriety of enacting such a law.

The comprehensive geological survey of the State recommended in this
message was promptly brought about through the able co-operation of the
Hon. Alfred E. Lee, representing Delaware county in the House of
Representatives, who drew up and reported a bill on February 9, 1869,
making provision for the important object in view. Through the
intelligent activity of Governor Hayes and Representative Lee, the bill
became a law, April 2, 1869. The thorough scientific survey of the
State, since completed under the supervision of Professors Newbury,
Andrews, and Orton, has been of immeasurable value in the way of
developing the mineral resources of Ohio.

Governor Hayes in this message demands laws to secure honest elections,
because "to corrupt the ballot-box is to destroy our free institutions."
He recommends laws securing the representation of minorities on election
boards, and advocates stringent registry laws.

In the second annual message, delivered at the close of his first term,
which we give below, he recommends increased powers to the State board
of charities; better provision for the chronic insane; the establishment
of a State agricultural college; the founding of a home for soldiers'
orphans, and restoring the right of suffrage to soldiers in the national
asylum, to college students, and others who had been disfranchised under
Democratic legislation. He urged also the ratification by Ohio of the
Fifteenth Amendment. We shall speak of the gratifying result of these
recommendations in our next chapter.

     _Fellow-Citizens of the General Assembly:_

     In obedience to the constitution, I proceed to lay before you the
     condition of the affairs of the State government, and to recommend
     such measures as seem to me expedient.

     The balance in the State treasury on the 15th of November, 1868 was
     $570,120.75; the receipts during the last fiscal year were
     $4,781,614.49; making the total amount of available funds in the
     treasury during the year ending November 15, 1869, $5,351,735.24.

     The disbursements during the year have been $4,913,675.10, which
     sum has been paid out of the treasury from the several funds as
     follows, viz:

     General revenue fund      $1,577,221.18
     Canal fund                    41,783.74
     National road fund            22,069.69
     Sinking fund               1,775,938.52
     Common school fund         1,496,633.80
     Bank redemption fund              28.17
                                ------------
     Total                     $4,913,675.10

     Leaving a balance in the treasury, November 15, 1869, of
     $438,060.14.

     The estimates of the auditor of State of receipts and expenditures
     for the current year are as follows:

     Estimated receipts from all sources, including balances  $4,791,144.50
     Estimated disbursements for all purposes                  4,477,899.60
                                                               ------------
     Leaving an estimated balance in the treasury
     November 15, 1870, of                                      $313,244.90

     The amount of the public funded debt of the State, November 15,
     1868, was $10,532,675.43. During the last year the fund
     commissioners have redeemed of the various loans $516,093.57, and
     have invested in loans not yet due $160,643.59, leaving the total
     debt yet to be provided for $9,855,938.27.

     The whole amount of taxes, including delinquencies, collectible
     under State laws during the year 1869 was $21,006,332.44. The
     auditor of State reports the total amount of taxes, including
     delinquencies, collectible during the current year at
     $22,810,675.84, an increase of the taxes of 1870 over 1869 of
     $1,804,353.40.

     In 1869 there was collected for the sinking fund, to be applied to
     the payment of the principal and interest of the State debt, the
     sum of $1,370,101.12. In the present year there will be collected
     for the same purpose the sum of $808,826.61, or $561,275.51 less
     than was collected last year.

     A large proportion of the taxes collected from the people are for
     county, city, and other local purposes, and do not pass through the
     State treasury, but are disbursed within the counties where they
     are collected. During the current year the taxes, exclusive of
     delinquencies, to be collected for all State purposes except for
     the common school fund, amount to $2,542,025.27, while
     $18,187,400.92 are to be collected for local purposes.

     The foregoing statements from the report of the auditor of State
     show that the taxation of this year for State purposes other than
     for payments on the principal and interest of the State debt
     exceeds the taxation of last year for the same purposes by the sum
     of $609,601.50, and that taxation for local purposes this year
     exceeds that of last year for the same purposes by the sum of
     $1,695,725.38. The local taxes this year are about 44 per cent.
     greater than they were three years ago, and are 10 per cent.
     greater than they were last year.

     The increase of taxation for State purposes is in part due to the
     amount collected for the asylum building fund, which exceeds the
     amount required last year for building purposes by almost $300,000.
     Making due allowance for this, the important fact remains that both
     State and local taxes have largely increased.

     A remedy for this evil can only be had through the General
     Assembly. The most important measures to prevent this rapid
     increase of taxation, which have heretofore been recommended, are a
     revision of the financial system of the State in accordance with
     bills prepared by a board of commissioners appointed for that
     purpose, in pursuance of an act passed March 18, 1867; short
     sessions of the General Assembly; adequate fixed salaries for all
     State, county, and municipal officers, without perquisites; and
     definite and effectual limitations upon the power of county
     commissioners, city councils, and other local authorities to levy
     taxes and contract debts.

     The constitution makes it the duty of the legislature to restrict
     the powers of taxation, borrowing money, and the like, so as to
     prevent their abuse. I respectfully suggest that the present laws
     conferring these powers on local authorities require extensive
     modification, in order to comply with this constitutional
     provision. Two modes of limiting these powers have the sanction of
     experience. All large expenditures should meet the approval of
     those who are to bear their burden. Let all extraordinary
     expenditures therefore be submitted to a vote of the people, and no
     tax be levied unless approved by a majority of all the voters of
     the locality to be affected by the tax, at a special election, the
     number of voters to be ascertained by reference to the votes cast
     at the State election next preceding such special election. Another
     mode is to limit the rate of taxation which may be levied and the
     amount of debt which may be incurred. It has been said that with
     such restrictions upon the powers of local authorities the
     legislature will be importuned and its time wasted in hearing
     applications for special legislation. The ready answer to all such
     applications by local authorities will be to refer them to their
     own citizens for a decision of the question. The facility with
     which affirmative votes can be obtained under the pressure of
     temporary excitement upon propositions authorizing indebtedness may
     require further restrictions upon the power to borrow money. It is
     therefore suggested, for your consideration, to limit the amount of
     debt for a single purpose, and the total amount for all purposes
     which any local authority may contract to a certain percentage of
     the taxable property of such locality.

     The evils here considered are not new. Fourteen years ago Governor
     Medill, in his annual message, used the following language, which
     is as applicable to county and municipal affairs now as it was when
     it was written: "The irresponsible and extravagant system of
     administration which prevails in some of our counties and cities
     furnishes the principal cause for the exactions which are so
     generally complained of. There public contracts are given to
     favorites, which occasion the most lavish expenditures. There also
     we find officers with incomes which shock all correct ideas of
     public compensation. These things have their effect upon the
     general tone of public morals. County reform is a duty enjoined by
     every consideration of public virtue."

     The whole of this important subject is commended to your candid
     consideration.

     The management of the affairs of the penitentiary, during the past
     year, has been good; discipline has been maintained; under kind and
     judicious treatment the prisoners have been industrious and
     orderly, and the pecuniary results are satisfactory. The number of
     prisoners, on the 31st of October, 1869, was 974, and the number of
     convicts admitted during the year ending on that day was 347. This
     is a decrease compared with the preceding year, of 27 in the
     number of convicts admitted, and of 67 in the number confined in
     the penitentiary.

     The earnings during the year ending October 31,
     were                                                   $175,663.06
     The expenses were                                       143,635.83
                                                             ----------
     Excess of earnings over expenditures                    $32,027.23

     Last year the earnings were                            $171,037.45
     The expenses were                                       141,794.95
                                                             ----------
     And the excess of earnings over expenses
     were                                                    $29,242.50

     A large proportion of the convicts, when admitted, are quite young.
     The age of about one-third does not exceed twenty-one years. More
     than two-thirds of the inmates of the prison are now under thirty
     years of age. It will occur to any one who considers these facts
     that, under our system of prison discipline, too little effort has
     heretofore been made to reform these young men. A high authority
     has said, "No human being is so debased and wicked that he can not
     be reclaimed." It is believed that, under a wise system, the young,
     at least, can be reformed and prepared for useful and worthy
     citizenship. The present system has two capital defects--the
     mingling in intimate association of the young with the hardened
     criminals, and the failure to educate the convicts in habits of
     thrift and self-control. The defects are in the system. The
     convict, when he leaves the penitentiary, is exposed to greater
     temptations than ever before, and the result of his prison life is
     that he has less power to resist evil influences, and, too often,
     less disposition to resist them. I do not enlarge upon the
     objections to the present system; it is not claimed to be
     reformatory. In a recent report, the directors said: "The great
     mass of convicts still leave the penitentiary apparently as
     hardened and as dangerous to the State as they were when they were
     sentenced." The vital question is, how to remove this reproach on
     our penal legislation. In considering it, I commend to you the
     remarks of the board of State charities on the Irish convict
     system. The distinguishing merit of that system is, that "it
     enlists the co-operation of the prisoner in his own amendment,
     without withholding from him the punishment due to his crime." If
     the adoption of that system, with such modifications as our
     condition requires, is deemed an experiment which it is inexpedient
     for the State to try until its advantages are better understood, I
     submit that the least that ought now to be attempted is to provide
     for a classification of convicts, so as to separate beginners in
     crime from hardened offenders. Whether this can best be done by
     alterations and an extension of the present penitentiary or by the
     erection of a new one, is for your wisdom to determine.

     In several other States voluntary associations have been formed to
     provide for, encourage, and furnish employment to discharged
     convicts, and their efforts have been of incalculable benefit to
     this unfortunate class. If a similar association should be formed
     by the benevolent citizens of Ohio, they will reasonably expect to
     receive proper assistance from the General Assembly, and in that
     expectation I trust they will not be disappointed.

     The total number of persons of school age in the State, in 1869,
     was officially reported at 1,028,675--an increase of 11,108 over
     the previous year. The total number enrolled in the public schools
     in 1869 was 740,382--an increase of 8,610 over the year 1868. The
     average daily attendance in the public schools in 1869 was
     434,865--an increase over 1868 of 24,144.

     The total taxes for schools, school buildings, and all other
     purposes, the present fiscal year, is $6,578,196.83--an increase
     over the taxation of the previous fiscal year of $616,795.68. Of
     this increase of taxation, the sum of $17,833.86 is in the State
     taxation for school purposes, and the sum of $598,991.82 is the
     increase of local school taxation.

     The State commissioner of common schools, in his report, will
     recommend the adoption of county superintendency, the substitution
     of township boards of education to provide for the present system
     of township and sub-district boards, a codification of school laws
     and other important measures, to which your attention is
     respectfully called.

     Prior to the organization of the board of state charities in 1867,
     there was no provision for a systematic examination of the
     benevolent and correctional institutions under the control of the
     State and local authorities. The members of the board serve without
     pecuniary compensation. It is simple justice to them to say that
     they have faithfully performed the thankless task of investigating
     and reporting the defects in the system and in the administration
     of our charitable and penal laws, and have furnished in their
     reports information and suggestions of great value. If it is true
     that an abuse exposed is half corrected, it would be difficult to
     overestimate their work. They have, their reports show, discovered
     abuses and cruelties practiced, under color of law, in the midst of
     communities noted for intelligence and virtue, which would disgrace
     any age. Let the board be granted increased powers and facilities
     for the discharge of their duties, and it will afford
     security--perhaps the best attainable--to the people of the State,
     that the munificent provision which the laws make for the poor and
     unfortunate, will not be wasted or misapplied by the officials who
     are charged with its distribution.

     During the last year more than nine hundred persons, classed as
     incurably insane, have been lodged in the county infirmaries, and
     almost one hundred have been confined in the county jails. Besides
     these a large number of the same class of unfortunates have been
     taken care of by relatives or friends. The State should no longer
     postpone making suitable provision for these unfortunate people.
     The treatment they receive in the infirmaries and jails is always
     of necessity unsuited to their condition, and is often atrocious.
     To provide for them, I would not recommend an increase of the
     number of asylums for the insane. It is believed by those best
     acquainted with the subject, that both economy and the welfare of
     the patients require that the chronic insane should be provided for
     by additions to the asylums already built, or to those which are
     now building. It is probable that in this way such patients can be
     supported at less expense to the people of the State than in
     infirmaries and jails. However this may be, their present condition
     imperatively demands, and, I trust, will receive, the serious
     consideration of the General Assembly. Although commonly classed as
     incurable, it is quite certain that, by proper treatment, in
     suitable institutions, the condition of all of them will be vastly
     improved, and, it may well be hoped, that many of them can be
     entirely cured.

     The expediency of establishing an asylum for the cure of inebriates
     has not been much considered in Ohio. The encouraging results
     which are reported by the officers in charge of the State inebriate
     asylum of New York, induce me to recommend that the General
     Assembly provide for a full investigation of the subject.

     The agricultural and mechanical college fund, created by the sale
     of land-script issued to Ohio by the National government, amounted,
     on the first instant, to $404,911.37-1/2. The State accepted the
     grant out of which this fund has been created, February 10, 1864,
     and is bound by the terms of acceptance, as modified by Congress,
     to provide "not less than one college on or before July 2, 1872,
     where the leading object shall be, without excluding other
     scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics,
     to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture
     and the mechanic arts." The manner in which this fund shall be
     disposed of has been amply considered by preceding General
     Assemblies, and in the messages of my predecessors in the executive
     office. I respectfully urge that such action be had as will render
     this fund available for the important purposes for which it was
     granted. It is not probable that further delay will furnish
     additional information on any of the important questions involved
     in its disposition. Much time and attention has been given to the
     subject of the location of the college. No doubt it will be of
     great benefit to the county in which it shall be established, but
     the main object of desire with the people of the State can be
     substantially accomplished at any one of the places which have been
     prominently named as the site of the college. I therefore trust
     that the friends of education will not allow differences upon a
     question of comparatively small importance to the people at large
     longer to postpone the establishment of the institution, in
     compliance with the obligation of the State.

     A large part of the work required to complete the "Soldiers'
     Record," in pursuance of an act passed March 17, 1864, has already
     been done, at an expense of about $8,000, and the propriety of
     making an appropriation sufficient to enable the adjutant-general
     to complete it is respectfully suggested for your consideration.

     During the war for the Union, the people of this State acknowledged
     their obligation to support the families of their absent soldiers,
     and undertook to meet it, not as charity, but as a partial
     compensation justly due for services rendered. The Nation is saved,
     and the obligation to care for the orphans of the men who died to
     save it still remains to be fulfilled. It is officially estimated
     that three hundred soldiers' orphans, during the past year, have
     been inmates of the county infirmaries of the State. It is the
     uniform testimony of the directors of county infirmaries that those
     institutions are wholly unfit for children; that in a majority of
     cases they are sadly neglected; and that even in the best
     infirmaries the children are subject to the worst moral influences.
     Left by the death of their patriotic fathers in this deplorable
     condition, it is the duty of the State to assume their
     guardianship, and to provide support, education, and homes to all
     who need them. The people of Ohio regret that this duty has been so
     long neglected. I do not doubt that it will afford you great
     gratification to give to this subject early and favorable
     attention.

     All agree that a republican government will fail, unless the purity
     of elections is preserved. Convinced that great abuses of the
     elective franchise can not be prevented under existing legislation,
     I have heretofore recommended the enactment of a registry law, and
     also of some appropriate measure to secure to the minority, as far
     as practicable, a representation upon all boards of elections.
     There is much opposition to the enactment of a registry law.
     Without yielding my own settled convictions in favor of such a law,
     I content myself, in this communication, with urging upon your
     attention a measure of reform in the manner of conducting
     elections, the importance and justice of which no one ventures to
     deny. The conduct of the officers whose duty at elections it is to
     receive and count the ballots, and to make returns of the result,
     ought to be above suspicion. This can rarely be the case where they
     all belong to the same political party. A fair representation of
     the minority will go far, not only to prevent fraud, but, what is
     almost of equal importance, remove the suspicion of fraud. I do not
     express any preference for any particular plan of securing minority
     representation in the boards of judges and clerks of elections.
     Various modes have been suggested, and it will not be difficult to
     adopt a means of attaining the desired result which will harmonize
     with our system of election law.

     The re-enactment of the law securing to the disabled volunteer
     soldiers who are inmates of the National asylum, near Dayton, the
     right of suffrage in the county and township in which said asylum
     is located, which was repealed April 17, 1868, and the repeal of
     the legislation of the last General Assembly, imposing special
     restrictions upon the exercise of the right of suffrage by students
     and by citizens having a visible admixture of African blood, are
     measures so clearly demanded by impartial justice and public
     sentiment that no argument in their support is deemed necessary.

     I transmit herewith the report required by law of the pardons
     granted during the year ending November 15, 1869, a report of the
     expenditures of the Governor's contingent fund, copies of
     proclamations issued during the year, and several communications
     accompanying gifts to the State of portraits of former Governors.

     The most important measure which it will be your duty to consider
     at your present session is the proposed amendment to the
     constitution of the United States. I do not feel called upon to
     discuss its merits. The great body of that part of the people of
     Ohio who sustain the laws for the reconstruction of the States
     lately in rebellion believe that the fifteenth amendment is just
     and wise. Many other citizens who would not support the amendment
     if it was presented as the inauguration of a new policy, in view of
     the fact that impartial suffrage is already established in the
     States most largely interested in the question, now regard the
     amendment as the best mode of getting rid of a controversy which
     ought no longer to remain unsettled. Believing that the measure is
     right, and that the people of Ohio approve it, I earnestly
     recommend the ratification of the fifteenth amendment to the
     constitution of the United States.




CHAPTER VIII.

SECOND ELECTION AS GOVERNOR.

     _Re-nomination--Democratic Platform--Nomination of
     Rosecrans--Declines--Pendleton Nominated--Hayes at
     Wilmington--Election--Second Inaugural--Civil Service Reform--Short
     Addresses--Letters--Annual Message--Democratic Estimate of
     it--Davidson Fountain Address--Message of_ 1872--_Work
     Accomplished._


The State Convention of the Republican party of Ohio, which met at
Columbus, June 23, 1869, nominated Governor Hayes for a second term by
acclamation.

So acceptable was his two years' administration of the chief executive
office of the State, that no competitor entered the lists against him or
contended with him for the nomination. On the question of his
re-nomination the unanimity in his party was absolute. He appeared
before the convention, in response to its invitation, and delivered the
speech printed in the Appendix to this volume, which sounded the
key-note of the campaign. We ask the reader to turn, at this point, to
this speech, as it is impossible to epitomize it without filling as much
space as is filled by the speech itself. The well-founded and
well-supported charges he made against the Democratic Legislature of the
State brought upon him the savage strictures of the Democratic partisan
press, showing that he had penetrated the weak point in his adversaries'
somewhat defenseless defenses.

The Republican platform condemned the reckless expenditures of the
Legislature, its efforts to disfranchise soldiers, students, and all
having African blood in their veins, and squarely declared for the
ratification of the fifteenth amendment.

The Democratic Convention, which assembled July 7, 1869, denounced the
fifteenth amendment, and had much to say about the reserved rights of
the States. The platform contained these resolutions, which sound, at
this day, like an inscription from the tombs of the Ptolemys:

     "_Resolved_, That the exemption from tax of over $2,500,000,000 in
     government bonds and securities is unjust to the people and ought
     not to be tolerated; and that we are opposed to any appropriation
     for the payment of interest on the bonds until they are made
     subject to taxation.

     "_Resolved_, That the claims of the bondholders, that the bonds
     which were bought with greenbacks, and the principal of which is by
     law payable in currency, should nevertheless be paid in gold, is
     unjust and extortionate; and, if persisted in, will inevitably
     force upon the people the question of repudiation."

Here we have the bald proposition to repudiate the interest on the
public debt unless it is taxed contrary to law, as made known by
repeated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; and
secondly, the direct threat to repudiate the principal of the National
debt unless it is paid off in broken promises to pay. As the greenback
is simply a debt or a due bill, this paying debts with debts was a
patentable discovery in the science of finance. Taken in connection with
the declaration of Vallandigham in the canvass before, that the whole
bonded debt should be immediately "paid" in greenbacks, the resolution
simply meant that the war debt should not be paid at all. This robbing
the men whose money saved the Republic was not acceptable then to the
farmers and laborers of Ohio, and will probably not now be more
acceptable to the capitalists of New York. It is well, however, to
recall the antecedents of a party that first tried to get into power
through discreditable expedients, before resorting to a declaration of
honest principles in finance.

The convention took a "new departure," and, putting aside Ranney and
Pendleton, nominated General W. S. Rosecrans for governor, who was then
absent from the country. This nomination was mainly brought about
through the zealous efforts of Messrs. Vallandigham, Callen, and Baber.

The opinions General Rosecrans entertained of his new-found friends were
not favorable. In a letter dated February 3, 1863, from Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, General Rosecrans, in speaking of the slave-holding
insurgents, had used this language:

     "Wherever they have the power they drive before them into their
     ranks the Southern people, and they would also drive us. Trust them
     not. Were they able they would invade and destroy us without mercy.
     Absolutely assured of these things, I am amazed that any one could
     think of 'peace on any terms.'

     "He who entertains the sentiment is fit only to be a slave; he who
     utters it at this time is, moreover, a traitor to his country, who
     deserves the scorn and contempt of all honorable men."

Rosecrans declined the nomination, and George H. Pendleton, after just
enough hesitation to impart a proper value to his consent, consented to
fill the vacant place at the head of the ticket.

Governor Hayes, aided by Senator Morton, opened the active campaign in a
speech delivered at Wilmington, August 12, devoted mainly to the
discussion of National and State finances. In the course of this speech
Governor Hayes said:

     "When the rebellion broke out, what was its chance for success? It
     had just one--a divided North. A divided North was its only chance.
     A united North was bound to crush the rebellion within two years
     after the firing on Sumter. A divided North encouraged the
     aristocratic enemies of free government in every land to build
     Alabamas and Shenandoahs that scourged the seas and swept away our
     commerce from the ocean. A divided North encouraged the Emperor of
     France to proclaim to everybody that sooner or later he proposed to
     intervene. A divided North encouraged rebel leaders to believe that
     sooner or later our armies must disband and come home.

     "Now, I say to you that Pendleton was the selected and chosen
     leader of the Peace Party of the Northwest--the leader of the party
     that _made_ a divided North. They talk of the debt and the great
     burden of taxation. We talked sadly of the loss of valuable lives
     that went down in the storm of battle. I say to you that the fact
     of a divided North doubled the debt and doubled the loss of
     valuable lives."

The campaign was an important one to Mr. Pendleton. Had he been
successful he would undoubtedly have been the Democratic candidate for
the presidency. A leading journal of the State said: "The gubernatorial
contest is but a side-show. We are already entering upon the next
presidential canvass, and Ohio is the key to the position."
Nevertheless, Republican success was too certain to make the contest so
warm a one as that of two years before. The State had been organized by
townships and school districts and polled. So accurate was this poll
that predictions as to the result, sealed and filed a week prior to the
election by each of the members of the Republican State Executive
Committee, the writer being one, varied only from two hundred to three
thousand votes of the final result. Hayes' majority in '69 was 7,506--a
little above the average majority. The canvass was fought largely upon
the issue of the greenback payment of the debt. The Pendleton plan of
indirect repudiation failed, and the rag infant was decently interred,
to await an inglorious resurrection.

Governor Hayes was re-inaugurated January 10, 1870, on which occasion he
delivered the following address:

     _Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:_

     In the annual message transmitted to the General Assembly a few
     days ago, a brief exposition of the condition of the State
     government was given, and such measures were recommended as the
     public good seemed to me to require. It will therefore not be
     expected that on this occasion I should again discuss subjects
     pertaining to the usual routine of legislation.

     The most important questions concerning State affairs which in the
     ordinary course of events will engage the attention of the people
     of Ohio, during the term of office upon which I now enter, are
     those which relate to the action of a Constitutional Convention
     authorized to be called by a vote of the people at the October
     election in 1871. The present organic law provides for submitting
     to the electors of the State, once in twenty years, the question of
     holding "a convention to revise, alter, or amend the constitution."
     It is no disparagement of the work of the last Constitutional
     Convention to say that experience has already demonstrated the
     wisdom of this provision. It would be strange, indeed, if the last
     eighteen years had developed no defects in the constitution of
     1851.

     It is, perhaps, not improper at this time to call attention to some
     of the amendments of the existing fundamental law which the next
     Constitutional Convention will probably be required to consider.

     The provision of the present constitution which prohibits the
     General Assembly from authorizing "any county, city, town, or
     township, by vote of its citizens or otherwise," from giving aid to
     any "company, corporation, or association," was designed to remedy
     an evil of the gravest magnitude. Unlimited power to authorize
     counties, cities, and towns to subscribe to the stock of railroad
     companies had burdened the people of the State with indebtedness
     and taxation to an extent which threatened bankruptcy. Experience
     has shown, however, that the clauses of the constitution on this
     subject are so sweeping that they are almost equivalent to a
     prohibition of the construction of railroads, except where those
     who control the existing railroad lines furnish the means. In many
     localities, the people are thus deprived of the only artificial
     instrumentality for intercourse with other parts of the State and
     country which is now regarded as valuable. By reason of it,
     important sources of wealth in large sections of the State remain
     undeveloped. It is believed that amendments can be framed, under
     which effective local aid can be furnished for the building of
     railroads, and which, at the same time, shall be so guarded and
     limited as to prevent a dangerous abuse of the power.

     For many years political influence and political services have been
     essential qualifications for employment in the civil service,
     whether State or National. As a general rule, such employments are
     regarded as terminating with the defeat of the political party
     under which they began. All political parties have adopted this
     rule. In many offices the highest qualifications are only obtained
     by experience. Such are the positions of the warden of the
     penitentiary and his subordinates, and the superintendents of
     asylums and reformatories and their assistants. But the rule is
     applied to these as well as to other offices and employments. A
     change in the political character of the executive and legislative
     branches of the government is followed by a change of the officers
     and employs in all of the departments and institutions of the
     State. Efficiency and fidelity to duty do not prolong the
     employment; unfitness and neglect of duty do not always shorten it.
     The evils of this system in State affairs are, perhaps, of small
     moment compared with those which prevail under the same system in
     the transaction of the business of the National government. But at
     no distant day they are likely to become serious, even in the
     administration of State affairs. The number of persons employed in
     the various offices and institutions of the State must increase,
     under the most economical management, in equal ratio with the
     growth of our population and business.

     A radical reform in the civil service of the general government has
     been proposed. The plan is to make qualifications, and not
     political services and influence, the chief test in determining
     appointments, and to give subordinates in the civil service the
     same permanency of place which is enjoyed by officers of the army
     and navy. The introduction of this reform will be attended with
     some difficulties. But in revising our State constitution, if this
     object is kept constantly in view, there is little reason to doubt
     that it can be successfully accomplished.

     Our judicial system is plainly inadequate to the wants of the
     people of the State. Extensive alterations of existing provisions
     must be made. The suggestions I desire to present in this
     connection are as to the manner of selecting judges, their terms of
     office, and their salaries. It is fortunately true that the judges
     of our courts have heretofore been, for the most part, lawyers of
     learning, ability, and integrity. But it must be remembered that
     the tremendous events and the wonderful progress of the last few
     years are working great changes in the condition of our society.
     Hitherto population has been sparse, property not unequally
     distributed, and the bad elements which so frequently control large
     cities have been almost unknown in our State. But with a dense
     population crowding into towns and cities, with vast wealth
     accumulating in the hands of a few persons or corporations, it is
     to be apprehended that the time is coming when judges elected by
     popular vote, for short official terms, and poorly paid, will not
     possess the independence required to protect individual rights.
     Under the National constitution, judges are nominated by the
     executive and confirmed by the Senate, and hold office during good
     behavior. It is worthy of consideration whether a return to the
     system established by the fathers is not the dictate of the highest
     prudence. I believe that a system under which judges are so
     appointed, for long terms and with adequate salaries, will afford
     to the citizen the amplest possible security that impartial justice
     will be administered by an independent judiciary.

     I forbear to consider further at this time the interesting
     questions which will arise in the revision and amendment of the
     constitution. Convinced of the soundness of the maxim that "that
     government is best which governs least," I would resist the
     tendency common to all systems to enlarge the functions of
     government. The law should touch the rights, the business, and the
     feelings of the citizen at as few points as is consistent with the
     preservation of order and the maintenance of justice. If every
     department of government is kept within its own sphere, and every
     officer performs faithfully his own duty without magnifying his
     office, harmony, efficiency, and economy will prevail.

     Under the providence of God, the people of this State have greatly
     prospered. But in their prosperity they can not forget "him who
     hath borne the battle, nor his widow, nor his orphan," nor the
     thousands of other sufferers in our midst, who are entitled to
     sympathy and relief. They are to be found in our hospitals, our
     infirmaries, our asylums, our prisons, and in the abodes of the
     unfortunate and the erring. The Founder of our religion, whose
     spirit should pervade our laws, and animate those who enact and
     those who enforce them, by His teaching and His example, has
     admonished us to deal with all the victims of adversity as the
     children of our common Father. With this duty performed, we may
     confidently hope that for long ages to come our country will
     continue to be the home of freedom and the refuge of the oppressed.

     Grateful to the people of Ohio for the honors they have conferred,
     I approach a second term in the executive office, deeply solicitous
     to discharge, as far as in me lies, the obligations and duties
     which their partial judgment has imposed.

The most striking part of the address is that which relates to reform in
the civil service of the State and the Nation. Governor Hayes proposes
to reform the civil service of the State _by means of a constitutional
provision in a new State constitution_. This method of reformation is
radical, and, we believe, original. It suggests the pertinent query,
whether reform in the civil service of the Nation can not be best
accomplished through a new provision in the National constitution. Can
permanency and stability be secured in the civil service of the Republic
in any other certain way than by a constitutional amendment? Civil
service reformers need hardly waste their time discussing methods and
systems less radical and fundamental. It must be recorded to the honor
of Governor Hayes that he, more than six years ago, suggested the only
true solution to the civil service problem, by proposing to place that
service beyond disturbance from the fluctuating fortunes of political
parties. He has, therefore, been an advanced civil service reformer more
than the sixteenth of a century; not, like Mr. Tilden, for six months
prior to a presidential election.

In December, 1869, he wrote to a friend in Congress: "We must have a
genuine retrenchment and economy. The monthly reduction of the debt is
of far more consequence than the reduction of taxation in any form. I
hope, too, you will abolish the franking privilege and adopt the general
principles of Trumbull's bill and Jencke's bill. It would please the
people and be right and wise."

It is hardly needful to add that the bills referred to were the best
civil service bills then before Congress.

In this same address, the governor boldly declares against the heresy of
an elective judiciary, and favors the system established by Madison,
Hamilton, and Washington, which has given us a Jay, a Story, and a
Marshall.

During the occupancy of his office as executive of the State, Governor
Hayes, on a vast variety of occasions, was called upon to deliver
speeches and addresses on all classes of subjects. These efforts are
all admirable in their way, and give evidences of fine literary taste,
great good judgment, and what Dickens called "a sense of the
proprieties."

We can find space for portions only of a few of these addresses. In an
address of welcome on the occasion of the great exposition of textile
fabrics, held in Cincinnati, in August, 1869, the governor of Ohio said:

     "We meet at a most auspicious period in our country's history. Our
     greeting and welcome to citizens of other States are 'without any
     mental reservation whatever.' It is plain that we are entering upon
     an era of good feeling, not known before in the life-time of the
     present generation. For almost half a century the great sectional
     bitterness which is now so rapidly and so happily disappearing, and
     which we know can never be revived, carried discord, division, and
     weakness into every enterprise requiring the united efforts of
     citizens of different States. Now the causes of strife have been
     swept away, and their last vestiges will soon be buried out of
     sight. Good men will no longer waste their strength in mutual
     crimination or recrimination about the past. The people of
     different sections of our country will hereafter be able to act,
     not merely with intelligence and energy, but with entire harmony
     and unity; in any enterprise which promises an increase of human
     welfare and human happiness.

     "This association, then, is working in perfect accord with the
     spirit of the times. The development of new resources, the opening
     of new paths to skill and labor, the discovery of new methods, the
     invention of new machinery and implements, and the employment of
     capital in new and useful pursuits--these are the objects which
     associations like this aim to accomplish. All who encourage these
     things, and who desire to aid in such achievements, deserve a
     hearty welcome wherever they may go, and will, I assure you, always
     find it, as you do now, in the State of Ohio."

Soon after the death of Secretary Stanton, and near the beginning of the
governor's second term, a meeting of members of the Ohio bar was held
in the room of the Supreme Court of Ohio, to take action with reference
to the loss of their former associate and friend. On this occasion
Governor Hayes said:

     "I shall not undertake to describe the life and character and
     services of Mr. Stanton. Few men--very few men--ever possessed such
     learning, such intellect, such energy, such courage, such will,
     such honesty, such patriotism, in one word, such manhood, as
     belonged to him. All of his great powers and qualities he gave to
     the performance of duty, and with them he gave also life itself.

     "Our profession rejoices that Mr. Stanton was an eminent lawyer.
     Our State rejoices that he was her great son. Our country and our
     age may well rejoice that he lived in this age and in this country.
     The members of our profession, the people of our State and of the
     Nation, and all mankind do honor to themselves in striving to do
     honor to the memory of such a man as Edwin M. Stanton."

It can be readily understood why a robust, positive, hard-fighting
soldier like Hayes, should so ardently give his admiration to a
firm-sinewed, iron-nerved, masculine man like the great minister of war.

On the 13th of April, 1870, the colored people of Central Ohio
celebrated the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment at an immense meeting
held in the opera house in Columbus. Governor Hayes, as their chosen
orator, delivered the following brief address, which seems the
inspiration of one who has the logic of history in his head and humanity
in his heart:

     FELLOW-CITIZENS:--We celebrate to-night the final triumph of a
     righteous cause after a long, eventful, memorable struggle. The
     conflict which Mr. Seward pronounced "irrepressible" at last is
     ended. The house which was divided against itself, and which,
     therefore, according to Mr. Lincoln, could not stand as it was, is
     divided no longer; and we may now rationally hope that under
     Providence it is destined to stand--long to stand the home of
     freedom, and the refuge of the oppressed of every race and of every
     clime.

     The great leading facts of the contest are so familiar that I need
     not attempt to recount them. They belong to the history of two
     famous wars--the war of the Revolution and the war of the
     Rebellion--and are part of the story of almost a hundred years of
     civil strife. They began with Bunker Hill and Yorktown, with the
     Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Federal
     Constitution. They end with Fort Sumter and the fall of Richmond,
     with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Anti-Slavery and Equal
     Rights Amendments to the Constitution of the Nation. These long and
     anxious years were not years of unbroken ceaseless warfare. There
     were periods of lull, of truce, of compromise. But every lull was
     short-lived, every truce was hollow, and every compromise, however
     pure the motives of its authors, proved deceitful and vain. There
     could be no lasting peace until the great wrong was destroyed, and
     impartial justice established.

     The history of this period is adorned with a long list of
     illustrious names--with the names of men who were indeed "Solomons
     in council and Sampsons in the field." At its beginning there were
     Washington, Franklin, and Hamilton, and their compeers; and in the
     last great crisis Providence was equally gracious, and gave us such
     men as Lincoln, and Stanton, and George H. Thomas.

     All who faithfully bore their part in the great conflict may now
     with grateful hearts rejoice that it is forever ended.

     The newly-made citizens who seem to carry off the lion's share of
     the fruits of the victory--it is especially fitting and proper that
     they should assemble to congratulate each other, and to be
     congratulated by all of us that they now enjoy for the first time
     in full measure the blessings of freedom and manhood.

     Those, also, who have opposed many of the late steps in the great
     progress--it is a satisfaction to know that so large a number of
     them gracefully acquiesce in the decision of the Nation.

     The war of races, which it was so confidently predicted would
     follow the enfranchisement of the colored people--where was it in
     the elections in Ohio last week? In a few localities the old
     prejudice and fanaticism made, we hope, their last appearance.
     There was barely enough angry dissent to remind us of the barbarism
     of slavery which has passed away forever. Generally throughout the
     State, and especially in the cities of Cincinnati, Cleveland,
     Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo, where the new element is large, those
     who strove to avert the result over which we rejoice, leaders as
     well as followers, were conspicuous in setting an example of
     obedience to the law.

     Not the least among the causes for congratulation to-night is the
     confidence we have that the enfranchised people will prove worthy
     of American citizenship. No true patriot wishes to see them exhibit
     a blind and unthinking attachment to mere party; but all good men
     wish to see them cultivate habits of industry and thrift, and to
     exhibit intelligence and virtue, and at every election to be
     earnestly solicitous to array themselves on the side of law and
     order, liberty and progress, education and religion.

The following letters, written during 1870, have come under our
observation. We reproduce them because they exhibit to some extent
opinions and character.

In one dated March 1, 1870, these passages occur:

     "I also agree with you perfectly on the spoils doctrine. This you
     would know if you had read my last inaugural. I am glad you do not
     bore yourself with such reading generally, but you are in for it
     now, as I shall send you a copy. I, too, mean to be out of
     politics. The ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment gives me the
     boon of equality before the law, terminates my enlistment, and
     discharges me cured."

Another letter, dated June 2d, in reply to a stranger in Baltimore,
shows his tender regard for the private soldier, whether he be living or
dead:

     "I acknowledge with great gratification the receipt of your letter
     of the 30th, informing me of your patriotic attention to the grave
     of an Ohio soldier in your city on Decoration Day."

     "Be pleased to accept my thanks for your generous action, and for
     courtesy of your letter."

To a friend in Congress he writes, on June 13th:

     "You will as astonished as I was by this decision as to the right
     of the soldiers to vote at the Dayton National Asylum. But there it
     is. How can we get rid of it? Can you pass an act of Congress that
     will avoid it? I feel like saying that the soldiers must vote as
     usual, and test the case again. I merely call your attention to it
     with a view to Congressional action. You recollect the act ceding
     jurisdiction expressly provided that residents of Ohio retained the
     right to vote."

To the president of the Commercial Union of New York he wrote, June
20th:

     "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the
     10th instant, inviting me to attend a meeting of the Commercial
     Union of the State of New York, to be held in the city of Rochester
     on the 15th of July next, and to express my regret that prior
     engagements will prevent me from being present on that occasion.
     The subject to be considered--cheap transportation between the East
     and West--is of importance to the whole country, and especially to
     the State of Ohio. Earnestly hoping that the deliberations of the
     meeting will greatly promote this object, I remain, etc."

January 3, 1871, Governor Hayes delivered the following important annual
message:

     _Fellow-Citizens of the General Assembly:_

     The official reports, which the law requires to be annually made to
     the governor, show that the affairs of the various departments of
     the State government and of the State institutions have been
     conducted during the past year in a satisfactory manner. I shall
     not attempt to give a synopsis of the facts and figures which the
     reports contain. The most important parts of them have been spread
     before the people of the State by the newspaper press, and the
     details which may be desired with a view to legislation can be best
     obtained from the reports themselves.

     I also refrain from making many recommendations. Believing that too
     frequent changes of the laws and too much legislation are serious
     evils, I respectfully suggest that upon many subjects it may be
     well to defer legislation until the people have acted upon the
     question of calling a constitutional convention. If such a
     convention shall be called, it is not improbable that the General
     Assembly will be clothed with powers essentially different from
     those conferred by the present fundamental law in respect to the
     judiciary, railroads, intemperance, and many other important
     subjects, and that the legislature itself will be so constituted as
     to secure to minorities a fairer representation than they now
     enjoy.

     The balance in the State treasury on the 15th of November, 1869,
     was $438,060.14; the receipts during the year were $4,399,932.53;
     making the total amount of available funds in the treasury during
     the year $4,837,992.67.

     The disbursements during the year have been $4,071,954.57; leaving
     a balance in the treasury, November 15, 1870, of $766,038.10.

     The estimates of the auditor of State for the current year are as
     follows:

     Estimated receipts from all sources, including balances,
     $5,670,205.10; estimated disbursements for all purposes,
     $5,163,976.01; leaving an estimated balance in the treasury,
     November, 15, 1871, of $506,229.09.

     The public funded debt of the State on the 15th of November, 1869,
     after deducting the amount invested in loans not yet due, was
     $9,855,938.27. During the last year there has been redeemed of the
     various loans, and invested in loans not yet due, the sum of
     $123,860.36, leaving the total debt due November 15, 1870,
     $9,732,077.91.

     The fund commissioners were prepared to pay off a larger amount of
     the debt than has been actually discharged during the year, but
     none of the bonds of the State were due, and some of the holders
     demanded ten or twelve per cent premium, and others refused to
     surrender their bonds at any price.

     The constant and rapid increase of taxation demands consideration.
     The following table, showing the taxation for different purposes
     in 1860 and in 1870, and the increase of taxation in ten years,
     sufficiently exhibits the nature and extent of the evil.

     +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                       AMOUNT OF TAXES LEVIED.                      |
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |For what purpose.      |     1860.    |     1870.    |   Increase.  |
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |County taxes           | $1,309,137.46| $1,975,088.71|   $665,951.25|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Bridge taxes           |    487,538.40|  1,474,148.18|  1,036,609.78|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Poor taxes             |    260,607.20|    657,116.42|    396,509.22|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Building taxes         |    228,444.13|    783,960.73|    505,516.60|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Road taxes             |    394,424.77|  1,199,767.26|    805,342.49|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Railroad taxes         |    538,869.50|    461,848.72|    ..........|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Township taxes         |    349,360.86|    734,585.65|    385,224.79|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |T'p and sub-district   |              |              |              |
     |and district school    |  1,487,247.44|  4,960,771.87|  3,473,524.43|
     |taxes                  |              |              |              |
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Other special taxes    |    349,236.33|  1,152,335.09|    803,098.76|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |City and town taxes    |  1,506,083.86|  5,447,766.96|  3,941,683.10|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Delinquent taxes       |    453,013.46|    667,188.69|    214,175.23|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Other than State taxes |  7,313,963.41| 19,464,578.28| 12,227,685.65|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |State taxes            |  3,503,712.93|  4,666,242.23|  1,162,529.30|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
     |Totals                 |$10,817,676.34|$24,130,820.51|$13,390,164.95|
     +-----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

     This table shows that in ten years the State taxes have increased
     thirty-three per cent, and that local taxes have increased almost
     one hundred and seventy per cent; in other words, that less than
     one-tenth of the increase has been in State taxes, and more than
     nine-tenths in local taxes.

     The increase of local taxation has been far greater than the growth
     of the State in business, population or wealth. It is not to be
     doubted that this burden has grown to dimensions which seriously
     threaten the prosperity of the State.

     No full and exact statement can be made from the official reports
     as to the amount annually collected from the property-holders of
     the State in the form of special assessments for what are termed
     local improvements, but it is certain that this burden is also
     great and rapidly growing.

     The auditor of State reports cases in which such assessments have
     been made, amounting to half of the cash value of the property on
     which they were levied, and, in one case which he refers to, the
     assessment was double the value of the property.

     In respect to these evils it is undoubtedly easier to find fault
     than to provide a remedy. No single measure will remove them.
     Probably no system of measures which the General Assembly can adopt
     will of themselves accomplish what is desired. A complete reform is
     impossible, unless the city, county, and other officers are
     disposed and thoroughly competent to do the work of cutting off
     every unnecessary expenditure.

     Much, however, can be accomplished by wise legislation. Let the
     General Assembly firmly adhere to the policy of the constitution,
     and refuse to enact special laws granting powers to tax or make
     assessments. Let such powers be exercised only in pursuance of
     general laws. Local authorities should be empowered to levy no
     higher rate of taxation than is absolutely required for practical
     efficiency under ordinary circumstances. In extraordinary cases
     general laws should provide for the submission of the proposed tax
     or assessment to the people to be affected by it, under such
     regulations that it can not be levied unless at least two-thirds of
     the tax-payers approve the measure.

     One of the most valuable articles of the present State constitution
     is that which prohibits the State, save in a few exceptional cases,
     from creating any debt, and which provides for the payment at an
     early day of the debt already contracted. I am convinced that it
     would be wise to extend the same policy to the creation of public
     debts by county, city, and other local authorities. The rule "pay
     as you go" leads to economy in public as well as in private
     affairs; while the power to contract debts opens the door to
     wastefulness, extravagance, and corruption.

     In the early history of the State, when capital was scarce and
     expensive public works were required for transporting the products
     of the State to market, public debts were probably unavoidable; but
     the time, I believe, has come when not only the State, but all of
     its subordinate divisions, ought to be forbidden to incur debt. The
     same rule on this subject ought to be applied to local authorities
     which the constitution applies to the State legislature. Experience
     has proved that the power to contract debt is as liable to abuse by
     local boards as it is by the General Assembly. If it is important
     to the people that the State should be free from debt, it is also
     important that its municipal divisions should not have power to
     oppress them with the burden of local indebtedness.

     It would promote an economical administration of the laws if all
     officers, State, county, and municipal, including the members of
     the legislature, were paid fixed salaries.

     Under existing laws a part of the public officers are paid by fees
     and a part by fixed annual salaries or by a per diem allowance. The
     result is great inequality and injustice. Many of those who are
     paid by fees receive a compensation out of all proportion to the
     services rendered. Others are paid salaries wholly inadequate. For
     example, many county officers and some city officers receive
     greater compensation than the judges of the Supreme Court of the
     State. The salaries paid to the judges ought to be increased; the
     amount paid to many other public officers ought to be reduced. To
     do justice, a system of fixed salaries, without fees or
     perquisites, should be adopted. The people of Ohio will, without
     question, sustain an increase of the salaries of judges and of
     other officers who are now inadequately paid; but it can probably
     best be done as a part of a system which would prevent the payment
     to public officers of enormous sums by means of fees and
     perquisites. To remove all ground of complaint, on account of
     injustice to present incumbents, the new system should apply only
     to those elected after its adoption.

     In addition to considerations already presented in favor of a
     revision of the rates of taxation which local officers and boards
     are authorized to levy, another controlling reason is not to be
     omitted. By the recent revaluation of real estate the total basis
     of taxation for the State at large will probably be increased
     almost forty per cent, and in many of the cities the increase will
     be nearly one hundred per cent This renders it imperatively
     necessary to revise the present rates, so as to prevent the
     collection and expenditure of sums much greater than the public
     good demands.

     Under prudent and efficient management the earnings of the
     penitentiary continue to exceed its expenses, and at the same time
     gratifying progress has been made in improving the condition and
     treatment of the prisoners. The hateful and degrading uniform of
     past years is disappearing; increased means of education, secular
     and religious, are afforded, and the officers of the institution
     exhibit an earnest desire to employ every instrumentality
     authorized by existing laws to restore its inmates to society
     improved in habits, capacity, and character.

     While much has been done in our State during the last twenty-five
     years for the improvement of prison discipline, it is not to be
     denied that much more yet remains unaccomplished.

     Assuming that the time has not arrived to attempt a radical change
     of our prison discipline, the following practical suggestions,
     consistent with the present system, are offered for your
     consideration: A convict is now allowed a deduction from the period
     of his sentence as a reward for good behavior. The power to extend
     the period of the sentence as a punishment for bad conduct would
     also, under proper regulations, exercise a wholesome influence in
     the discipline of the prison.

     The importance of classification among convicts is now universally
     admitted. For economical or other reasons the establishment of an
     intermediate prison will perhaps be deemed inexpedient at this
     time. It is believed, however, that by employing convict labor the
     additional buildings and improvements required for a satisfactory
     classification can be erected on the ground adjoining the old
     prison, recently purchased and now enclosed, at a small expense
     compared with the cost of a new prison. This plan, it is hoped,
     will receive your careful consideration.

     It is also recommended that the Board of State Charities be
     empowered to aid discharged convicts to obtain honest employment.
     An annual appropriation of a small sum for this purpose, in the
     course of a few years, would probably save a large number, who,
     without such help, would again return to a criminal course of life.

     The most defective part of our present prison system is probably
     our county jails. It is supposed about 8,000 persons pass through
     our county jails each year. They are generally persons charged with
     crimes and awaiting trial. But lunatics and petty offenders in
     considerable numbers are also confined in these places. The young
     and the old, the innocent and the guilty, hardened offenders and
     beginners in crime, are commonly mingled together in the jails,
     under few restraints, without useful occupation and with abundant
     leisure and temptation to learn wickedness. The jails have been
     fitly termed nurseries of crime. Plans of jails, not too expensive,
     have been furnished by the Board of State Charities, which provide
     for the absolute separation of the prisoners. It is recommended
     that the law shall require all jails to be so constructed as to
     entirely prevent this promiscuous and dangerous intercourse.

     Your attention is particularly called to the recommendation of the
     Board of State Charities that the proper authorities of all of the
     cities of the State should be required to make full reports
     annually to the legislature, through the governor, of the
     statistics of vice and crime and of the work of the police
     department in such cities; and also to the suggestion that
     prosecuting attorneys should not be allowed to enter a _nolle
     prosequi_ in any case of an indictment for a crime punishable by
     imprisonment in the penitentiary or by death, without the written
     approval of the attorney-general first given upon a written report
     to him of the facts.

     The importance of this is sufficiently shown by the fact that in
     1869 the number of cases in which a _nolle prosequi_ was entered
     exceeded fifteen hundred.

     The Girls' Reformatory at White Sulphur Springs contains forty-nine
     inmates, and it is now demonstrated that the number is likely to
     increase as rapidly as the welfare of the institution will allow.
     Whatever doubts may have been reasonably entertained as to the
     necessity for such an institution prior to its establishment, the
     report of the directors and superintendent and a thorough
     investigation of the facts will, it is believed, satisfy you that
     the institution is a very important one, and ought to be liberally
     supported.

     The report of the superintendent and trustees of the Soldiers'
     Orphans' Home will engage your earnest attention. The duty of
     providing for the education and support of the children of the
     soldiers of Ohio who fell in the war for the Union was fully
     recognized by the resolutions and acts of your last session. It is
     not doubted that your action was in accordance with the will of the
     people of the State, and they earnestly desire that the duty of
     caring for the soldiers' orphans shall be performed in a manner
     that will worthily express the affection and gratitude with which
     these wards of the State must ever be regarded by a just and
     patriotic community. I therefore respectfully recommend that the
     legislation deemed necessary by the board and officers in charge of
     the institution be enacted as promptly as practicable.

     The report of the geological survey, to be laid before you,
     exhibits the encouraging progress of that work. The future growth
     of Ohio in wealth and population will depend largely on the
     development of the mining and manufacturing resources of the State.
     Heretofore, our increase in capital and numbers has been chiefly
     due to agriculture. Important as that great interest will always be
     in Ohio, the recent census shows that we may not reasonably
     anticipate, in future, rapid growth in population or wealth from
     agriculture alone. Without calling in question the great and
     immediate benefit to accrue to agriculture from the geological
     survey, it is yet true that the tendency of its exhibition of our
     vast mineral wealth is to encourage the employment of labor and
     capital in mining and manufacturing enterprises. Let the work be
     continued and sustained by ample appropriations.

     It is necessary that the General Assembly, at its present session,
     should adopt the requisite legislation to carry into effect the
     following requirement of the constitution: Sec. 3, article 16, of
     the constitution, provides that "at the general election to be held
     in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and in each
     twentieth year thereafter, the question, 'Shall there be a
     convention to revise, alter, or amend the constitution?' shall be
     submitted to the electors of the State, and in case a majority of
     all the electors voting at such election shall decide in favor of
     such a convention, the General Assembly, at its next session, shall
     provide by law for the election of delegates and the assembling of
     such convention."

     In conclusion, I feel warranted in congratulating you on the
     favorable judgment of your constituents upon your action on the
     important subjects which were considered at your last session, and
     in expressing a confident hope that what remains to be done will,
     under Providence, be so wisely ordered that the true interests of
     all the people of the State will be greatly and permanently
     advanced.

Without comments of our own, we will simply give the opinions of
Democratic journals concerning this message.

The Cincinnati _Enquirer_, of January 4, 1871, said:

     "The message of Governor Hayes is a plain, straightforward, and
     sensible document, and in every respect is creditable to him."

The Columbus _Crisis_ said:

     "The annual message of Governor R. B. Hayes, printed in this issue,
     is a very fair and plain statement of the condition of the affairs
     of the State, and is especially commendable for its brevity and
     practical purport."

The Steubenville _Gazette_ characterized this message as--

     "An excellent and appropriate document--short and
     comprehensive--and, as it should be, devoted wholly to State
     affairs."

The Cincinnati _Commoner, ultra_ Democratic, declared:

     "The message is brief, but full of wisdom, and deserves the study
     of every citizen."

The correspondence of 1871 from the executive office reveals letters
like these:

     "I long since, in conversation, announced my wish and purpose to
     withdraw from the race for important positions in public affairs. I
     meant this announcement to apply both to the office I now hold and
     the senatorship. That purpose remains unchanged."

A letter of May 5th, to a distinguished New York journalist, says:

     "Your article on the Ohio governorship is of course satisfactory to
     me, but you will not object to two corrections. I have not been and
     shall not be a candidate for re-nomination. I probably could
     without effort have been renominated, but usage and personal
     inclination were against it. The more serious error is: You omit to
     name the Republican candidate who is nearly certain of the
     nomination and election. General Edward F. Noyes, of Cincinnati, a
     brave and popular soldier, who lost a leg in the Atlanta campaign;
     an eloquent and attractive speaker, and a gentleman of integrity
     and purity of character, will, I think, without question, be
     nominated. He is the sort of man you would support heartily if you
     lived in Ohio."

On the 6th of October, 1871, Governor Hayes delivered the striking
address we give below, on the occasion of the inauguration of the
celebrated Davidson fountain, in Cincinnati. This fountain, in design
and execution, is a work of art of extraordinary merit.

     _Fellow-Citizens:_

     It is altogether fitting that the citizens of Cincinnati should
     feel a deep interest in the occasion which has called together this
     large assemblage. It is well to do honor to this noble gift, and to
     do honor to the generous giver. This work lends a new charm to the
     whole city.

     Longfellow's lines in praise of the Catawba that grows on the banks
     of the Beautiful River gives to the Catawba a finer flavor, and
     renders the Beautiful River still more beautiful. When art and
     genius give to us in marble or on canvas the features of those we
     admire or love, ever afterward we discover in their faces and in
     their characters more to admire and more to love.

     This work makes Cincinnati a pleasanter city, her homes more happy,
     her aims worthier, and her future brighter.

     But this fountain does not pour out its blessings for Cincinnati or
     for her visitors and guests alone. Cincinnati is one of the central
     cities of the Nation--of the great continent. It is becoming the
     convention city. Witness the National assemblies in the interest of
     commerce, of industry, of education, of benevolence, of progress,
     of religion, which annually gather here from the most distant parts
     of America. This monument is an instructor of all who come. Whoever
     beholds it will carry away some part of the lesson it teaches. The
     duty which the citizen owes to the community in which, and by
     which, he has prospered, that duty this work will forever teach. No
     rich man who is wise will, in the presence of this example,
     willingly go to his grave with his debt to the public unpaid and
     unprovided for. Many a last will and testament will have a
     beneficent codicil, suggested by the work we inaugurate to-day.
     Parks, fountains, schools, galleries of art, libraries, hospitals,
     churches--whatever benefits and elevates mankind--will here receive
     much needed encouragement and support.

     This work says to him who, with anxious toil and care, has
     successfully gathered and hoarded--Do not neglect your great
     opportunity. Divide wisely and equitably between the few who are
     most nearly of your own blood, and the many who in kinship are only
     a little farther removed. If you regard only those reared under
     your own roof, your cherished estate will soon be scattered,
     perhaps wasted by profligate heirs in riotous living, to their own
     ruin, and you and your fortune will quickly be forgotten. Give a
     share--pay a tithe to your more distant and more numerous
     kindred--to the general public, and you will be gratefully
     remembered, and mankind will be blessed by your having lived!

     Many, reflecting on the uncertainty of the future, will prefer to
     see their benefactions distributed and applied while they are still
     living. Regarding their obligations to the public as sacred debts,
     they will wish to pay as they go. This is commendable; perhaps it
     is safest.

     But at some time and somehow the example here presented will and
     must be followed. All such deeds are the parents of other similar
     good deeds. And so the circle within which the blessings flowing
     from this fountain are enjoyed will forever grow wider and wider,
     and the people of distant times and places will rejoice to drink,
     as we now do, healthful and copious draughts in honor of its
     founder.

     Here, this matchless structure will link together, in perpetual,
     grateful remembrance, the names of Tyler Davidson and Henry
     Probasco! Ever honored be those names in the city they have so
     greatly honored!

The message of Governor Hayes, on retiring from office at the close of
his fourth year, calls attention to the encroachments upon the rights
and interests of the people by railway corporations, and discusses at
length the important subject of securing economy, efficiency, and purity
in the administration of the local governments of cities and towns. For
its able discussion of these and other subjects, this message of 1872
commends itself.

     _Fellow-Citizens of the General Assembly:_

     The finances of the State government are in a satisfactory
     condition. The balance in the State treasury on the 15th of
     November, 1870, was $766,038.10; the receipts during the last
     fiscal year were $5,241,184.91; making the total amount of
     available funds in the treasury during the year ending November 15,
     1871, $6,007,223.01.

     The disbursements during the year have been $5,259,046.74, leaving
     a balance in the treasury, Nov, 15, 1871, of $748,176.27.

     The estimates of the auditor of State of receipts and expenditures
     for the current year, are as follows:

     Estimated receipts from all sources, including balances,
     $5,206,366.27.

     Estimated disbursements for all purposes, $4,776,035.73.

     Leaving an estimated balance in the treasury, November 15, 1872, of
     $430,330.54.

     The public funded debt of the State November 15, 1870, after
     deducting the amount invested in Ohio stocks, was $9,730,144.36.

     During the past year the debt has been reduced $729,415.

     Leaving the total debt yet to be provided for, $9,000,729.36. Of
     this amount, the sum of $44,518.31 has ceased to bear interest, the
     holders thereof having been notified of the readiness of the State
     to pay the same. This leaves the total interest-bearing debt of the
     State, $8,956,211.05.

     The taxes levied in 1870, collectible in 1871, were as follows:

     State taxes                                        $4,666,242.23
     County and local levies                            18,797,389.59
     Delinquencies and forfeitures in former years         667,188.69
                                                       --------------
     Total taxes, including delinquencies collectible
     in 1871                                           $24,130,820.51

     The taxes levied in 1871, collectible in 1872, were as follows:


     State taxes                                       $ 4,350,728.28
     County and local levies                            18,604,660.12
     Delinquencies and forfeitures                         632,275.84
                                                       --------------
     Total taxes and delinquencies collectible
     in 1872                                           $23,587,664 24

     It will be noticed, with gratification, that the annual increase of
     taxation, to which the people have been long accustomed, has been
     checked, and that the taxes, both State and local, have been
     somewhat reduced.

     The increase of local indebtedness still continues. The returns
     made to the auditor of State are imperfect, but enough is shown to
     warrant the opinion that during the past year the indebtedness of
     the towns and cities of the State has increased not less than one
     million of dollars, and that their aggregate indebtedness now
     equals the indebtedness of the State. I respectfully repeat, as the
     remedy for this evil, the recommendation heretofore made, that all
     public debts be prohibited, except in cases of emergency, analogous
     to those specified in sections 1 and 2, article 8, of the
     constitution.

     The report of the adjutant-general shows that there has been
     collected by him from the United States during the year, on account
     of the State war claims, the sum of $145,304.60, making the total
     amount of war claims collected $2,826,247.94. It is probable that
     about $100,000 more can be collected on these claims without
     additional legislation by Congress. This will leave about $400,000
     of claims unpaid, which, it is believed, when presented to
     Congress, with proper vouchers and explanations, will be provided
     for by special act. As long, however, as the board of military
     claims exists, these claims will continue to increase, and it would
     not be advisable to seek Congressional action until the State, by
     closing its accounts with individuals, shall be able to ask for a
     final settlement.

     It is therefore recommended that the statutes providing for the
     allowance of claims against the State by the commissioners of
     military claims be repealed; the repeal to take effect at such date
     in the future as will afford opportunity for the presentation and
     allowance of all just claims.

     The report of the commissioner of common schools shows that, upon
     the whole, the educational interests of the State continue to be
     very prosperous. He presents, however, for your consideration, a
     number of changes in the school laws, which he deems essential to
     further progress. The proposed reforms are treated of in his report
     under the following heads: normal instruction, supervision, a
     codification of the laws, and the township system.

     The commanding position which Ohio has held in the great
     transactions of our recent civil and military history is largely
     due to the educational advantages enjoyed by her people. Every
     measure which tends to continue and increase those advantages
     merits your earnest and favorable consideration.

     For many years the most eminent teachers and friends of education
     have urged the necessity of establishing institutions for the
     instruction of teachers in the principles and duties of their high
     and honorable calling. A few thousand dollars of the school fund
     applied every year to this purpose will, it is believed, make the
     expenditures for school purposes vastly more beneficial to the
     State.

     There are serious objections to the present mixed system of school
     management by means of township boards and sub-district directors.
     It is believed that this system ought to give place to the purely
     township system, in which all of the schools of the township are
     under the exclusive control of a board of education chosen by the
     electors of the township. This plan is in conformity with that
     which has been adopted with satisfactory results in most of our
     towns, and is sustained by the experience of other States in which
     the purely township system has been tried.

     In several counties of the State colored children are practically
     deprived of the privilege of attending public schools. The denial
     of education to any citizen of Ohio is so manifestly unjust that it
     is confidently believed that the legislature needs only to be
     informed that such a wrong exists to promptly provide a remedy.

     The official reports of the penitentiary, the Reform School for
     Boys, the Reform School for Girls, and the benevolent institutions
     of the State, which will be laid before you, show that the work of
     these institutions has during the past year been well done. They
     will, without question, receive from you all needed encouragement
     and support. It seems proper, however, to direct your attention to
     the urgent necessity of such legislation as will empower the boards
     of trustees and directors charged with the erection of buildings
     for the insane and for the orphans of deceased soldiers, to
     complete them as soon as practicable.

     By the census of 1870 the number of insane persons in the State was
     3,414. The number of patients under treatment in the insane asylums
     of the State was, last year, only 1,346. The trustees of the
     Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home report that the number of
     orphans in Ohio needing care is about eight hundred, and that the
     number cared for is only about two hundred and fifty. These facts
     sufficiently demonstrate the importance of the suggestion here
     made.

     I renew the recommendation heretofore made that the legislature
     provide for the erection of suitable monuments at the graves of
     General Harrison and General Hamer.

     General Harrison has many titles to the grateful remembrance of the
     people of Ohio. He was one of the pioneers of the West, a soldier
     of honorable fame in two wars against the savages and in the war of
     1812, a secretary and acting governor of the Northwest Territory
     before Ohio was organized, a law-maker of conspicuous usefulness at
     the State capital and at Washington, and was chief magistrate of
     the Nation at the time of his death. To honor him is to honor all
     who were eminent and useful in the early settlement of Ohio.

     General Hamer served with distinction four times in the General
     Assembly; was the speaker of the house of representatives; was six
     years a member of Congress from the Brown county district, and died
     in Mexico in 1846, a volunteer from Ohio, in the service of his
     country, with the rank of brigadier-general. At the time of his
     death the General Assembly, with entire unanimity, "resolved that
     the body of the deceased be brought from Mexico and interred in the
     soil of Ohio, at the expense of the State." Having undertaken, as
     the duty of the State, to give the remains of General Hamer a
     fitting burial, the legislature can not regard that duty as
     completely performed until an appropriate monument has been built
     at his grave.

     Since the adoption of the present constitution the governor's
     duties have compelled him to reside at the capital. If any change
     is made in respect to the powers and duties of the executive in the
     revision about to be made of the constitution, the change, it is
     probable, will increase rather than diminish his duties. The
     evident impropriety of subjecting each new incumbent of the office
     to the inconvenience and expense of procuring and furnishing a
     suitable residence for the short period of a governor's term of
     office has led, in many States, to the purchase of a governor's
     mansion. Three of the States adjoining Ohio have adopted this
     course. It can not be doubted that Ohio will, at no distant day,
     follow their example. The rapid increase in the value of real
     estate in Columbus in consequence of its present growth and its
     promise of continued prosperity in the future gives force to the
     suggestion that if the State is to purchase a governor's residence
     at all it would be well to do it promptly.

     The importance of wise legislation on the subject of railroads, in
     a State having the geographical position which belongs to Ohio, can
     not be over-estimated. The greater part of the trade and travel
     between the commercial and manufacturing States of the East and the
     agricultural States of the West, and of the business of the
     continental railways which connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans,
     passes over the railroads of this State. Fourteen years ago,
     Governor Chase, speaking of the railroads of Ohio, said: "This vast
     interest, affecting vitally so many other interests, has grown
     suddenly to its present dimensions without system, without general
     organization, and, in some important respects, without
     responsibility." Then the railroads of the State carried annually
     about a million of passengers, and their gross receipts were about
     six millions of dollars a year. Last year they carried twelve
     millions of passengers, and their gross receipts exceeded thirty
     million of dollars.

     All of the just powers of the corporations which conduct this
     immense business are derived from the laws of the State. If these
     laws fail to guard adequately the rights and the interests of our
     citizens, it is the duty of the General Assembly to supply their
     defects. Serious and well-grounded apprehensions are felt that in
     the management of these companies, which are largely controlled by
     non-residents of Ohio, practices, not sanctioned by the law, nor by
     sound morality, have become common, which are prejudicial to the
     interests of the great body of the people, and which, if continued,
     will ultimately destroy the prosperity of the State.

     Regarding railroads as the most useful instrumentality by which
     intercourse is carried on between different sections of the
     country, the people do not desire the adoption of a narrow or
     unfriendly policy toward them. But it should be remembered that
     these corporations were created, and their valuable franchises
     granted by the legislature to promote the interests of the people
     of the State. No railroad company can sacrifice those interests
     without violating the law of its origin. It is not to be doubted
     that the authority of the General Assembly is competent to correct
     whatever abuses have grown up in the management of the railroads of
     the State.

     The late commissioner of railroads and telegraphs, in his last able
     and valuable report, directs attention to a large number of what he
     terms "clear and palpable violations of law" by railroad companies,
     which are of frequent occurrence.

     In relation to the rates prescribed by law for the transportation
     of persons and property, he says: "There is not a railroad operated
     in the State, either under special charter or the general law, upon
     which the law regulating rates is not in some way violated nearly
     every time a regular passenger, or freight, or mixed train passes
     over it."

     As to the laws regulating the occupation of streets and alleys by
     railroad tracks, the speed of locomotives in towns and cities, and
     railroad crossings, he says that statutes which he regards as
     wholesome are, "it is notorious, wholly ignored by some companies,
     and only partially obeyed by others."

     He quotes the laws forbidding railroad officials from being
     interested in fast freight, express, or transportation companies,
     and from dealing in railroad securities, and adds, that "the
     violation of these laws is believed to be very common among
     railroad officials."

     The commissioner also gives examples of the "increase or watering
     of stock" by railroad companies, and remarks, "the foregoing
     statements are the more striking in view of the fact that the
     stockholders in the company have been in receipt of regular
     semi-annual dividends for seven years of from six to ten per cent
     per annum."

     The significance of this remark of the commissioner lies in the
     fact that the rates which railroad companies may charge for the
     transportation of passengers and freight may be prescribed by the
     General Assembly, whenever the net profits amount to ten per cent
     on the capital actually invested.

     The interests involved are of such magnitude that all legislation
     ought to be based on the fullest and most accurate information
     which a careful investigation can furnish. I, therefore, recommend
     that a commission of five citizens, of whom the railroad
     commissioner shall be one, be organized, with ample powers to
     investigate the management of the railroad companies of the State,
     their legal rights, and the rights of the State and its citizens,
     and to report the information acquired, with a recommendation of
     such measures as the commission shall deem expedient.

     During the past year, the traveling public has enjoyed, in Ohio,
     remarkable immunity from railroad accidents. According to the
     reports of the railroad companies to the commissioner, not a single
     passenger has lost his life by the fault of the railroads in the
     State during the year. But the number of persons, "other than
     passengers," and of "employees" who have lost their lives, is quite
     large. One hundred and fifty-seven persons are reported to have
     been killed, and it is without doubt that many deaths have occurred
     which have not been reported. Many of these fatal accidents
     happened in the streets of towns and cities, and at street and road
     crossings. It is perfectly practicable to protect citizens from
     these dangers, by enforcing proper regulations as to the speed of
     trains, and as to the occupancy and crossing of streets and roads.
     Your special attention is called to this subject.

     One of the most difficult and interesting practical problems which
     now engages the thoughts of the American people is how to maintain
     economy, efficiency, and purity in the administration of local
     affairs, and especially in the government of towns and cities,
     without a departure from principles and methods which are deemed
     essential to free popular government. Many of the most important
     functions of government are in the hands of the local authorities.
     They are directly charged with the expenditure of large sums of
     money, with the protection of life and property, and with the
     administration of civil and criminal justice. These duties, in one
     way or another, touch nearly and constantly the interests and
     feelings of every citizen. Upon their faithful performance depends
     the prosperity, happiness, and safety of the community. It is true
     that as yet Ohio is happily, in a great measure, free from the
     operation of causes which in the commercial metropolis of the
     country recently led to such extraordinary corruption in the
     government of that city. But those causes do not belong alone to
     the great cities of the East. They are already at work in our
     midst, and they are steadily and rapidly increasing in power. No
     political party is altogether free from their influence, and no
     political party is solely responsible for them. We have laws
     prohibiting almost every conceivable official neglect and abuse,
     and penalties are affixed to the violation of those laws which can
     not be regarded as inadequate. The difficulty is to secure their
     enforcement. Those whose duty it is to detect and prosecute are
     often interested in maintaining good relations with the
     wrong-doers. The contractors for public work and supplies not
     infrequently have a community of interest with those who are the
     agents of the public to let and superintend the performance of
     contracts. Where these abuses exist there is apt to be a large
     circle of apparently disinterested citizens, who labor to conceal
     the facts and to suppress investigation. What the public welfare
     demands is a practical measure which will provide for a thorough
     and impartial investigation in every case of suspected neglect,
     abuse, or fraud. Such an investigation, to be effective, must be
     made by an authority independent, if possible, of all local
     influences. When abuses are discovered, the prosecution and
     punishment of offenders ought to follow. But even if prosecutions
     fail in cases of full exposure, public opinion almost always
     accomplishes the object desired. A thorough investigation of
     official corruption and criminality leads with great certainty to
     the needed reform. Publicity is a great corrector of official
     abuses. Let it therefore be made the duty of the governor, on
     satisfactory information that the public good requires an
     investigation of the affairs of any public office or the conduct of
     any public officer, whether State or local, to appoint one or more
     citizens who shall have ample powers to make such investigation.

     If by the investigation violations of law are discovered, the
     governor should be authorized, in his discretion, to notify the
     attorney-general, whose duty it should be, on such notice, to
     prosecute the offenders. The constitution makes it the duty of the
     governor to "see that the laws are faithfully executed." Some such
     measure as the one here recommended is necessary to give force and
     effect to this constitutional provision.

     In compliance with the constitution, the last General Assembly
     submitted to the people the question of holding a convention "to
     revise, alter, or amend" the constitution, and at the October
     election a large majority of the voters of the State decided in
     favor of a convention. It is the duty of the General Assembly, at
     its present session, to provide by law for the election of
     delegates and the assembling of the convention.

     The vote on the question of calling the convention which formed the
     present constitution was taken at the October election, 1849. At
     the next session of the General Assembly an act was passed which
     provided for the election of delegates to the convention the first
     Monday of April, 1850, and the convention was convened on the first
     Monday of May following.

     In conclusion, I wish to make my grateful acknowledgments to the
     people of Ohio for the honorable trusts they have confided to me,
     and to express the hope that the harmony, prosperity, and happiness
     which they now enjoy in such full measure may, under Providence, be
     perpetual.

Hayes, during his two terms as Governor, proposed and carried through
the following measures of the first importance to the welfare of the
State:

He recommended and had completed a comprehensive Geological Survey of
Ohio.

He secured the establishment of a Soldiers' Orphans' Home.

He had the powers of the Board of State Charities restored and enlarged.

He had provision made for the care, by the State, of the chronic
insane.

Under his direction the graded system was adopted in the State Prison
and prison reforms introduced.

Minority representation on Election Boards was secured.

The Agricultural and Mechanical College was founded, trustees appointed,
and the institution organized.

Portraits of the Governors of Ohio were placed in the State collection.

The suffrage amendment to the Constitution of the State was adopted.

The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was
ratified.

The Lincoln Memorial, an admirable work of art, was placed in the
capitol.

The right of soldiers in the National Asylum to vote was restored.

The students' privilege of voting while attending college was given
back.

The odious "visible admixture" law was repealed.

The St. Clair papers were purchased, and letters and manuscripts
relating to pioneer history collected.

A Reform School for Girls was established and made successful.

The State debt was reduced, and all increase of debt opposed.

Can any Governor of any State say that he has done a better business?




CHAPTER IX.

THIRD TIME ELECTED GOVERNOR.

     _The Senatorship declined--Army Banquet Speech--Third Time
     nominated for Congress--Glendale Speech--Declines a Federal
     Office--Making a Home--Nomination for Governor--Platform--Serenade
     Speech--Democratic Convention and Platform--Marion Speech of
     Hayes--Woodford--Grosvenor--Schurz--Inflation Drivel--Interest in
     the Contest--Honest Money Triumphant--Third Inaugural._


Just as Governor Hayes was vacating the office of chief executive of
Ohio, to which he had positively refused to be re-elected, he was
offered and declined the Senatorship from that State. The proofs of this
fact are before us. The circumstances were these: A Senator in Congress
was to be elected by the State Legislature, in January, 1872, to succeed
John Sherman. Mr. Sherman had secured the nomination and election of a
majority of Republicans who were favorable to his own re-election; but
the Republican majority on joint ballot was small. Before the meeting of
the Republican caucus, a sufficient number of members to control the
result, with the aid of the Democrats, proposed to Governor Hayes to
stay out of the caucus, and, uniting the entire opposition to Sherman,
secure his defeat.

Hayes had authoritative assurances that the Democratic members would
support him, with a view of defeating Sherman; while the Independent or
anti-Sherman Republicans, who held the balance of power, were
importunate that he should allow himself to be their compromise
candidate. But he firmly rejected all these overtures, and forbid the
use of his name in connection with the matter in any manner whatever. A
leading State Senator declared it "was most extraordinary to see the
Senatorship refused, with the Presidency in prospect."

On the 7th of April, General Hayes delivered a speech in Cincinnati in
response to the toast "Our Country," which contains thoughts worthy of
reproduction. It was upon the occasion of the fifth annual banquet of
the Army of the Tennessee. After some general introductory remarks, the
orator said:

     "Consider the history of our country. It is the youngest of the
     nations. We are just beginning to look forward to the celebrations,
     five years hence, of the completion of the first century of its
     existence. This brief period, so crowded with interesting events,
     with great achievements in peace and war, and adorned with
     illustrious names in every honorable walk of life, has witnessed a
     progress in our country without a parallel in the annals of the
     race.

     "Add to these considerations the visions of greatness and
     prosperity which the future opens to America, and we shall begin to
     see by what titles our country claims from all of her children
     admiration, gratitude, and loyal love.

     "Those who are accustomed to take gloomy views of every event and
     every prospect, will perhaps remind us that all the parts of this
     picture have their dark side; that this extended and magnificent
     territory of ours must needs have rival interests hostile and
     dangerous to unity; that people differing in race, nationality,
     religion, language, and traditions will, with difficulty, be fused
     into one harmonious Nation; that written constitutions do not make
     a government unless their provisions are obeyed or enforced. As to
     our boasted history, they will point to pages darkened with grave
     crimes against the weaker races; and as to our future, they will
     tell us of the colossal fortunes which, under the sanction of law,
     are already consolidating in the hands of a few men--not always the
     best men--powers which threaten alike good government and our
     liberties.

     "In reply to these views, it can not be denied that in a wide
     domain like ours, inhabited by people not always harmonious,
     something more than written constitutions are required. A mere
     paper government is not enough. The law, if not voluntarily obeyed,
     must be firmly enforced. To accomplish this there must be wisdom,
     moderation, firmness, not only in those who administer the
     government, but in the people, who, at last, are the government.

     "The great task is to educate a whole people in these high virtues,
     to the end that they may be equal to their opportunities and to the
     dangers that surround them. The chief instrumentalities in this
     education are the home, the school, the platform, the pulpit, and
     the press, and all good men and women are the educators.

     "Doubt and difficulty and danger lend to every human enterprise its
     chief interest and charm. Every man who fought in the Army of the
     Tennessee at Shiloh knows that the gloom and despondency in which
     the first day's battle closed, gave an added glory to the victory
     of the second day; that the victory is always most highly prized
     which, after a long and desperate struggle, is snatched at last
     from the very jaws of disaster and defeat.

     "If, in the future of our country, trials and conflicts and
     calamities await her, it is but the common allotment of Providence
     to men. The brave and the good will (here always) find noble work
     and a worthy career, and will rejoice that they are permitted to
     live and to act in such a country as the American republic."

In July, 1872, Ex-Governor Hayes received a petition, signed by the most
influential men in the second Congressional district in Cincinnati,
asking him to accept a nomination for Congress. Scores of letters and
telegrams were sent to him at Fremont, where he was detained by illness
in his family, urging upon him the duty of sacrificing personal to
public interests and consent to become a candidate. He refused
absolutely. The nominating convention met August 6th, and the following
telegram tells the story:

     "In spite of your protests, you were nominated on first ballot.
     Great enthusiasm, and whole party lifted up. We assured Republicans
     that Governor Hayes never retreated when ordered to advance. Things
     are looking bright.

     "RICHARD SMITH."

Two days after, a petition was forwarded, signed by two hundred
influential Republican and non-partisan voters of the second district,
containing the words, we "most urgently solicit you to accept the
nomination given you."

His acceptance being demanded on the ground of duty, he returned to
Cincinnati and made the canvass. At Glendale, on September 4, he
delivered a lengthy speech, from which we take these extracts:

     _Fellow-citizens:_

     My purpose in addressing you this evening is to spread before the
     people of the second district my views on the questions of National
     policy which now engage the public attention.

     In the present condition of the country, two things are of vital
     importance--peace and a sound financial policy. We want
     peace--honorable peace--with all nations; peace with the Indians,
     and peace between all of the citizens of all of the States. We want
     a financial policy so honest that there can be no stain on the
     National honor and no taint on the National credit; so stable that
     labor and capital and legitimate business of every sort can
     confidently count upon what it will be the next week, the next
     month, and the next year. We want the burdens of taxation so justly
     distributed that they will bear equally upon all classes of
     citizens in proportion to their ability to sustain them.

     We want our currency gradually to appreciate, until, without
     financial shock or any sudden shrinkage of values, but in the
     natural course of trade, it shall reach the uniform and permanent
     value of gold. With lasting peace assured, and a sound financial
     condition established, the United States and all of her citizens
     may reasonably expect to enjoy a measure of prosperity without a
     parallel in the world's history.

     When the debates of the last presidential election were in
     progress, four years ago, there were troubles with other nations
     threatening the public peace, and, in particular, there was a most
     difficult, irritating, and dangerous controversy with Great
     Britain, which it seemed almost impossible peaceably to settle. Now
     we are at peace with all nations; the American government is
     everywhere abroad held in the highest honor; and an example of
     submitting National disputes to the decision of a court of
     arbitration has been set, which is of incalculable value to the
     world.

       *       *       *       *       *

     Four years ago, and for a considerable period since, the public
     peace has been broken or threatened in a majority of the late slave
     States, by bands of lawless men, oath bound, disguised, and armed,
     who, by terror, by scourging, and by assassination, undertook to
     deprive unoffending citizens, both white and colored, of their most
     cherished rights, for no reason except a difference of political
     sentiment. Now these organizations have, it is claimed by their
     political associates, disbanded. Large numbers of citizens in those
     States, heretofore hostile to the recent amendments to the
     constitution, and to the equal rights of colored people, declare
     themselves satisfied with those amendments, and ready to maintain
     the constitutional rights of colored citizens. Notwithstanding the
     predictions of our adversaries, that to confer political rights
     upon colored people would lead to a war of races, white people and
     colored people are now voting side by side in all of the old slave
     States, and their elections are quite as free from violence and
     disorder as they were when whites alone were the voters. In a word,
     peace prevails in the South to an extent which, under the
     circumstances, the ablest statesmen among our adversaries three
     years ago pronounced impossible. The watchword of the Republican
     party four years ago was "Let us have peace." A survey of every
     field where the public peace was then imperiled, of our affairs
     with foreign nations, with the Indians, and in the South, shows
     that the pledge implied in that famous watchword has been
     substantially made good, and that, if the people continue to stand
     by the government, the peace we now enjoy will be continued and
     enduring.


     CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.

     There are several questions relating to the present and the future
     which merit the attention of the people. Among the most interesting
     of these is the question of civil service reform.

     About forty years ago a system of making appointments to office
     grew up, based on the maxim, "to the victors belong the spoils."
     The old rule--the true rule--that honesty, capacity, and fidelity
     constitute the highest claim to office, gave place to the idea that
     partisan services were to be chiefly considered. All parties in
     practice have adopted this system. Since its first introduction it
     has been materially modified. At first, the president, either
     directly or through the heads of departments, made all
     appointments. Gradually, by usage, the appointing power in many
     cases was transferred to members of Congress--to senators and
     representatives. The offices in these cases have become not so much
     rewards for party services as rewards for personal services in
     nominating and electing senators and representatives. What
     patronage the president and his cabinet retain, and what offices
     congressmen are by usage entitled to fill is not definitely
     settled. A congressman who maintains good relations with the
     executive usually receives a larger share of patronage than one who
     is independent. The system is a bad one. It destroys the
     independence of the separate departments of the government, and it
     degrades the civil service. It ought to be abolished. General Grant
     has again and again explicitly recommended reform. A majority of
     Congress has been unable to agree upon any important measure.
     Doubtless the bills which have been introduced contain
     objectionable features. But the work should be begun. Let the best
     obtainable bill be passed, and experience will show what amendments
     are required. I would support either Senator Trumbull's bill or Mr.
     Jenckes' bill, if nothing better were proposed. The admirable
     speeches on this subject by the representative of the first
     district, the Hon. Aaron F. Perry, contain the best exposition I
     have seen of sound doctrine on this question, and I trust the day
     is not distant when the principles which he advocates will be
     embodied in practical measures of legislation. We ought to have a
     reform of the system of appointments to the civil service,
     thorough, radical, and complete.

The people of the United States will be agreeably surprised to learn
that, four years ago, not only the sentiments, but almost the identical
language of the recent letter of acceptance upon the subject of this
great reform was publicly proclaimed by the Republican candidate for the
presidency.

In 1872, when the Presidency was not in his thoughts, he advocated with
great force the doctrines which Independent Republicans especially
commend him for maintaining to-day. These opinions it would then be
foolishly needless to say are honest; they are deep-rooted convictions
of long growth.

The elections went heavily against the Republicans in Hamilton county,
in 1872. Mr. Eggleston, the sitting member of Congress from the First
District, was beaten three thousand five hundred and sixty-nine votes;
and General Hayes was defeated by General H. B. Banning, whose majority
was one thousand five hundred and two. Compared with the result in the
First District, Hayes ran a thousand votes ahead of his ticket. He had
performed his duty and was satisfied.

A few months later he was offered, by the President, the office of
Assistant Treasurer of the United States, at Cincinnati, which
appointment he respectfully declined.

The years 1873 and 1874 were employed by General Hayes in making and
adorning a future home for himself and his family, near Fremont. He
planted over a thousand trees, and filled his grounds with vines,
shrubs, and flowers.

In January, 1874, his patron uncle and life-long friend Sardis Birchard
died, leaving his favorite nephew heir to a considerable estate. It
elevates our estimate of human nature to find that this heir-apparent,
or rather heir inevitable to a handsome fortune, diminished the amount
he would naturally inherit by persuading his uncle to make bequests,
amounting to seventy-five thousand dollars, to the citizens of Fremont
for a Public Park and a Free Public Library. It is not necessary to add,
that this unselfish course of action makes known character, nor to say
what kind of a character it makes known.

The Republican State Convention, which assembled at Columbus, June 2,
1875, nominated General Hayes a third time for the office of Governor.
He received the news of the nomination while playing base ball with his
children at their home in Fremont. The circumstances of this nomination
were extraordinary, and the honor it implied exceptional. The facts, in
brief, were these: The Hon. William Allen having been put in nomination
by the Democrats, for the office of Governor, in 1873, mainly through
the influence of his nephew, Senator Thurman, was elected by a small
majority in October of that year. Mr. Allen, as Governor, made himself
active in the direction of economy and the reduction of taxation, and
seemed to increase his popularity because of the high reputation he
enjoyed for personal integrity. Early in 1875 it became apparent that he
would secure, without opposition, a re-nomination. It became equally
apparent, also, that the Republicans would encounter no slight
difficulty in defeating him. He was in possession, he had the _prestige_
of victory, and was immensely popular with his party. It was the
plainest dictate of policy and duty for the Republicans to proceed with
extremest caution and put in nomination their very strongest man.
Personal ambitions and interests must be put aside in every great
emergency, when the success of a cause is at stake. What every great
emergency needs is a MAN. The eyes of the Republicans of Ohio were at
the same period of time turned toward Hayes as that leader--that man. He
was written to, from every portion of the State, to consent to become
again a candidate. His uniform reply was, that he had retired finally
and absolutely from public life, and that his tastes and interests would
keep him at home. Some, receiving these responses in the spirit in which
they were given, looked around for other candidates. In Cincinnati there
was a strong local influence favoring Judge Taft, the able and most
estimable gentleman who is now Attorney-General of the United States.
Governor Hayes repeatedly announced that he would, under no
circumstances, be a candidate against his friend, Judge Taft, and urged
the delegates from his county to support Taft, which they did.
Notwithstanding these facts, when the Convention met, the delegates,
according to the public statement of General Grosvenor, were four to one
in favor of Hayes' nomination. On the first ballot, two hundred and
seventy-four being necessary to a choice, Hayes received four votes less
than four hundred, and Taft one hundred fifty-one. The nomination was
made unanimous on motion of Judge Taft's son.

Finding himself once more an involuntary candidate for office, Governor
Hayes lost no time in getting ready for the supreme struggle, thus far,
of his life. Visiting, three weeks later, the home of his relative,
General Mitchell, in Columbus, he was serenaded by the Hayes Club of the
capital city, and, in response to their calls, foreshadowed the great
issues of the approaching campaign. Without circumlocution, he said:

     "If it shall turn out that the party in power are opposed to a
     sound, safe, stable currency, I have no doubt that in October the
     people will make a change. If it shall turn out that the party in
     power were guilty of gross corruption in the legislative
     department, and that when that corruption was exposed the majority
     shielded those who were implicated, I have no doubt the people will
     make a change. If it shall turn out that the party in power yielded
     to the dictation of an ecclesiastical sect, and through fear of a
     threatened loss of votes and power has suffered itself to be
     domineered over in its exercise of the law-making power, there
     ought to be, as I doubt not there will be, a great change. If it
     shall turn out that the party in power is dangerously allied to any
     body of men who are opposed to our free schools, and have
     proclaimed undying hostility to our educational system, then I
     doubt not the people will make a change in the administration."

The convention which nominated Hayes had adopted some sensible
resolutions. It declared, first, that:

     "The United States are one as a Nation, and all citizens are equal
     under the laws, and entitled to their fullest protection.

     "_Third._ We are in favor of a tariff for revenue with incidental
     protection to American industry.

     "_Fourth._ We stand by free education, our public school system,
     the taxation of all for its support, and no division of the school
     fund.

     "_Eleventh._ The observance of Washington's example in retiring at
     the close of a second presidential term will be in the future, as
     it has been in the past, regarded as a fundamental rule in the
     unwritten law of the Republic."

The Democratic State Convention met on the 17th of June, and was
presided over by Judge Rufus P. Ranney. It renominated Governor Allen by
acclamation and a rising vote amidst great cheering.

The governor delivered an intemperate speech upon the occasion, in which
his denunciation was about equally divided between the old alien and
sedition laws and Grant's administration. Samuel F. Cary, nominated for
lieutenant-governor, made a loud speech. Pendleton, Ewing, Thurman,
Allen, and Cary spoke at the ratification meeting in the evening.

The platform contained the sound proposition that the president's
services should be limited to one term, thereby endorsing a material
part of Governor Hayes' letter of acceptance in advance. It also
contained what some have called the rascally, others the asinine
propositions that the volume of currency should be made and kept equal
to the wants of trade; that all National Bank circulation should be
promptly and permanently retired, and legal tenders be issued in their
stead, and that the payment of at least one-half of the customs should
be in legal tenders.

Senator Thurman, much to the surprise of his eastern friends, acquiesced
in, or at least failed to denounce this inflation platform. He forgot
the proverb that it is the bold man who wins. Had he made a ringing,
thirty-minutes, hard-money speech on the occasion, no power on the
continent could probably have kept him out of the White House. This was
the day of his destiny, but the day of his destiny is over.

The public and non-partisan estimate of this Democratic platform is
fairly reflected in the editorial utterances of the Cincinnati
_Commercial_ of June 18th, to the effect that:

     "This platform is a declaration of war upon the National credit.
     The programme of repudiation is made particularly clear.... The
     contest in Ohio this summer in an extraordinary degree concerns the
     Nation."

The Chicago _Times_ said:

     "If Allen be elected, the immediate effect is very sure to be a
     prodigious rise in the threatening and dangerous tidal wave of
     inflation and repudiation. The political tradition which goes by
     the name of the Democratic party, will be forthwith pervaded in
     every part by an active and aggressive repudiation sentiment."

The inflation Democracy were not only hopeful but boastful. Governor
Allen made and repeated the prediction that he would be re-elected by
from 60,000 to 70,000 majority. He said that he would not compromise
with Hayes on 20,000. It was represented that the hard times were caused
by the Republicans, and that the people wanted "more money," which
interpreted meant more debts or due bills. Much was said on the stump
about what "the people think," forgetting that the material question is
not what they think, but what they ought to think.

Governor Hayes was not unmindful of the national and international
importance of the contest. Knowing that the Democrats had carried the
State the year before by a majority of 17,000 on their State ticket and
24,000 on their Congressional ticket, he did not underrate the
difficulties to be contended with in the struggle. Several Republican
members of Congress had taken the inflation shute, and were continually
writing him not to be too decided; that a little more currency would be
a good thing. But he buckled on his hard-money armor, and going into the
contest early, delivered at Marion, Lawrence county, the sound and solid
speech which closes this volume. Thus, in the midst of the miners and
furnace men who were suffering most from hard times and clamoring most
loudly for more money, Hayes boldly proclaimed his sound currency creed,
and opposed inflation to the extent of a dollar.

Strong men came from other States to aid him in this battle against
odds. The strongest in this kind of battle were Stewart L. Woodford, of
New York, and Schurz and Grosvenor, of Missouri. General Woodford, in
the dozen debates he conducted with General Ewing, the ablest of the
inflationists, developed debating abilities of the first order, and
exhibited a complete mastery of the science of finance.

Colonel Wm. M. Grosvenor showed the same powers on the stump he had
shown as a writer, and presented arguments which will probably remain
unanswered for some centuries to come.

Carl Schurz appeared late in the field, upon the call of two hundred
merchants of Cincinnati, who assured him that the cause of "National
honor and common honesty" was involved, and delivered a half dozen
superb speeches. Senator Morton, Senator Oglesby, Senator Windom, and
Senators Sherman, Dawes, and Boutwell took part in the canvass.

Attorney-General Taft, Ex-Governor Noyes, Garfield, Monroe, Foster,
Danford, and Lawrence strengthened the State forces.

We can not waste time upon the dreary drivel on the inflation side of
this campaign. Men who have not learned the elementary principles of the
science of political economy, who have not mastered the definitions, as
we say, in geometry, could say nothing intelligible to the finite
understanding. The speeches were as "incoherent" as the New York _World_
proved the platform to be. They all contained doctrines, however, in
perpendicular antagonism to the financial doctrines of the St. Louis
convention. When the inflationists learn what money is--what its office,
its function is--they may be able to resume the discussion of finance
with their opponents in the Democratic party.

After a campaign which called forth almost daily leaders from the press
of New York and London, and aroused the interest of Europe, General
Hayes was a third time elected governor of Ohio by a majority of 5,544.

The character of the contest lifted him from a State leader to a
national, an international man, and made the presidency a possibility.
We now leave the reader to engage in the profitable pleasure of reading
the only Ohio governor's third inaugural:

     _Fellow-citizens of the General Assembly:_

     Questions of National concern, in the existing condition of public
     affairs, may well be left to those officers to whom the people, in
     conformity with the constitution of the United States, have
     confided the important duties and responsibilities of the various
     departments of the general government.

     During the term for which you have been elected, the constitution
     of the State devolves on you the task of dealing with many subjects
     very interesting to the people of Ohio. The duty of communicating
     to you the condition of the State, and of recommending measures
     deemed expedient, was performed at the opening of your present
     session by the distinguished citizen who has preceded me in the
     executive office. In complying with the usage which requires me to
     appear before you on this occasion, I am, therefore, relieved from
     the necessity of entering upon any extensive examination of the
     subjects which will claim your attention. There are, however, a few
     topics on which brief suggestions may, perhaps, be profitably
     submitted.

     The attention of the legislature has often been earnestly invoked
     to the rapid increase of municipal and other local expenditures,
     and the consequent augmentation of local taxation and local
     indebtedness. This increase is found mainly in the cities and large
     towns. It is certainly a great evil. How to govern cities well,
     consistently with the principles and methods of popular government,
     is one of the most important and difficult problems of our time.
     Profligate expenditure is the fruitful cause of municipal
     misgovernment. If a means can be found which will keep municipal
     expenses from largely exceeding the public necessities, its
     adoption will go far toward securing honesty and efficiency in city
     affairs. In cities large debts and bad government go together.
     Cities which have the lightest taxes and smallest debts are apt,
     also, to have the purest and most satisfactory governments.

     The following statement, showing the increase of municipal taxation
     and indebtedness in the cities and large towns of Ohio, ought to
     arrest attention:

     In 1871, in thirty-one of the principal cities and towns of the
     State, the average rate of taxation was twenty-three and one-tenth
     mills on the dollar. The total amount of taxes levied for all
     purposes was $8,988,064. The total indebtedness was $7,187,082.

     In 1875, in the same cities and towns, the average rate of taxation
     was twenty-eight and three-tenths mills on the dollar. The total
     amount of taxes levied for all purposes was $12,361,934. The total
     indebtedness was $20,800,491.

     The salient points in this statement are, that in four years the
     rate of municipal taxation has increased almost 25 per cent; the
     total amount of municipal taxes has increased over thirty-seven per
     cent, and municipal indebtedness has increased about one hundred
     and ninety per cent, or more than thirteen and a half millions of
     dollars. If this great increase of burdens affected directly the
     whole people of the State, they would give their agents in the
     legislative and executive departments of the State government no
     peace until effective measures to prevent its continuance were
     adopted. But, in fact, the whole people of the State are deeply
     interested in this subject. The burdens borne by the cities and
     towns must be shared, in part at least, by all who transact
     business with them. The town and the neighboring country have a
     common interest, and, in many respects must be regarded as one
     community.

     It has been said that the discretion committed to the local
     authorities, however limited and guarded, must be necessarily
     large; that in respect to the imposition of the largest proportion
     of the burden imposed upon the citizen, they constitute the real
     legislature; and that for the prevention of the evils we are
     considering, the people must exercise the greatest care in the
     choice of citizens to fill the important local offices. Experience
     does not seem to justify the expectation that an adequate remedy
     can be obtained in this way.

     I submit that to the subject of local indebtedness the General
     Assembly should apply the principles of the State constitution on
     the subject of State indebtedness.

     It is not enough to require in every grant of special authority to
     incur debt as a condition precedent that the people interested
     shall approve it by their votes. It is well known how easily such
     elections are carried under the influence of local excitement and
     local rivalries. If the rule of the State constitution which
     forbids all debts except in certain specified emergencies is deemed
     too stringent to be applied to local affairs, the legislature
     should at least accompany every authority to contract debt with an
     imperative requirement that a tax sufficient to pay off the
     indebtedness within a brief period shall be immediately levied, and
     thus compel every citizen who votes to increase debts to vote at
     the same time for an immediate increase of taxes sufficient to
     discharge them.

     The wisdom of the policy long since adopted of placing a judicious
     limitation on the power of municipal authorities to levy taxes has
     been vindicated by experience. It must, however, ultimately fail to
     accomplish its object if the increase of municipal indebtedness is
     allowed to go on. To authorize a town to contract a debt, whose
     expenditures already require taxation up to the limit allowed by
     law, is, in its necessary effect, tantamount to a repeal of the
     limitation.

     Under the provisions of the eighth article of the constitution,
     already referred to, the State debt, notwithstanding the
     extraordinary expenditures of the war, has been reduced from over
     twenty millions, the amount due in 1851, until it is now only about
     seven millions. An important part of the constitutional provisions
     which have been so successful in State finances is the section
     which requires the creation of a sinking fund and the annual
     payment of a constantly increasing sum on the principal of the
     State debt. Let a requirement analogous to this be enacted in
     regard to existing local indebtedness; let a judicious limitation
     of the rate of taxation which local authorities may levy be
     strictly adhered to, and allow no further indebtedness to be
     authorized except in conformity with these principles; and we may,
     I believe, confidently expect that within a few years the burdens
     of debt now resting upon the cities and towns of the State will
     disappear, and that other wholesome and much needed reforms in the
     whole administration of our municipal government will of necessity
     follow the adoption of what may be called the cash system in local
     affairs.

     Among the most interesting duties you will have to perform are
     those which relate to the guardianship and care of the unfortunate
     classes of society and to the punishment and reformation of
     criminals. According to the latest official reports the State is
     responsible for the support and care of about fifteen thousand of
     her dependent citizens. The State is also bound to see that many
     thousands more, who are imprisoned for longer or shorter periods on
     account of crime, have just and wise treatment. There is annually
     expended in the performance of these duties a sum exceeding two and
     a half millions of dollars. The people of Ohio feel a profound
     interest in what are known as the benevolent, reformatory, and
     penal institutions of the State.

     In order that the General Assembly might from time to time receive
     full and accurate information as to the efficiency of the
     management of these institutions, and of the county and city jails,
     infirmaries, and work-houses, it was enacted in 1867 that a Board
     of State Charities be established. It was intended that this board
     should be composed of citizens of intelligence and benevolence, who
     would serve without compensation. They were "to investigate the
     system of the public charitable and correctional institutions of
     the State, and to make such recommendations as they might deem
     necessary." They were also required to make annually a full and
     complete report of their doings to the legislature. In pursuance of
     this law a board was organized, which, at a trifling expense to the
     State, did much valuable work. By reason of their investigations
     and reports, important improvements were introduced into the
     infirmaries and jails of the State, and the general efficiency of
     our penal and reformatory system was increased. In 1872 the General
     Assembly, without due consideration, it is believed, repealed the
     act creating the board. I respectfully recommend that the Board of
     State Charities be re-established.

     It is believed that an investigation in the interest of economy
     will discover that several offices, somewhat expensive to the
     State, may, without detriment to the public service, be either
     abolished, or so consolidated as to accomplish a material saving to
     the treasury.

     Agreeing generally with the sentiments of Governor Allen's recent
     message, I desire especially to concur in what is said on the
     subject of the National Centennial Celebration.

     No community in the world has been permitted by Providence to enjoy
     more largely the blessings conferred on mankind by the great event
     of 1776 than the people of Ohio. Ohio and her interests had no
     existence one hundred years ago. They are the growth of less than a
     century. The people naturally wish that their State, and her
     history, and her advantages should be widely known. No other such
     opportunity for their exhibition will probably occur for several
     generations.

     Let your session be short--avoid all schemes requiring excessive
     expenditure, whether State or local, and your constituents will
     cheerfully approve the appropriation required to secure to Ohio a
     fitting representation in the approaching celebration of the
     Nation's birth.

     Before taking the oath of office, I desire to make my
     acknowledgments to my predecessor, Governor Allen, for the friendly
     and considerate way in which he has treated me, both during and
     since the recent political contest in Ohio; and to express the
     wish, in which I am sure you and all the people whom he has served
     will unite with me, that, returning to his beautiful home
     overlooking the ancient capital of our State, he may enjoy for many
     years to come the best blessings which belong to this stage of
     existence.




CHAPTER X.

NOMINATION TO THE PRESIDENCY.

     _Early Suggestions--Letters on Subject--Garfield Letter--Action of
     State Convention--Cincinnati Convention--Course of his
     Friends--First and Second Day's Events--Speech of
     Noyes--Balloting--Nominated on Seventh Ballot--Officially
     Notified--Habits--Personal Appearance--Family--Letter of
     Acceptance--Character as a Soldier, Magistrate, and Man--Domestic
     Surroundings._


No able man can for a long time fill the office of chief magistrate of
one of the three great States of the Union without having his name more
or less mentioned by his friends in connection with the presidency. As
early as October, 1871, the president of the Chamber of Commerce of
Cincinnati, at a large public meeting held in that city just prior to
the fall election, introduced Governor Hayes as the next Republican
candidate for President of the United States.

In 1872 a modest poet was inspired by the surrounding sentiment to sing:

         "We bow not down to yonder rising sun,
           As did the Parsee worshiper of old,
         But bend in homage when its race is run,
           And watch it sink in purple-fretted gold.
         And thus to thee, oh Hayes! the tried, the true,
           On battle-field and in the civic chair,
         Our heart's deep gratitude, thy meed and due,
           (As closes far too soon thy proud career),
         Goes out with benedictions pure and high:
           Oh may thy set be brief, and, like the sun,
         Rise thou again--thy light to fill the sky,
           A brighter course of glory still to run,
         Till millions now unborn shall hail thy name
         In ages yet to come, with grand acclaim!"

Early in 1875 he was overwhelmed with letters urging upon him the
acceptance of the third nomination for governor. Many of these letters
presented as an inducement in favor of acceptance that if he ran for
governor and succeeded in beating Allen, the prize of the presidency
would be within his reach. To one of these letters from a leading editor
he replied on April 10:

     "The personal advantages you suggest rather tend to repel me. The
     melancholy thing in our public life is the insane desire to get
     higher.... But now I can't take that direction, and I will be ever
     so much obliged if you will help drop me out of it as smoothly as
     may be."

To a member of the State legislature he wrote:

     "Content with the past, I am not in a state of mind about the
     future. It is for us to act well in the present. George E. Pugh
     used to say there is no political hereafter."

In the canvass of 1875, so much were the hearts of the people set upon
having their great State leader the National leader, that the masses
were invited in announcements for political meetings to come out and
hear "the next President of the United States."

As illustrating the firmness of Governor Hayes in adhering to
convictions, we give below a letter addressed to Hon. James A. Garfield.
It must be remembered that at the time this letter was written the
paper money madness prevailed through Ohio and in Congress to an
alarming extent.

     EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF OHIO, }
     COLUMBUS, _March 4,           1876._ }

     _My Dear General:_

     I have your note of 2d. I am kept busy with callers,
     correspondence, and the routine details of the office, and have not
     therefore tried to keep abreast of the currents of opinion on any
     of the issues. My notion is that the true contest is to be between
     inflation and a sound currency. The Democrats are again drifting
     all to the wrong side. We need not divide on details, on methods,
     or time when.

     The previous question will again be irredeemable paper as a
     permanent policy, or a policy which seeks a return to coin. My
     opinion is decidedly against yielding a hair's breadth.

     We can't be on the inflation side of the question. We must keep our
     face, our front, firmly in the other direction. "No steps
     backward," must be something more than unmeaning platform words.
     "The drift of sentiment among our friends in Ohio," which you
     inquire about, will depend on the conduct of our leading men. It is
     for them to see that the right sentiment is steadily upheld. We are
     in a condition such that firmness and adherence to principle are of
     peculiar value just now. I would "consent" to no backward steps. To
     yield or compromise is weakness, and will destroy us. If a better
     resumption measure can be substituted for the present one, that may
     do. But keep cool. We can better afford to be beaten in Congress
     than to back out.

     Sincerely,
     R. B. HAYES.

Here is high courage and lofty political morality. The letter proclaims
the grand truth that the only inquiry worthy of a statesman is, not what
the tendency of public opinion is, but what ought it to be?

To a delegate to the Cincinnati Convention he wrote, under date of April
6:

     "Having done absolutely nothing to make myself the candidate of
     Ohio, I feel very little responsibility for future results. When
     the State Convention was called it seemed probable that if I
     encouraged my friends to organize for the purpose, every district
     would elect my decided supporters. But to make such an effort in my
     own behalf, to use Payne's phrase on repudiation, 'I abhorred.'"

The Republican State Convention, which met March 29, had passed, by a
unanimous vote, and with boundless enthusiasm, the following resolution:

     "The Republican party of Ohio, having full confidence in the
     honesty, ability, and patriotism of Rutherford B. Hayes, cordially
     presents him to the National Republican Convention, for the
     nomination for president of the United States, and our State
     delegates to that Convention are instructed and the district
     delegates are requested to use their earnest efforts to secure his
     nomination."

We shall not stop to trace the growth of the Hayes sentiment in other
States. When the Sixth Republican National Convention assembled in
Cincinnati, on June 14, 1876, the situation was this: Hayes was the
first choice of every one for the second place on the ticket, and every
one's second choice for the first. He and his friends had in no way
antagonized other candidates, and had been guilty of no uncharitableness
of judgment toward them. In the convention, he was modestly presented as
the one candidate who could harmonize all interests, and unite all party
elements. His friends argued that he combined merit and availability to
a higher degree than any one whose name was before the convention.

The spirit of the convention was good, and there seemed a willing
response to this portion of the opening prayer:

     "By Thy grace, give to them a spirit of concord, that harmony may
     prevail in their counsels; a spirit of wisdom that may discern and
     use the right means to promote the end for which they are convened;
     a spirit of patriotism, that the prosperity of the Nation may
     overshadow all personal or sectional desires; a spirit of courage,
     that they may be faithful to the deepest convictions of duty."

Ex-Governor Morgan, of New York, Chairman of the National Executive
Committee, in his opening address, pertinently said:

     "Resumption accomplished, then, in all human probability, will
     follow ten or fifteen years of prosperity, equal to that of any
     former period, perhaps greater than the country has yet seen. If
     you will, in addition, put a plank in your platform, declaring for
     such an amendment of the constitution as will extend the
     presidential office to six years, and make the incumbent ineligible
     for re-election, you will deserve the gratitude of the American
     people."

The Hon. Theodore M. Pomeroy, Temporary Chairman, forcibly declared:

     "No, gentlemen, the late war was not a mere prize-fight for
     National supremacy. It was the outgrowth of the conflict of
     irreconcilable moral, social, and political forces. Democracy had
     its lot with the moral, social, and political forces of the cause
     which was lost; the Republican party with those which triumphed and
     survived. The preservation of the results of that victory devolves
     upon us here and now. Democracy has no traditions of the past, no
     impulses of the present, no aspirations for the future, fitting it
     for this task. The reaction of 1874 has already spent itself in a
     vain effort to realize the situation. It has simply demonstrated
     that no change in the machinery of the government can be had
     outside of the Republican party, without drawing with it a
     practical nullification of the great work of reconstruction,
     financial chaos, and administrative revolution. The present House
     of Representatives has succeeded in nothing except the development
     of its own incapacity."

The additional speeches delivered on the first day (which was devoted to
organization) were by Senator Logan, General Joseph R. Hawley,
Ex-Governor Noyes, Rev. Henry Highland Garnett, Ex-Governor Wm. A.
Howard, of Michigan, and Fred. Douglass.

Mr. Douglass was vociferously applauded, when he said:

     "The thing, however, in which I feel the deepest interest, and the
     thing in which I believe this country feels the deepest interest,
     is that the principles involved in the contest which carried your
     sons and brothers to the battle-field, which draped our Northern
     churches with the weeds of mourning, and filled our towns and our
     cities with mere stumps of men--armless, legless, maimed, and
     mutilated--the thing for which you poured out your blood and piled
     a debt for after-coming generations higher than a mountain of gold,
     to weigh down the necks of your children and your children's
     children--I say those principles, those principles involved in that
     tremendous contest, are to be dearer to the American people in the
     great political struggle now upon them than any other principles we
     have."

The most significant event of the first day's proceedings was the
reading from the platform, by George William Curtis, of the outspoken
address of the Republican Reform Club of the city of New York.

The Hon. Edward McPherson, of Pennsylvania, was chosen permanent
chairman. The important events of the second day's proceedings were the
adoption of the platform and the putting presidential candidates in
nomination. The candidate the convention subsequently selected was
placed in nomination by Ex-Governor Noyes, of Ohio, through the
following eminently appropriate speech:

     GENTLEMEN:--On behalf of the forty-four delegates from Ohio,
     representing the entire Republican party of Ohio, I have the honor
     to present to this convention the name of a gentleman well known
     and favorably known throughout the country; one held in high
     respect, and much beloved, by the people of Ohio; a man who, during
     the dark and stormy days of the rebellion, when those who are
     invincible in peace and invisible in battle were uttering brave
     words to cheer their neighbors on, himself, in the fore-front of
     battle, followed his leaders and his flag until the authority of
     our government was established from the lakes to the Gulf, and from
     the river round to the sea. A man who has had the rare good fortune
     since the war was over to be twice elected to Congress from the
     district where he resided, and subsequently the rarer fortune of
     beating successively for the highest office in the gift of the
     people of Ohio, Allen G. Thurman, George H. Pendleton, and William
     Allen. He is a gentleman who has somehow fallen into the habit of
     defeating Democratic aspirants for the Presidency, and we in Ohio
     all have a notion that from long experience he will be able to do
     it again. In presenting the name of Governor Hayes, permit me to
     say we wage no war upon the distinguished gentlemen whose names
     have been mentioned here to-day. They have rendered great service
     to their country, which entitles them to our respect and to our
     gratitude. I have no word to utter against them. I only wish to say
     that General Hayes is the peer of these gentlemen in integrity, in
     character, in ability. They appear as equals in all the great
     qualities which fit men for the highest positions which the
     American people can give them. Governor Hayes is honest; he is
     brave; he is unpretending; he is wise, sagacious, a scholar, and a
     gentleman. Enjoying an independent fortune, the simplicity of his
     private life, his modesty of bearing, is a standing rebuke to the
     extravagance--the reckless extravagance--which leads to corruption
     in public and in private places.

     Remember now, delegates to the convention, that a responsible duty
     rests upon you. You can be governed by no wild impulse. You can run
     no fearful risks in this campaign. You must, if you would succeed,
     nominate a candidate here who will not only carry the old, strong
     Republican States, but who will carry Indiana, Ohio, and New York,
     as well as other doubtful States. We care not who the man shall be,
     other than our own candidate. Whoever you nominate, men of the
     convention, shall receive our heartiest and most earnest efforts
     for their success. But we beg to submit that in Governor Hayes you
     have those qualities which are calculated best to compromise all
     difficulties, and to soften all antagonisms. He has no personal
     enemies: His private life is so pure that no man has ever dared to
     assail it. His public acts throughout all these years have been
     above suspicion even. I ask you, then, if, in the lack of these
     antagonisms, and with all of these good qualities, living in a
     State which holds its election in October, the result of which will
     be decisive, it may be, of the presidential campaign--it is not
     worth while to see to it that a candidate is nominated against whom
     nothing can be said, and who is sure to succeed in the campaign?

     In conclusion, permit me to say that, if the wisdom of this
     convention shall decide at last that Governor Hayes' nomination is
     safest, and is best, that decision will meet with such responsive
     enthusiasm here in Ohio as will insure Republican success at home,
     and which will be so far-reaching and wide-spreading as to make
     success almost certain from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

The nomination was seconded by Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, Colonel J. W.
Davis, of West Virginia, Hon. A. St. Gem, and Hon. J. P. Jones, of
Missouri.

The third and last day of the sitting of the Convention was employed in
balloting and in making the nominations.

At twenty minutes to 11 the balloting for president began:

FIRST
BALLOT.

Bl: Blaine
Mo: Morton
Co: Conkling
Br: Bristow
Hy: Hayes
Hr: Hartranft
Wh: Wheeler
Je: Jewell

-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
     STATES.           |  Bl |  Mo |  Co |  Br |  Hy |  Hr |  Wh |  Je
-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
Alabama                | 10  |     |     |   7 |  2  |     |     |  1
Arkansas               |     | 12  |     |     |     |     |     |
California             |  9  |     |  1  |  2  |     |     |     |
Connecticut            |     |     |     |  2  |     |     |     | 10
Delaware               |  6  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Florida                |  1  |  4  |  8  |     |     |     |     |
Georgia                |  5  |  6  |  8  |  3  |     |     |     |
Illinois               | 38  |     |     |  3  |  1  |     |     |
Indiana                |     | 30  |     |     |     |     |     |
Iowa                   | 22  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Kansas                 | 10  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Kentucky               |     |     |     | 24  |     |     |     |
Louisiana              |  2  | 14  |     |     |     |     |     |
Maine                  | 14  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Maryland               | 16  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Massachusetts          |  6  |     |     | 17  |     |     |  3  |
Michigan               |  8  |     |  1  |  9  |  4  |     |     |
Minnesota              | 10  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Mississippi            |     | 12  |     |  3  |     |     |     |
Missouri               | 14  | 12  |  1  |  2  |  1  |     |     |
Nebraska               |  6  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Nevada                 |     |     |  2  |  3  |  1  |     |     |
New Hampshire          |  7  |     |     |  3  |     |     |     |
New Jersey             | 13  |     |     |     |  5  |     |     |
New York               |     |     | 69  |  1  |     |     |     |
North Carolina         |  9  |  2  |  7  |  1  |     |     |     |
Ohio                   |     |     |     |     | 44  |     |     |
Oregon                 |  6  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Pennsylvania           |     |     |     |     |     | 58  |     |
Rhode Island           |  2  |     |     |  6  |     |     |     |
South Carolina         |     | 13  |     |  1  |     |     |     |
Texas                  |  2  |  5  |  3  |  6  |     |     |     |
Tennessee              |  4  | 10  |     | 10  |     |     |     |
Vermont                |  1  |     |     |  8  |  1  |     |     |
Virginia               | 16  |  3  |  3  |     |     |     |     |
West Virginia          |  8  |     |     |     |  2  |     |     |
Wisconsin              | 20  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Arizona                |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Colorado               |  6  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Dakota                 |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Idaho                  |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Montana                |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
New Mexico             |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Utah                   |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
District of Columbia   |     |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |
Washington             |  2  |     |     |     |     |     |     |
Wyoming                |  1  |     |     |  1  |     |     |     |
-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
     Totals            |285  |125  | 99  |113  | 61  | 58  |  3  | 11
-----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----

The second ballot resulted as follows: Blaine, 296; Morton, 120;
Bristow, 114; Conkling, 93; Hayes, 64; Hartranft, 63: Wheeler, 3;
Washburne, 1.

Third ballot: Blaine, 293; Bristow, 121; Morton, 113; Conkling, 90;
Hartranft, 08; Hayes, 67; Wheeler, 2; Washburne, 1.

Fourth ballot: Blaine, 292; Bristow, 126; Morton, 108; Conkling, 84;
Hartranft, 71; Hayes, 68; Washburne, 3; Wheeler, 2.

Fifth ballot: Whole number of votes cast, 755. Necessary to a choice,
378. Not voting, 1. Blaine, 286; Morton, 95; Bristow, 114; Conkling, 82;
Hayes, 104; Hartranft, 69; Wheeler (Mass.), 2; Washburne, (Ga. 1, 111.
1, Minn. 1), 3.

On this ballot Hayes passed from the fifth to the third place, through
the aid of 22 votes cast for him by Michigan, and 12 by North Carolina.
This was the first distinct foreshadowing of the result.

On the sixth ballot Hayes was second, the vote standing: Blaine, 308;
Hayes, 113; Bristow, 111; Morton, 85; Conkling, 81; Hartranft, 50;
Washburne, 5; Wheeler, 2.

The decisive ballot stood:

SEVENTH BALLOT.

STATES.               Hayes  Blaine  Bristow

Alabama                        17      3
Arkansas                1      11
California              3      16
Connecticut             3       2      7
Delaware                        6
Florida                         8
Georgia                 7      14      1
Illinois                3      35      5
Indiana                25              5
Iowa                           22
Kansas                         10
Kentucky               24
Louisiana               2      14
Maine                          14
Maryland                       16
Massachusetts          21       5
Michigan               22
Minnesota               1       9
Mississippi            16
Missouri               10      20
Nebraska                        6
Nevada                  6
New Hampshire           3       7
New Jersey              6      12
New York               61       9
North Carolina         20
Ohio                   44
Oregon                          6
Pennsylvania           28      30
Rhode Island            6       2
South Carolina          7       7
Texas                  15       1
Tennessee              18       6
Vermont                10
Virginia                8      14
West Virginia           4       6
Wisconsin               4      16
Arizona                         2
Colorado                        6
Dakota                          2
Idaho                           2
Montana                 2
New Mexico                      2
Utah                            2
District of Columbia            2
Washington                      2
Wyoming                 2

Totals                381     351     21

The nomination of Governor Hayes was received with indescribable
enthusiasm, with long-continued cheering, and every other demonstration
of joy and delight.

Outside of Ohio the State that contributed most to this far-reaching
result was Michigan. From the fact that Mr. Bristow telegraphed to the
Kentucky delegation several hours before the crisis was reached to cast
their votes for Hayes, that State should share, after Michigan, the
honor of achieving the grand result. Indiana, North Carolina, and New
York followed close upon Kentucky, if it is possible to compare the
value of the aid each State brought.

On motion of the Hon. Wm. P. Frye, of Maine, Rutherford B. Hayes was
declared the unanimous choice of the Republican National Convention for
President of the United States.

This great convention concluded its labors by nominating the able and
incorruptible Wm. A. Wheeler, of New York, for vice-president by
acclamation.

On the 17th of June, the day following the nomination, the committee
appointed by the convention to notify Governor Hayes of the fact
presented themselves in the executive office at Columbus.

Mr. McPherson, the chairman, approaching him, said:

     "GOVERNOR HAYES: We have been deputed by the National convention of
     the Republican party, holden at Cincinnati on the 14th of the
     present month, to inform you officially that you have been
     unanimously nominated by that convention for the office of
     President of the United States. The manner in which that action was
     taken, and the response to it from every portion of the country,
     attest the strength of the popular confidence in you and the belief
     that your administration will be wise, courageous, and just. We
     say, sir, your administration, for we believe that the people will
     confirm the action of the convention, and thus save the country
     from the control of the men and the operations of the principles
     and policy of the Democratic party. We have also been directed to
     ask your attention to the summary of the Republican doctrine
     contained in the platform adopted by the convention. In discharging
     this agreeable duty we find cause of congratulation in the
     harmonious action of the convention, and in the hearty response
     given by the people we see the promise of assured success. Ohio, we
     know, trusts and honors you. Henceforth you belong to the whole
     country. Under circumstances so auspicious, we trust you will
     indicate your acceptance of the nomination."

The governor, who had had no intimation as to what the length or
character of the address would be, was left in doubt with respect to the
response expected from him by the committee. He, however, without
embarrassment, but in an intentionally subdued tone of voice, gave this
appropriately brief reply:

     "SIR: I have only to say in response to your information that I
     accept the nomination. Perhaps at the present time it would be
     improper for me to say more than this, although even now I should
     be glad to give some expression to the profound sense of gratitude
     I feel for the confidence reposed in me by yourselves and those for
     whom you act. At a future time I shall take occasion to present my
     acceptance in writing, with my views upon the platform."

Since his nomination for the presidency, Governor Hayes has changed in
no perceptible respect the habits, recreations, or labors of his daily
life. He rises early and accomplishes much work before breakfast. He
labors in the executive office in the capitol from nine until five,
discharging his varied duties as governor, answering or dictating the
answers to be given his official, political, and private correspondence,
and remaining at all times accessible to visitors of every age, sex,
color, and condition, who seek to see him. His evenings are passed with
his family, or at the social parties of his many friends. He makes his
customary trips to his home and farms near Fremont, and, while
profitably managing large property interests, finds time to devote to
pioneer history, to domestic architecture, to gardening, to general
literature, to languages, and other liberal studies and pursuits. He is
sobered, but not overpowered or oppressed by the new responsibilities
cast upon him. He suffers himself to be--as he ever has been--natural.
Moderate, discreet, and wise in all things as he has been in the past
and is in the present, he is conspicuously one who grows wiser each day
that he lives.

Governor Hayes has reached the age of fifty-four, is five feet nine
inches in height, and weighs one hundred and eighty pounds. Perfect
health and habits leave him just in the ripe maturity of physical
manhood and mind. His shoulders and breast are broad, his frame solid
and compact, his limbs muscular and strong. He has a fresh, ruddy
complexion, is full of activity and elasticity, and is very fond of the
amusements of young people. He has an exceptionally high and full
forehead, a prominent nose, and bluish-gray eyes. A heavy sandy mustache
and beard, which are silvered a little, conceal his mouth and chin. His
light-brown hair is thin and slightly sprinkled with gray.

The Governor is the father of eight children, five of whom are now
living. Those still living were born as follows: Birchard Austin,
November 4, 1853; Webb Cook, March 20, 1856; Rutherford Platt, June 24,
1858; Fanny Hayes, September 2, 1867; Scott Russell, February 8, 1871.

The youngest of these children was born in Columbus, the others in
Cincinnati. The oldest son graduated at Cornell University, in the class
of 1874, and is now at the Harvard Law School. The second son passed
three years at Cornell, and is now at home. The third son is at Cornell.

Three weeks from the day that Governor Hayes was nominated for the
Presidency, his private secretary, Captain A. E. Lee, put upon the
telegraphic wires, at Columbus, the following accurate copy of:

     THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE.

     COLUMBUS, OHIO, _July 8, 1876._

     Hon. Edward McPherson, Hon. Wm. A. Howard, Hon. Joseph H. Rainey,
     and others, Committee of the Republican National Convention.

     GENTLEMEN: In reply to your official communication of June 17, by
     which I am informed of my nomination for the office of President of
     the United States by the Republican National Convention at
     Cincinnati, I accept the nomination with gratitude, hoping that,
     under Providence, I shall be able, if elected, to execute the
     duties of the high office as a trust for the benefit of all the
     people.

     I do not deem it necessary to enter upon any extended examination
     of the declaration of principles made by the convention. The
     resolutions are in accord with my views, and I heartily concur in
     the principles they announce. In several of the resolutions,
     however, questions are considered which are of such importance that
     I deem it proper to briefly express my convictions in regard to
     them.

     The fifth resolution adopted by the convention is of paramount
     interest. More than forty years ago, a system of making
     appointments to office grew up, based upon the maxim "To the
     victors belong the spoils." The old rule, the true rule, that
     honesty, capacity, and fidelity constitute the only real
     qualifications for office, and that there is no other claim, gave
     place to the idea that party services were to be chiefly
     considered. All parties, in practice, have adopted this system. It
     has been essentially modified since its first introduction. It has
     not, however, been improved.

     At first the president, either directly or through the heads of
     departments, made all the appointments. But gradually the
     appointing power, in many cases, passed into the control of members
     of Congress. The offices, in these cases, have become not merely
     rewards for party services, but rewards for services to party
     leaders. This system destroys the independence of the separate
     departments of the government; it tends directly to extravagance
     and official incapacity; it is a temptation to dishonesty; it
     hinders and impairs that careful supervision and strict
     accountability by which alone faithful and efficient public service
     can be secured; it obstructs the prompt removal and sure punishment
     of the unworthy. In every way it degrades the civil service and the
     character of the government. It is felt, I am confident, by a large
     majority of the members of Congress, to be an intolerable burden,
     and an unwarrantable hindrance to the proper discharge of their
     legitimate duties. It ought to be abolished. The reform should be
     thorough, radical, and complete.

     We should return to the principles and practice of the founders of
     the government, supplying by legislation, when needed, that which
     was formerly established custom. They neither expected nor desired
     from the public officer any partisan service. They meant that
     public officers should owe their whole service to the government
     and to the people. They meant that the officer should be secure in
     his tenure as long as his personal character remained untarnished,
     and the performance of his duties satisfactory. If elected, I shall
     conduct the administration of the government upon these principles;
     and all constitutional powers vested in the executive will be
     employed to establish this reform.

     The declaration of principles by the Cincinnati Convention makes no
     announcement in favor of a single presidential term. I do not
     assume to add to that declaration; but, believing that the
     restoration of the civil service to the system established by
     Washington and followed by the early presidents can be best
     accomplished by an executive who is under no temptation to use the
     patronage of his office to promote his own re-election, I desire to
     perform what I regard as a duty, in stating now my inflexible
     purpose, if elected, not to be a candidate for election to a second
     term.

     On the currency question, I have frequently expressed my views in
     public, and I stand by my record on this subject. I regard all the
     laws of the United States relating to the payment of the public
     indebtedness, the legal tender notes included, as constituting a
     pledge and moral obligation of the Government, which must in good
     faith be kept. It is my conviction that the feeling of uncertainty
     inseparable from an irredeemable paper currency, with its
     fluctuations of values, is one of the great obstacles to a revival
     of confidence and business, and to a return of prosperity. That
     uncertainty can be ended in but one way--the resumption of specie
     payments; but the longer the instability connected with our present
     money system is permitted to continue, the greater will be the
     injury inflicted upon our economical interests, and all classes of
     society.

     If elected, I shall approve every appropriate measure to accomplish
     the desired end, and shall oppose any step backward.

     The resolution with respect to the public school system is one
     which should receive the hearty support of the American people.
     Agitation upon this subject is to be apprehended, until, by
     constitutional amendment, the schools are placed beyond all danger
     of sectarian control or interference. The Republican party is
     pledged to secure such an amendment.

     The resolution of the convention on the subject of the permanent
     pacification of the country, and the complete protection of all its
     citizens in the free enjoyment of all their constitutional rights,
     is timely and of great importance. The condition of the Southern
     States attracts the attention and commands the sympathy of the
     people of the whole Union. In their progressive recovery from the
     effects of the war, their first necessity is an intelligent and
     honest administration of government, which will protect all classes
     of citizens in all their political and private rights. What the
     South most needs is peace, and peace depends upon the supremacy of
     law. There can be no enduring peace if the constitutional rights of
     any portion of the people are habitually disregarded. A division of
     political parties, resting merely upon distinctions of race, or
     upon sectional lines, is always unfortunate, and may be
     disastrous. The welfare of the South, alike with that of every
     other part of the country, depends upon the attractions it can
     offer to labor, to immigration, and to capital. But laborers will
     not go, and capital will not be ventured, where the constitution
     and the laws are set at defiance, and distraction, apprehension,
     and alarm, take the place of peace-loving and law-abiding social
     life. All parts of the constitution are sacred, and must be
     sacredly observed--the parts that are new no less than the parts
     that are old. The moral and material prosperity of the Southern
     States can be most effectively advanced by a hearty and generous
     recognition of the rights of all by all--a recognition without
     reserve or exception.

     With such a recognition fully accorded, it will be practicable to
     promote, by the influence of all legitimate agencies of the general
     government, the efforts of the people of those States to obtain for
     themselves the blessings of honest and capable local government.

     If elected, I shall consider it not only my duty, but it will be my
     ardent desire, to labor for the attainment of this end.

     Let me assure my countrymen of the Southern States that if I shall
     be charged with the duty of organizing an Administration, it will
     be one which will regard and cherish their truest interests--the
     interests of the white and of the colored people both, and equally;
     and which will put forth its best efforts in behalf of a civil
     policy which will wipe out forever the distinction between North
     and South in our common country.

     With a civil service organized upon a system which will secure
     purity, experience, efficiency, and economy; with a strict regard
     for the public welfare, solely, in appointments; with the speedy,
     thorough, and unsparing prosecution and punishment of all public
     officers who betray official trusts; with a sound currency; with
     education unsectarian and free to all; with simplicity and
     frugality in public and private affairs, and with a fraternal
     spirit of harmony pervading the people of all sections and classes,
     we may reasonably hope that the second century of our existence as
     a Nation will, by the blessing of God, be pre-eminent as an era of
     good feeling, and a period of progress, prosperity, and happiness.

     Very respectfully,
     Your fellow-citizen,
     R. B. HAYES.

The non-partisan verdict upon this letter is that it is faultless in
style, sound in principle, courageous, broad and elevated in tone,
liberal, wise, statesmanlike, and strong. It is, in short, the
declaration of faith of an honest man who has a heart in his breast and
a head on his shoulders, with purity in that heart and brains in that
head.

The conclusions which follow our study of the public career of
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, and the study of that interior life, the
beauty of which the world will not know until he has passed from it, are
briefly these.

In boyhood, in battle, in the civic chair, in the esteem of his State,
in every duty and relation of life, he has been first, and now, it would
seem, is first in the hearts of his countrymen. As a student, he was
foremost; as a lawyer, he was in the front rank; as a soldier, he was
the bravest; as a legislator, the most judicious; as a governor, second
to none of Ohio's great magistrates.

The most striking characteristic of Hayes as a soldier was his personal
intrepidity. Anthony Wayne, Francis Marion, and Ethan Allen were called
brave men in the Revolution, and so they were; but we look in vain in
their histories for as numerous proofs of unsurpassable daring as the
hero of Cloyd Mountain, Cedar Creek, and South Mountain, has given us.
Four horses shot under him; four wounds in action; fighting after he
fell; a hundred days exposed to death under fire--these are the
evidences of as lofty a courage as is yet known among men.

As a regimental, brigade, and division commander, his most striking
quality as a leader was his impetuosity. General Crook used to say that
Hayes fought infantry as other men fought cavalry. He was always wanting
to move forward, to charge, to get at the enemy with cold steel. His
favorite step was the double-quick; his choice of distance two paces;
and his preferred mode of fighting, the hand-to-hand grapple. This meant
business, was decisive, and was soon over.

Another characteristic was his constant care for the comfort of his
soldiers. He was much in the hospitals, cheering up the wounded, writing
letters for them, and sending last messages from the lips of the dying
to wives, mothers, and friends. He shared his blanket, his last crust,
his last penny, with the neediest of his men, and abstained from food
when they had none.

His house is to-day, and has been since the war, a soldiers' home, where
all who served with him are invited to come at all times and partake at
his own table with his wife and children. Seldom is this generous
hospitality imposed on by the members of his large military family.
Once, only, a pseudo-soldier, whom the children called the "Veteran,"
having served two days and a half in the army, remained just double the
term of his military service under the governor's roof. He doubtless
found that the rations at this camp were good.

As a civil magistrate, Governor Hayes has developed executive and
administrative abilities of the highest order. He has a practical,
common-sense, direct way of doing things. He first finds what things
ought to be done, and then how. When his own party has been in a
minority, he has made friends with a few of the most reasonable men in
the opposition, and through them, as instruments, has accomplished his
purposes.

He is a discriminating judge of human nature, and is magnetic enough to
make legislators follow his lead, as his soldiers followed him.

He has fixed rules of official conduct to which he adheres in all cases.
For example, if he has a judge to appoint--and he has appointed many to
fill vacancies--his simple inquiry is, Whom do the members of the legal
profession want, who live in the judicial district to be provided for?
When that fact is accurately ascertained, the appointment follows as a
matter of course, even though the lawyer preferred may be his personal
enemy. In the interests of learning, higher education, human
benevolence, and equal rights, Hayes has accomplished more than any
governor Ohio has yet had. We make this statement with the honorable
records of old Jeremiah Morrow, Corwin, Chase, Tod, Brough, and Cox
spread before us.

In a word, Governor Hayes is square-built, solid and sound, mentally,
morally, and physically. His integrity is a proverb; his fidelity to his
convictions is recognized by political enemies; his record is of
unassailable soundness; and there is absolutely nothing vulnerable in
his character. He has a Lincoln-like soundness of judgment, and is as
inexorably just as old John Marshall. He is a man absolutely free from
eccentricities and affectations; he neither walks nor talks on stilts.
His manners have the warmth and grace that sincerity and simplicity
give. In bearing, he is animated and thoughtful, manly and refined. His
firmness, while it does not amount to obstinacy, marks the clear-cut
individuality and decision of his character. He has the guiding faculty
and the power of containing himself. He takes a just measure both of
himself and of other men. If the country will do this, his future is as
secure as his past. If president, he would do the right thing at the
right time, in the right way. His election will give us, not a "solid
South" or a solid North, but a solid Union!

Since experience has taught us how essential it is that the
representative of the women of America in the executive mansion should
worthily represent all that is best and most elevated in our social
life, a word in regard to the companion of Governor Hayes may not be out
of taste. If any public man in our history has been more fortunate and
happy in his home surroundings and family relations, we are not aware
who he may be. If the voice of the people should decree the
transplanting of the ideal home of this family from the capital of Ohio
to the capital of the Republic, the pure and elevating influences
radiating from such a home would pervade and purify the social life of
the National city, if not of the land. A severer simplicity would mark
the inner and the outer life of the president's household. Extravagance
in dress and living, wastefulness in vain displays and in ambitious
entertainments, would find no encouragement from the mistress of the
Nation's mansion. The lessons of truth and piety, of purity and virtue,
of charity and benevolence, of sincerity and self-forgetfulness, would
be taught by example. A whole people could here find in illustration the
sacredness of the family and the holiness of home.

A union of rare accomplishments, social and domestic, with beauty of
features, manners, and character, may yet be found in a successor of
Mrs. Madison.

A doctor of divinity and a doctor of laws, the president of the Ohio
Wesleyan University, bears this weighty testimony, in a public address,
to the correctness of what we have hereinbefore recorded:

     "It is in no spirit of partisanship, nor with the slightest
     reference to merely political ends, but simply in illustration of
     our subject that we add, already there are hopeful signs of
     reformation in our National life. It is a sign of progress that the
     suspicion of sullied purity is beginning to be fatal to a public
     man. It is an omen of good when in a large and representative
     convention, with the names of many distinguished men before it, one
     is borne above them all on the tide of popular enthusiasm and with
     ringing peals of applause is presented to the American people,
     without effort of his own, as a candidate for the highest office in
     the Nation, not only because of his eminent ability, but largely
     because of the transparent purity of his character and his high,
     manly, moral worth.

     "It is doubtless a cause of honest pride to the citizens of this
     town, irrespective of political creeds and preferences, that the
     man thus highly distinguished is a native of your classic city. By
     reason of its youth this university can not claim him as a son, but
     it regards with maternal pride his not less worthy companion, who,
     after graduation at one of the best female colleges in the State,
     indicated her rare good sense by passing through much of the
     college curriculum of our university here.

     "If, by the decree of the people and the providence of God, this
     worthy pair, honored graduates of Ohio's higher schools of
     learning, shall be lifted to the highest position and power and
     influence in the Nation, we have reason to believe that they will
     illustrate the salutary influence of that cultured goodness of
     which we have spoken, and that the National capital and the entire
     National domain will enjoy a purer atmosphere."




APPENDIX.


_Speech of_ GENERAL R. B. HAYES, _delivered at Lebanon, Ohio, August 5,
1867._

     _Fellow-Citizens:_

     President Lincoln began his memorable address at the dedication of
     the Gettysburg National Cemetery with these words:

     "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
     continent a new Nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
     proposition that all men are created equal."

     This was Abraham Lincoln's opinion of what was accomplished and
     what was meant by the Declaration of Independence. His idea was
     that it gave birth to a Nation, and that it dedicated that Nation
     to equal rights.

     Now, so far as the performance of duty in the present condition of
     our country is concerned, "this is the whole law and the prophets."
     The United States are not a confederacy of independent and
     sovereign States, bound together by a mere treaty or a compact, but
     the people of the United States constitute a Nation, having one
     flag, one history, "one country, one constitution, one destiny."
     Whoever seeks to divide this Nation into two sections--into a North
     and a South, or into four sections, according to the cardinal
     points of the compass, or into thirty or forty independent
     sovereignties--is opposed to the Nation, and the Nation's friends
     should be opposed to him.

     Washington, in his Farewell Address, says:

     "The unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also
     now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the
     edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity
     at home, your peace abroad; of your safety, of your prosperity, of
     that very liberty which you so highly prize.... The name of
     American, which belongs to you in your National capacity, must
     always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation
     derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of
     difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and
     political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and
     triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are
     the work of joint counsels and joint efforts--of common dangers,
     sufferings, and successes."

     The sentiment of Nationality is the sentiment of the Declaration of
     Independence; it is the sentiment of the fathers; it is the
     sentiment which carried us through the war of the Revolution, and
     through the war of the late Rebellion; and it is a sentiment which
     the people of the United States ought forever to cultivate and
     cherish.

     The great idea to which the Nation, according to Mr. Lincoln, was
     dedicated by the fathers is expressed in the Declaration in these
     familiar phrases: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
     all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
     with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life,
     liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights
     governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
     from the consent of the governed."

     An intelligent audience will not wish to hear discussion as to the
     import of these sentences. Their language is simple, their meaning
     plain, and their truth undoubted. The equality declared by the
     fathers was not an equality of beauty, of physical strength, or of
     intellect, but an equality of rights. Foolish attempts have been
     made by those who hate the principles of the fathers to destroy the
     great fundamental truth of the Declaration, by limiting the
     application of the phrase "all men" to the men of a single race.

     But Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration leaves no room to
     doubt what he meant by these words. The gravest charge he made
     against the King of Great Britain in the original draft of the
     Declaration of Independence was the following:

     "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its
     most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant
     people, who never offended him, capturing and carrying them into
     slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
     transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of
     infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great
     Britain, determined to keep open market where MEN should be bought
     and sold."

     In this sentence the word "men" is written by Jefferson in capital
     letters, showing with what emphasis he wished to declare that the
     King of Great Britain was making slaves of a people to whom
     belonged the rights of men.

     Unfortunately for our country, that King, and others who "waged
     cruel war against human nature itself," had already succeeded in
     planting in the bosom of American society an element implacably
     hostile to human rights, and destined to become the enemy of the
     Union, whenever the American people, in their National capacity,
     should refuse assent to any measures which the holders of slaves
     should deem necessary or even important for the security or
     prosperity of their "peculiar institution."

     I need not, upon this occasion, repeat what is now familiar
     history--how, by the invention of the cotton-gin, and the
     consequent enormous increase of the cotton crop, slave labor in the
     cotton States, and slave breeding in the Northern slave States,
     became so profitable that the slaveholders were able, for many
     years, largely to influence, if not control, every department of
     the National Government. The slave power became something more than
     a phrase--it was a definite, established, appalling fact. The
     Missouri controversy, South Carolina nullification, the Texas
     controversy, the adoption of the compromise measures of 1850, and
     the repeal of the Missouri compromise in 1854, were all occasions
     when the country was compelled to see the magnitude, the energy,
     the recklessness, and the arrogance of the slave power.

     Precisely when the men who wielded that power determined to destroy
     the Union it is not now necessary to inquire. Threats of disunion
     were made in the first Congress that assembled under the
     constitution. Upon various pretexts they were repeated from time to
     time, and no one doubts that slavery was at the bottom of them. In
     1833 General Jackson wrote to Rev. A. J. Crawford: "Take care of
     your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the
     indignant frown of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it
     is now known, was a mere pretext ... and disunion and a Southern
     Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or
     slavery question." General Jackson was no doubt right as to the
     existence of a settled purpose to break up the Union, and to
     establish a Southern Confederacy, as long ago as 1832. But why was
     there such a purpose? On what ground did it stand?

     Great political parties, whether sectional or otherwise, do not
     come by accident, nor are they the invention of political intrigue.
     A faction born of a clique may have some strength at one or two
     elections, but the wisest political wire-workers can not, by merely
     "taking thought," create a strong and permanent party. The result
     of the Philadelphia Convention last summer probably taught this
     truth to the authors of that movement. Great political movements
     always have some adequate cause.

     Now, on what did the conspirators who plotted the destruction of
     the Union and the establishment of a Southern Confederacy rely? In
     the first place, they taught a false construction of the National
     constitution, which was miscalled State rights, the essential part
     of which was that "any State of the Union might secede from the
     Union whenever it liked." This doctrine was the instrument employed
     to destroy the unity of the Nation. The fact which gave strength
     and energy to those who employed this instrument was that in the
     southern half of the Union, society, business, property, religion,
     and law were all based on the proposition that over four millions
     of our countrymen, capable of civilization and religion, were,
     because of their race and color, "so far inferior that they had no
     rights which the white man was bound to respect." The practice,
     founded upon this denial of the Declaration of Independence,
     protected by law and sanctioned by usage, was our great National
     transgression, and was the cause of our great National calamity.

     In a country where discussion was free, sooner or later, parties
     were sure to be formed on the issues presented by the slaveholders.
     The supporters of the Union and of human rights would band together
     against the supporters of disunion and slavery. For many years
     after the struggle really began, the issues were not clearly
     defined, and neither party was able to occupy its true and final
     position, or to rally to its standard all who were in fact its
     friends. Old parties encumbered the ground. Men were slow to give
     up old associations and leave the discussion of obsolete,
     immaterial, or ephemeral issues.

     At last the crisis came. In 1860, Mr. Lincoln, who was unfriendly
     to slavery and faithful to the Union, was elected president. The
     party of disunion and slavery were prepared for this event. Their
     action was prompt, decisive, and defiant. They proceeded to
     organize southern conventions, and formally to withdraw from the
     Union, and undertook to establish a new government and a new Nation
     on the soil of the United States.

     Prior to 1860 the party calling itself Democratic had gathered
     under one name and one organization almost the whole of the
     secessionists of the South and a large body of the people of the
     North, many of whom had no sympathy either with secession or
     slavery. In 1860 the secessionists were so arrogant in their
     demands that the great body of the Democratic party in the North
     refused to yield to them, and supported Mr. Douglass in opposition
     both to Mr. Lincoln, and to the disunion and slavery candidate, Mr.
     Breckenridge. But it was well known that many leading Democrats who
     supported Mr. Douglass leaned strongly toward the southern Calhoun
     democracy, and that their sympathies were with slave-holding or at
     least with slaveholders.

     The evidence of this is abundantly furnished in their recorded
     opinions. The most distinguished and perhaps the most influential
     Democrat now actively engaged in politics in Ohio, who presided
     over and addressed the last Democratic State Convention held at
     Columbus, Mr. Pendleton, delivered a speech in the House of
     Representatives on the 18th of January, 1861.

     You will recollect how far the slaveholders had progressed in their
     great rebellion at that date. Mr. Pendleton himself says:

     "To-day, sir, four States of this Union have, so far as their power
     extends, seceded from it. Four States, as far as they are able,
     have annulled the grants of power made to the Federal Government;
     they have resumed the powers delegated by the Constitution; they
     have canceled, so far as they could, every limitation upon the full
     exercise of all their sovereign rights. They do not claim our
     protection; they ask no benefit from our laws; they seek none of
     the advantages of the confederation. On the other hand, they
     renounce their allegiance; they repudiate our authority over them,
     and they assert that they have assumed--some of them that they have
     resumed--their position among the family of sovereignties, among
     the nations of the earth.... To-day, even while I am speaking,
     Georgia is voting upon this very question. And unless the signs of
     the times very much deceive us, within three weeks other States
     will be added to the number."

     Mr. Pendleton might also have said that prior to that date, forts,
     arsenals, dock-yards, mints, and other places and property
     belonging to the United States, had been seized by organized and
     armed bodies of rebels; the collection of debts due in the South to
     Northern creditors had been stopped; South Carolina had declared
     that any attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter by the United States
     would be regarded by that State as an act of hostility against her
     and equivalent to a declaration of war; the Star of the West, an
     unarmed vessel, with the American flag floating at her mast-head,
     carrying provisions to the famishing garrison of Fort Sumter, had
     been fired on and driven from Charleston harbor; in short, at that
     date the rebels were engaged in actual war against the Nation, and
     the only reason why blood had not been shed was that the National
     government had failed in its duty to defend the Nation's property,
     and to maintain the sacredness of the National flag.

     At that crisis Mr. Pendleton delivered and sent forth a speech
     bearing this significant motto: "But, sir, armies, money, blood,
     can not maintain this Union--justice, reason, peace, may." The
     speech was according to its motto. Accustomed as he is to speak
     cautiously, and in a scholarly and moderate way, we can not be
     mistaken as to his drift. On the authority of the National
     government he says:

     "Now, sir, what force of arms can compel a State to do that which
     she has agreed to do? What force of arms can compel a State to
     refrain from doing that which her State government, supported by
     the sentiment of her people, is determined to persist in doing....
     Sir, the whole scheme of coercion is impracticable. It is contrary
     to the genius and spirit of the Constitution."

     These extracts sufficiently and fairly show Mr. Pendleton's notion
     of the duty and authority of the Nation in that great crisis. He
     held the States rights doctrines of Calhoun and Breckenridge, and
     not the National principles of Washington and Jackson.

     As to the treatment of rebels already in arms, and as to the
     "demands" of the slave power, consider this advice which he gave to
     Congress and the people:

     "If these Southern States can not be conciliated; if you,
     gentlemen, can not find it in your hearts to grant their demands;
     if they must leave the family mansion, I would signalize their
     departure by tokens of love; I would bid them farewell so tenderly
     that they would be forever touched by the recollection of it; and
     if in the vicissitudes of their separate existence they should
     desire to come together with us again in one common government,
     there should be no pride to be humiliated, there should be no wound
     inflicted by my hand to be healed. They should come and be welcome
     to the places they now occupy."

     Thus we see there were those who, with honeyed phrases and soft
     words, would have looked smilingly on, while the great
     Republic--the pride of her children, the hope of the ages--built by
     the fathers at such an expense of suffering, of treasure, and of
     blood, was stricken by traitors' hands from the roll of living
     Nations, and while an armed oligarchy should establish in its stead
     a nation founded on a denial of human rights, and under whose sway
     south of the Potomac more than half of the territory of the old
     Thirteen Colonies--soil once fertilized by the best blood of the
     Revolution--should, for generations to come, continue to be tilled
     by the unrequited toil of slaves.

     The best known, the boldest, and perhaps the ablest leader of the
     peace Democracy in the North is Mr. Vallandigham. He was chairman
     of the committee on resolutions in the last Democratic State
     Convention in Ohio, and reported the present State platform of his
     party. He, probably, still enjoys in a greater degree than any
     other public man the affection and confidence of the positive men
     of the Ohio Democracy, who, from beginning to end, opposed the war.
     On the 20th of February, 1861, he delivered a speech in the House
     of Representatives in support of certain amendments which he
     proposed to the Constitution of the United States. In an appendix
     to that speech, he published an extract from a card in the
     Cincinnati _Enquirer_ of November 10, 1860, from which I quote:

     "And now let me add that I did say, ... in a public speech at the
     Cooper Institute, on the 2d of November, 1860, that if any one or
     more of the States of this Union should at any time secede, for
     reasons of the sufficiency and justice of which, before God and the
     great tribunal of history, they alone may judge, much as I should
     deplore it, I never would, as a representative in Congress of the
     United States, vote one dollar of money whereby one drop of
     American blood should be shed in a civil war.... And I now
     deliberately repeat and reaffirm it, resolved, though I stand
     alone, though all others yield and fall away, to make it good to
     the last moment of my public life." Here was another strong man of
     large influence solemnly pledged to allow the Union to be broken up
     and destroyed, in case the rebel conspirators chose that
     alternative, rather than forgo their demands in favor of oppression
     and against human rights.

     On the 23d of January, 1861, the Democratic party held a State
     Convention at Columbus. Remember, at that date the air was thick
     with threats of war from the South. The rebels were organizing and
     drilling; arms robbed from the National arsenals were in their
     hands; and the question upon all minds was whether the Republic
     should perish without having a single blow struck in her defense,
     or whether the people of the loyal North should rise as one man,
     prepared to wage war until treason and, if need be, slavery went
     down together. On this question, that convention was bound to
     speak. Silence was impossible. There were present war Democrats and
     peace Democrats, followers of Jackson, and followers of Calhoun.
     There was a determined and gallant struggle on the part of the war
     Democrats, but the superior numbers, or more probably the superior
     tactics and strategy, of the peace men triumphed.

     The present candidate of the Democratic party for Governor of Ohio,
     Judge Thurman, a gentleman of character and ability, a
     distinguished lawyer and judge and a politician of long experience,
     succeeded in passing through the convention this resolution:

     "_Resolved_, That the two hundred thousand Democrats of Ohio send
     to the people of the United States, both North and South, greeting;
     and when the people of the North shall have fulfilled their duties
     to the constitution and to the South, then, and not until then,
     will it be proper for them to take into consideration the question
     of the right and propriety of coercion."

     In support of this famous resolution, Judge Thurman addressed the
     convention, and, among other things, is reported to have said:

     "A man is deficient in understanding who thinks the cause of
     disunion is that the South apprehended any overt act of oppression
     in Lincoln's administration. It is the spirit of the late
     presidential contest that alarms the South.... It would try the
     ethics of any man to deny that some of the Southern States have no
     cause for revolution.... Then you must be sure you are able to
     coerce before you begin the work. The South are a brave people. The
     Southern States can not be held by force. The blacks won't fight
     for the invaders.... The Hungarians had less cause of complaint
     against Austria than the South had against the North."

     When we reflect on what the rebels had done and what they were
     doing when this resolution was passed, it seems incredible that
     sane men, having a spark of patriotism, could for one moment have
     tolerated its sentiments. The rebels had already deprived the
     United States of its jurisdiction and property in about one-fourth
     of its inhabited territory, and were rapidly extending their
     insurrection so as to include within the rebel lines all of the
     slave States. The lives and property of Union citizens in the
     insurgent States were at the mercy of traitors, and the National
     flag was everywhere torn down, and shameful indignities and
     outrages heaped upon all who honored it.

     This resolution speaks of fulfilling the duties of the people of
     the North to the South. The first and highest duty of the people of
     the North to themselves, to the South, to their country, and to
     God, was to crush the rebellion. All speeches and resolutions
     against either the right or the propriety of coercion merely gave
     encouragement, "moral aid and comfort," more important than powder
     and ball, to the enemies of the Nation.

     Do I state too strongly the mischievous, the fatal tendency of
     these proceedings? The resolution adopted by the peace Democracy of
     Ohio is addressed in terms "to the people of all the States, North
     and South," and in fact was sent, I am informed, to the governors
     of all the States.

     In the South, Union men were laboring by every means in their power
     to prevent secession. Their most cogent argument was that the
     National government would defend itself by war against rebellion.
     To this, the rebel reply was, "There will be no war. Secession will
     be peaceable. The peace party of the North will prevent coercion.
     If there is fighting, it will be as Ex-President Pierce writes to
     Jefferson Davis, 'The fighting will not be along Mason and Dixon's
     line merely. It will be within our own borders, in our own
     streets.'"

     For the evidence of the correctness of this opinion, the rebels
     could point confidently to such speeches and resolutions as those
     we are now considering. Governor Orr, of South Carolina, in a
     recent speech at the Charleston Board of Trade banquet, is reported
     to have said:

     "I know there is an apprehension widespread in the North and West
     that, after the reconstruction of the Southern States, we shall
     fall into the arms of our old allies and associates, the old
     Democratic party. I say to you, gentlemen, however, that I would
     give no such pledges. We have accounts to settle with that party,
     gentlemen, before I, at least, will consent to affiliate with it.
     Many of you will remember that, when the war first commenced, great
     hopes and expectations were held out by our friends in the North
     and West that there would be no war, and that if it commenced, it
     would be North of Mason and Dixon's line, and not in the South."

     Without pausing to inquire how much strength accrued to the
     rebellion in its earlier stages by the encouragement it received
     from sympathizers in the North, let us pass on to the spring and
     summer of 1861, after the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter,
     and when the armies of the Union and of the rebellion were facing
     each other upon a line of operations extending from the Potomac to
     the Rio Grande. The most superficial observer could not fail to
     discover these facts.

     In the South, where slavery was strongest, the rebellion was
     strongest. Where there were few slaveholders, there were few
     rebels. South Carolina and Mississippi, having the largest number
     of slaves in proportion to population, were almost unanimous for
     rebellion. Western Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, East Tennessee, had
     few slaves, and love of the Union and hatred of secession in those
     mountain regions was nearly universal.

     The counterpart of this was found everywhere in the North. In
     counties and districts where the majority of the people had been
     accustomed to defend or excuse the practice of slave-holding and
     the aggressions of the slaveholders, there was much sympathy with
     the rebellion and strong opposition to the war. Men who abused and
     hated negroes did not usually hate rebels. On the other hand,
     anti-slavery counties and districts were quite sure to be Union to
     the core.

     In Ohio, as in other free States, the Democratic party could not be
     led off in a body after the peace Democracy. Brough, Tod, Matthews,
     Dorsey, Steedman, and a host of Democrats of the Jackson school,
     nobly kept the faith. Lytle, McCook, Webster, and gallant spirits
     like them, from every county and neighborhood of our State, sealed
     their devotion to the Union and to true Democracy with their life's
     blood.

     They believed, with Douglass, in the last letter he ever wrote,
     that "it was not a party question, nor a question involving
     partisan policy; it was a question of government or no government,
     country or no country, and hence it became the imperative duty of
     every Union man, every friend of constitutional liberty, to rally
     to the support of our common country, its government and flag, as
     the only means of checking the progress of revolution, and of
     preserving the Union of the States."

     They believed the words of Douglass' last speech: "This is no time
     for a detail of causes. The conspiracy is now known. Armies have
     been raised, war is levied to accomplish it. There are only two
     sides to the question. Every man must be for the United States or
     against it. There can be no neutrals in this war--only patriots and
     traitors."

     As the war progressed, the great political parties of the country
     underwent important changes, both of organization and policy. In
     the North, the Republican party, the great body of the American or
     Union party of 1860, and the war Democracy formed the Union party.
     The Democracy of the South, for the most part, became rebels, and
     in the North those who did not unite with the Union party generally
     passed under the control and leadership of the peace Democracy.

     At the beginning of the war, the creed of the Union party consisted
     of one idea--it labored for one object--the restoration of the
     Union. Slavery, the rights of man, the principles of the
     Declaration of Independence, were for the time lost sight of in the
     struggle for the Nation's life. As late as August, 1862, President
     Lincoln wrote to Mr. Greeley: "My paramount object is to save the
     Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could
     save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I
     could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I
     could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also
     do that."

     Slowly, gradually, after repeated disasters and disappointments,
     the eyes of the Union leaders were opened to the fact that slavery
     and rebellion were convertible terms; that the Confederacy,
     according to its Vice-President, Alexander H. Stephens, was founded
     upon "exactly the opposite idea" from that of Jefferson and the
     fathers. "Its foundations," said he, "are laid, its corner-stone
     rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white
     man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his
     natural and normal condition." Mr. Lincoln and the Union party,
     struggling faithfully onward, finally reached the solid ground that
     the American government was founded on the broad principles of
     right, justice, and humanity, and that, for this Nation, "Union and
     liberty" were indeed "one and inseparable."

     The leaders of the peace Democracy were for a time overwhelmed by
     the popular uprising which followed the attack on Fort Sumter, and
     were not able during the year 1861 or the early part of 1862 to
     mark out definitely the course to be pursued. But, like the Union
     party, they gradually approached the position they were ultimately
     to occupy.

     Their success in the autumn elections of 1862 encouraged them to
     enter upon the pathway in which they have plodded along
     consistently if not prosperously ever since. Opposition to the war
     measures of Mr. Lincoln's administration, and in particular to
     every measure tending to the enfranchisement and elevation of the
     African race, became their settled policy. By this policy they were
     placed in harmony with their former associates, the rebels of the
     South. The rebels were fighting to destroy the Union. The peace
     party were opposing the only measures which could save it. The
     rebels were fighting for slavery. The peace party were laboring in
     their way to keep alive and inflame the prejudice against race and
     color, on which slavery was based.

     The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the repeal of
     the fugitive slave law, Mr. Lincoln's proclamation of emancipation,
     in a word, every step of the Union party toward enfranchisement of
     the colored people, the peace Democracy opposed. Every war measure,
     every means adopted to strengthen the cause of the Union and weaken
     the rebellion, met with the the same opposition. Whatever Mr.
     Lincoln or Congress did to get money, to get men, or to obtain the
     moral support of the country and the world--tax laws, tariff laws,
     greenbacks, government bonds, army bills, drafts, blockades,
     proclamations--met the indiscriminate and bitter assaults of these
     men. The enlistment of colored soldiers, a measure by which between
     one and two hundred thousand able-bodied men were transferred from
     the service of the rebels in corn-fields to the Union service in
     battle-fields--how Mr. Lincoln and the Union party were vilified
     for that wise and necessary measure! But worse, infinitely worse,
     than mere opposition to war measures, were their efforts to impair
     the confidence of the people, to diminish the moral power of the
     government, to give hope and earnestness to the enemies of the
     Union, by showing that the administration was to blame for the war,
     that it was unnecessary, unjust, and that it had been perverted
     from its original object, and that it could not but fail.

     I need not go beyond the record of leaders of the Ohio Democracy of
     to-day for proof what I am saying. Mr. Pendleton, usually so
     gentlemanly and prudent in speech, lost his balance after the
     victories of the peace Democracy in 1862. At the Democratic jubilee
     in Butler county over the elections, Mr. Pendleton is reported as
     saying:

     "I came up to see if there were any Butternuts in Butler county. I
     came to see if there were any Copperheads in Butler county, as my
     friends of the Cincinnati _Gazette_ and _Commercial_ are fond of
     terming the Democracy of the country. I came up to tell you that
     there are a good many of that stripe of animals in old Hamilton. I
     have traveled about the country lately, and I assure you there is a
     large crop of Butternuts everywhere: not only that, but the quality
     and character of the nut is quite as good as the quantity."

     Of course, Mr. Pendleton was applauded by his audience; and he
     returned to his place in the House of Representatives at Washington
     prepared to give expression to his views with the same plainness
     and boldness which marked the utterances of his colleague, Mr.
     Vallandigham.

     On the 31st of January, 1863, he made an elaborate speech against
     the enlistment of negroes into the service of the United States, in
     which he said:

     "I should be false to you, my fellow-representatives, if I did not
     tell you that there is an impression, growing with great rapidity,
     upon the minds of the people of the Northwest that they have been
     deliberately deceived into this war--that their patriotism and
     their love of country have been engaged to call them into the army,
     under the pretense that the war was to be for the Union and the
     Constitution, when, in fact, it was to be an armed crusade for the
     abolition of slavery. I tell you, sir, that unless this impression
     is speedily arrested it will become universal; it will ripen into
     conviction, and then it will be beyond your power to get from their
     broad plains another man, or from their almost exhausted coffers
     another dollar."

     In the same speech he says:

     "I said two years ago, on this floor, that armies, money, war can
     not restore this Union; justice, reason, peace, may. I believed it
     then; I have believed it at every moment since; I believe it now.
     No event of the past two years has for a moment shaken my faith.
     Peace is the first step to Union. Peace is Union. Peace unbroken
     would have preserved it; peace restored will, I hope, in some time
     reconstruct it. The only bonds which can hold these States in
     confederation, the only ties which can make us one people, are the
     soft and silken cords of affection and interest. These are woven in
     peace, not war; in conciliation, not coercion; in deeds of kindness
     and acts of friendly sympathy, not in deeds of violence and blood.
     The people of the Northwest were carried away by the excitement of
     April and May. They believed war would restore the Union. They
     trusted to the assurances of the president and his cabinet, and of
     Congress, that it should be carried on for that purpose alone. They
     trusted that it would be carried on under the Constitution. They
     were patriotic and confiding. They sent their sons, and brothers,
     and husbands to the army, and poured out their treasures at the
     feet of the administration. They feel that the war has been
     perverted from this end; that the Constitution has been
     disregarded; that abolition and arbitrary power, not Union and
     constitutional liberty, are the governing ideas of the
     administration. They are in no temper to be trifled with. They
     think they have been deceived. There is danger of revolution. They
     are longing for peace."

     Need I pause to inquire who would receive encouragement, or whose
     spirits would be depressed, on reading these remarkable sentences?
     Imagine them read by the rebel camp-fires, or at the fire-sides of
     the rebel people. What hope, what exultation we should behold in
     the faces of those who heard them! On the other hand, at Union
     camp-fires, or by the loyal fire-sides of the North, what sorrow,
     what mortification, what depression such statements would surely
     carry wherever they were heard and believed!

     The course of the peace Democracy of Ohio during the memorable
     contest of 1863, between Brough and Vallandigham, is too well known
     to require attention now. Judge Thurman was one of the committee
     who constructed the platform of the convention which nominated Mr.
     Vallandigham, and was the ablest member of the State Central
     Committee which had charge of the canvass in his behalf during his
     exile.

     The key-note to that canvass was given by Mr. Vallandigham himself
     in a letter written from Canada, July 15, 1863. That letter
     contained the following:

     "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 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. These may
     be unwelcome truths; but they are addressed only to candid and
     honest men."

     The assumption of the certain success of the rebellion, and that
     the war for the Union would assuredly fail, was the strong point of
     these gentlemen in favor of the election of Vallandigham and the
     defeat of Brough. Fortunately, the patriotic people saw the
     situation from another standpoint, and under the influence of
     different feelings and different sympathies.

     In the elections of 1863, the peace Democracy of Ohio and other
     States sustained defeats which have no parallel in our political
     history. But, notwithstanding their reverses, the year 1864, the
     year of the presidential election, found the Ohio leaders possibly
     sadder, but certainly not wiser nor more patriotic than before.

     At the National Convention at Chicago, in August, Mr. Pendleton was
     nominated for vice-president, Judge Thurman was a delegate of the
     State of Ohio at large, and Mr. Vallandigham as a district
     delegate, and as a member of the committee on platform, was the
     author of the following resolution adopted by the convention:

     "_Resolved_, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the
     sense of the American people, that, after four years of failure to
     restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under
     pretense of military necessity, or war power higher than the
     constitution, the constitution has been disregarded in every part,
     and public liberty and private rights have been alike trodden down,
     and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired,
     justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that
     immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a
     view to an ultimate convention of all the States, or other
     peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment
     peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the
     States."

     This resolution does not seem to require explanation or comment.
     But as General McClellan's letter accepting the nomination for
     president did not square well with this part of the party platform,
     Mr. Vallandigham, in a speech at Sidney, Ohio, September 24, 1864,
     explained it at some length. In that speech, he said:

     "I am speaking now of the fact that this convention pronounced this
     war a failure, and giving you the reasons why it is a failure....
     What has been gained by this campaign? More lives have been lost,
     more hard fighting has been done, more courage has been exhibited
     by the Federal as well as the Southern soldiers than in any former
     campaign, and what has been accomplished? General Grant is nearer
     to Richmond, occupying a territory of perhaps eleven miles, which
     was not in the possession of the United States when the campaign
     began, from City Point to the suburbs of Petersburg. To secure that
     he gave up all the country from Manassas down to Richmond and a
     large part of the valley.... How about the Southern campaign?
     General Sherman, through the courage of the best disciplined, best
     organized, and most powerful army that has been seen since the
     campaigns of the first Napoleon, has taken Atlanta--a town somewhat
     larger than Sidney. It has cost him sixty thousand men and four or
     five months of the most terrible campaign ever waged on this
     continent or any other, or any other part of the globe. He occupies
     from two to five miles on each side of a railroad of one hundred
     and thirty-eight miles in length. He has penetrated that far into
     Georgia. What has been surrendered to obtain that? All of Texas,
     nearly all of Louisiana, nearly all of Arkansas, Mississippi,
     Alabama, and a part of Tennessee, which were in possession of the
     Federals on the first of May. Kentucky has been opened to continual
     incursions of the Confederate armies. All this has been surrendered
     in order to gain this barren strip of country on the line of the
     railroad. The war, then, has been properly pronounced a failure in
     a military point of view. The convention meant that it has failed
     to restore the Union, and there is not a Republican in the land who
     does not know it."

     In the Sidney speech, Mr. Vallandigham says, also:

     "What will you have now? Four years more of war? What guaranties of
     success have you? Do you want two million more of men to go forth
     to this war as the Crusaders went to the sepulcher at Jerusalem?
     The beginning of this administration found us with very little
     debt, comparatively no taxation, and peace and happiness among the
     States; and now look at the scene! Four more years of war, do you
     tell me, when the first four, with every advantage, has failed?
     Now, too, that the hearts of one-half of the people are turned away
     from war, and intent upon the arts of peace? What will be the
     consequence? Four thousand millions more of debt, five hundred
     millions more of taxation, more conscriptions, more calls for five
     hundred thousand men, more sacrifices for the next four years. All
     this is what Abraham Lincoln demands of you in order that the South
     may be compelled not to return to the Union, but to abandon
     slavery."

     All this logic, this eloquence, this taxing the imagination to
     portray the horrors of war, failed to deceive the people; Lincoln
     was re-elected; the war went on, and a few short months witnessed
     the end of the armed rebellion, and the triumph of liberty and of
     Union.

     Now came the work of reconstruction. The leaders of the Peace
     Democracy, who had failed in every measure, in every plan, in every
     opinion, and in every prediction relating to the war, were promptly
     on hand, and with unblushing cheek were prepared to take exclusive
     charge of the whole business of reorganization and reconstruction.
     They had a plan all prepared--a plan easily understood, easily
     executed, and which they averred would be satisfactory to all
     parties. Their plan was in perfect harmony with the conduct and
     history of its authors and friends during the war. They had been in
     very close sympathy with the men engaged in the rebellion, while
     their sympathy for loyal white people at the South was not strong,
     and they were bitterly hostile to loyal colored people both North
     and South. Their plan was consistent with all this.

     According to it, the rebels were to be treated in the same manner
     as if they had remained loyal. All laws, State and National, all
     orders and regulations of the military, naval, and other
     departments of the government, creating disabilities on account of
     participation in the rebellion, were to be repealed, revoked, or
     abolished. The rebellious States were to be represented in Congress
     by the rebels without hindrance from any test oath. All
     appointments in the army, in the navy, and in the civil service,
     were to be made from men who were rebels, on the same terms as from
     men who were loyal. The people and governments in the rebellious
     States were to be subjected to no other interference or control
     from the military or other departments of the general government
     than exists in the States which remained loyal. Loyal white men and
     loyal colored men were to be protected alone in those States by
     State laws, executed by State authorities, as if they were in the
     loyal States.

     There were to be no amendments to the constitution, not even an
     amendment abolishing slavery. In short, the great rebellion was to
     be ignored or forgotten, or, in the words of one of their orators,
     "to be generously forgiven." The war, whose burdens, cost, and
     carnage they had been so fond of exaggerating, suddenly sank into
     what the Rev. Petroleum V. Nasby calls "the late unpleasantness,"
     for which nobody but the abolitionists were to blame. Under this
     plan the States could soon re-establish slavery where it had been
     disturbed by the war. Jefferson Davis, Toombs, Slidell, and Mason
     could be re-elected to their old places in the Senate of the United
     States; Lee could be re-appointed in the army, and Semmes and Maury
     could be restored to the navy. Of course this plan of the Peace
     Democracy was acceptable to the rebels of the South.

     But the loyal people, who under the name of the Union party fought
     successfully through the war of the rebellion, objected to this
     plan as wrong in principle, wrong in its details, and fatally wrong
     as an example for the future. It treats treason as no crime and
     loyalty as no virtue; it contains no guarantees, irreversible or
     otherwise, against another rebellion by the same parties and on the
     same grounds. It restores to political honor and power in the
     government of the Nation men who have spent the best part of their
     lives in plotting the overthrow of that government, and who for
     more than four years levied public war against the United States;
     it allows Union men in the South, who have risked all--and many of
     whom have lost all but life in upholding the Union cause--to be
     excluded from every office, State and National, and in many
     instances to be banished from the States they so faithfully
     laboured to save; it abandons the four millions of colored people
     to such treatment as the ruffian class of the South, educated in
     the barbarism of slavery and the atrocities of the rebellion, may
     choose to give them; it leaves the obligations of the Nation to her
     creditors and to the maimed soldiers and to the widows and orphans
     of the war, to be fulfilled by men who hate the cause in which
     those obligations were incurred; it claims to be a plan which
     restores the Union without requiring conditions; but, in conceding
     to the conquered rebels the repeal of laws important to the
     Nation's welfare, it grants conditions which they demand, while it
     denies to the loyal victors conditions which they deem of priceless
     value.

     In the meantime, President Johnson having declared that "the
     rebellion, in its revolutionary progress, had deprived the people
     of the rebel States of all civil government," proceeded by military
     power to set up provisional State governments in those States, and
     to require them to declare void all ordinances of secession, to
     repudiate the rebel debt, and to adopt the thirteenth amendment of
     the constitution, proposed by the Union party, abolishing slavery
     throughout the United States. The Peace Democracy opposed all
     conditions, and, instinctively unsound upon human rights, opposed
     the amendment abolishing slavery. The elections of 1865 settled
     that question against them, and deprived them of New Jersey, the
     last free State which adhered to their fallen fortunes.

     At the session of Congress of 1865-66, the president, finding that
     his co-called State governments in the rebel States--created by
     military power alone and without the sanction of the legislative
     power of the government--had accepted his conditions; insisted that
     those States were fully restored to their former proper relations
     with the general government, and that they were again entitled to
     representation in the same manner with the loyal States. This plan
     accorded with the wishes of all unrepentant rebels, and as a matter
     of course received the support of their allies of the Peace
     Democracy.

     The Union party, at the sacrifice of all of the power and patronage
     of the administration they had elected, firmly opposed and finally
     defeated this project. They required, before the complete
     restoration of the rebel States, that the fourteenth amendment of
     the constitution should be adopted, which was framed to secure
     civil rights to the colored people, equal representation between
     the free States and the former slave States, the disqualification
     for office of leading rebels, the payment of the loyal obligations
     to creditors, to maimed soldiers, and to widows and orphans, and
     the repudiation of the rebel debt, and of claims to payment for
     slaves. On the adoption of this amendment turned the elections of
     1866. After the amplest debates before the people the Union party
     carried the country in favor of the amendment, electing more than
     three-fourths of the members of the House of Representatives. They
     also secured the adoption of the amendment in twenty-one out of the
     twenty-four States now represented, which have acted upon it by an
     average vote in the State legislature of more than four to one.

     In striking contrast with this was the action of the rebel States.
     Tennessee alone ratified the amendment. The other ten promptly and
     defiantly rejected it by an average majority in their State
     legislatures of more than fifty to one. When, therefore, the
     Thirty-ninth Congress met in the session of 1866-67 they found the
     work of reconstruction in those ten States still unaccomplished.

     Now, in what condition were those ten rebel States? In the first
     place all political power in those States was in the hands of
     rebels, and for the most part of leading and unrepentant rebels.
     Their governors, their members of legislature, their judges, their
     county and city officers, and their members of Congress, with rare
     exceptions, were rebels. Such was their political condition.

     What was their condition with respect to the preservation of order,
     the suppression of crime, and the redress of private grievances?
     After the suppression of the rebellion the next plain duty of the
     National government was to see that the lives, liberty, and
     property of all classes of citizens were secure, and especially to
     see that the loyal white and colored citizens who resided or might
     sojourn in those States did not suffer injustice, oppression, or
     outrage because of their loyalty. Loyal men, without distinction of
     race or color, were clearly entitled to the full measure of
     protection usually found in civilized countries, if in the nature
     of things it was possible for the Nation to furnish it.

     Inquiring as to the condition of things in the South, I waive the
     uniform current of information derived from the press and other
     unofficial sources from all parts of the South, and rely
     exclusively on the official reports of army officers like Grant,
     Thomas, Sheridan, and Howard--officers of clear heads, of strong
     sense, and of spotless integrity, whose business it is to know the
     facts, and who all united in warning the Nation that Union men,
     either white or colored, were not safe in the South.

     General Grant says that the class at the South who "will
     acknowledge no law but force" is sufficiently formidable to justify
     the military occupation of that territory.

     General Sheridan, in an official report, says the "trial of a white
     man for the murder of a freedman in Texas would be a farce; and, in
     making this statement, I make it because truth compels me, and for
     no other reason.... Over the killing of many freedmen nothing is
     done." General Sheridan cites cases in which our National soldiers
     wearing the uniform of the Republic have been deliberately shot
     "without provocation" by citizens, and the grand jury refused to
     find a bill against the murderers. Even in Virginia, General
     Schofield was compelled to resort to a military tribunal because "a
     gentleman" who shot a negro dead in cold blood "was instantly
     acquitted by one of the civil courts."

     General Ord reports in Arkansas fifty-two murders of freed persons
     by white men in the past three or four months, _and no reports have
     been received that the murderers have been imprisoned or
     punished_.... "The number of murders reported is not half the
     number committed."

     General Sickles says that in South Carolina, "in certain counties,
     such as Newberry, Edgecombe, and Laurens, so much countenance was
     given to outrages on freedmen by the indifference of the civil
     authorities and by the population, who made themselves accomplices
     in the crimes, that other measures became necessary."

     In Mississippi, General Thomas calls attention to the legislation
     in regard to colored people. "It is oppressive, unjust, and
     unconstitutional." The laws as to buying real estate, bearing arms,
     making contracts, and the like, are of such a character "that the
     constitutional gift of freedom is not much more than a name."

     General Sheridan, speaking of Louisiana, says: "Homicides are
     frequent in some localities. Sometimes they are investigated by a
     coroner's jury, which justifies the act and releases the
     perpetrator; in other cases, ... the parties are held to bail in a
     nominal sum; but the trial of a white man for the killing of a
     freedman can, in the existing state of society in this State, be
     nothing more or less than a farce."

     General Thomas, in February last, in relation to the display of the
     rebel flag in Rome, Georgia, said: "The sole cause of this and
     similar offenses lies in the fact that certain citizens of Rome,
     and a portion of the people of the States lately in rebellion, do
     not and have not accepted the situation, and that is that the late
     civil war was a rebellion, and history will so record it....
     Everywhere in the States lately in rebellion treason is respectable
     and loyalty odious. This the people of the United States who ended
     the rebellion and saved the country will not permit; and all
     attempts to maintain this unnatural order of things will be met by
     decided disapproval."

     Upon these official reports, showing not merely that atrocious
     crimes were everywhere committed against loyal people, but that
     the civil authorities did not even attempt to prevent them by the
     punishment of the perpetrators, it became the plain duty of
     Congress to adopt measures "to enforce peace and good order in the
     rebel States, until loyal and Republican State governments could be
     legally established." How well this duty was performed will appear
     from a brief examination of the reconstruction acts which were
     passed by Congress in March last, and by the auspicious results
     which followed their adoption and execution.

     By these acts, the ten rebel States were divided into five military
     districts, subject to the military authority of the United States;
     and it was made the duty of the president to assign military
     officers, not below the rank of brigadier-general, to command each
     of said districts, and to detail a sufficient military force to
     enable such officers to perform their duties. The duties of
     military commanders were defined as follows, in the 3d section of
     the act:

     "Sec. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of
     each officer assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their
     rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder,
     and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all
     disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and to this end he
     may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try
     offenders; or when, in his judgment, it may be necessary for the
     trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military
     commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference,
     under color of State authority, with the exercise of military
     authority under this act shall be null and void."

     The act also sets forth the manner in which the people of any one
     of the rebel States could form a State constitution, and the terms
     on which the State would be fully restored to proper relations with
     the Union. The most important provisions are those relating to the
     qualifications of voters, and the one requiring the adoption of the
     amendment to the constitution proposed by the Thirty-ninth
     Congress, known as article fourteen. The right of suffrage is given
     to all men of suitable age and residence, without distinction of
     race or color, except a limited number who are excluded for
     participation in the rebellion.

     In pursuance of these acts, the district of Louisiana and Texas
     was placed under the command of General Sheridan; Arkansas and
     Mississippi under General Ord; Alabama, Georgia, and Florida under
     General Pope; North Carolina and South Carolina under General
     Sickles; and Virginia under General Schofield. The merits of this
     plan are obvious.

     1. It places the rebels again under the control of the power which
     conquered them, and of the very officers to whom they surrendered.

     2. It is well calculated to afford protection to all loyal people,
     white or colored, against those who would oppress or injure them on
     account of their loyalty.

     3. It places the new State governments of the South upon the solid
     basis of justice and equal rights.

     This plan received in Congress the support of many members of
     Congress who did not uniformly vote with the Union party, and was
     acceptable to some of its most distinguished adversaries. In the
     Senate, Reverdy Johnson, a Maryland Democrat, voted for it, and
     made effective speeches in its support. The loyal press of the
     North, without exception, upheld it.

     In the South, its success was everywhere gratifying and unexampled.
     Its enemies had said that it would organize anarchy in the rebel
     States--that it would immediately inaugurate a war of races between
     whites and blacks--and compared the condition of the South under it
     to the condition of India under English oppression, and to Hungary
     under the despotism of Austria.

     But the course of the public press, and the conduct, the letters,
     and speeches of public men in the rebel States, vindicated the
     wisdom and justice of the measure. I will quote only from rebel
     sources.

     In Virginia, the Charlottesville _Chronicle_ addressed its readers
     as follows:

     "FOR WHITE FOLKS AND COLORED FOLKS.--Every colored person may now
     go where and when he pleases. He is a free man and a full citizen.
     This is not all; by another bound they have become voters. They
     will take part in the government of the country. No people was ever
     so suddenly, so rapidly lifted up.

     "Shall we all live happily together, or shall we hate each other,
     and quarrel and bear malice?

     "Let us all try and get on together. The land is big enough. Let
     the whites accommodate themselves to the new state of things. Let
     them be polite and kind to all, and be always ready to accord to
     every man, whether white or colored, his full rights. We make bold
     to say that the behavior of the colored people of this State, since
     they were set free, has surprised all fair-minded white people. We
     do not believe the white people, under the same circumstances,
     would have behaved so well by twenty per cent. They have shown the
     greatest moderation. They have passed from plantation hands to
     freedom and the ballot without outward excitement."

     The Richmond _Examiner_, the organ of the fire-eaters, says of the
     colored people:

     "This class of our population, as a general thing, manifest a
     disposition to prepare themselves for the altered political
     condition in which the events of the past two years have placed
     them. The sudden abolition of slavery did not, as most persons
     expected, turn their heads. They have been, in the main, orderly
     and well behaved. They have not presumed upon their newly-acquired
     freedom to commit breaches of the peace or to be guilty of any acts
     calculated to sow dissension between the two races. The utmost good
     feeling is felt by the white people of this city toward the
     negroes. There is not one particle of bitterness felt for them."

     In South Carolina, Wade Hampton addressed a mixed assembly of
     whites and colored people at Columbia, in which he quoted from a
     former speech to his old soldiers:

     "There is one other point on which there should be no
     misunderstanding as to our position--no loop on which to hang a
     possible misconstruction as to our views--and that is the abolition
     of slavery. The deed has been done, and I, for one, do honestly
     declare that I never wish to see it revoked. Nor do I believe that
     the people of the South would now remand the negro to slavery, if
     they had the power to do so unquestioned.

     "Under our paternal care, from a mere handful, he grew to be a
     mighty host. He came to us a heathen; we made him a Christian.
     Idle, vicious, savage in his own country, in ours he became
     industrious, gentle, civilized. As a slave, he was faithful to us;
     as a freeman, let us treat him as a friend. Deal with him frankly,
     justly, kindly, and, my word for it, he will reciprocate your
     kindness. If you wish so see him contented, industrious, useful,
     aid him in his efforts to elevate himself in the scale of
     civilization, and thus fit him not only to enjoy the blessings of
     freedom, but to appreciate his duties."

     After stating the provisions of the "military bill," as he calls
     the reconstruction law, he said to the colored people:

     "But suppose the bill is pronounced unconstitutional; how then? I
     tell you what I am willing to see done. I am willing to give the
     right of suffrage to all who can read and who pay a certain amount
     of taxes; and I agree that this qualification shall bear on white
     and black alike. You would have no right to complain of a law which
     would put you on a perfect political equality with the whites, and
     which would put within your reach and that of your children the
     privilege enjoyed by any class of citizens."

     In Georgia, the prevailing sentiment is indicated by the following.
     The Atlanta _New Era_ says:

     "We freely accept the Sherman platform as the only means whereby to
     rescue the country from total destruction, and if we mistake not,
     our backbone will prove sufficiently strong to enable us to look
     the issue full in the face, without a shudder. It is our bounden
     duty, and that of every other patriot and well-wisher of the South,
     to at once signify an unconditional acceptance of the measures
     perfected by Congress for our restoration to the Union, and
     heartily co-operate with the United States authorities in securing
     that most desirable end."

     The Augusta _Press_, alluding to the recent meeting of negroes at
     Columbia, S. C., and the fact that speeches were made by General
     Wade Hampton and others, states that--

     "All good citizens all over the South entertain precisely the same
     kind feelings for the colored people that were exhibited by these
     eminent Carolinians, and it is unfortunate that these sentiments
     are not more widely manifested in meetings for public counsel with
     them. 'Representative men' in every community should be prompt and
     earnest in signifying their wish to co-operate with the colored
     people in the administration of the laws and the preservation of
     harmony and good will. To this end, we deem it our duty to urge
     that in every community public meetings be held, in which the two
     races may take friendly counsel together."

     In Florida, Hon. R. S. Mallory, a former Democratic United States
     Senator, is reported to have said, at a large meeting composed of
     whites and blacks, in Pensacola, that--

     "The recent legislation of Congress ought to be submitted to in
     good faith; that, as the negro was now entitled to vote, it was the
     interest of the State that he should be educated and enlightened,
     and made to comprehend the priceless value of the ballot, and the
     importance to himself and to the State of its judicious use.

     "Let us fully and frankly acknowledge, as well by deeds as by
     words, their equality with us, before law, and regard it as no less
     just to ourselves and them than to our State and her best interests
     to aid in their education, elevation, and enjoyment of all the
     rights which follow their new condition."

     Governor Patton, of Alabama, says:

     "It seems to me that it is the true feeling of the Southern people
     to contribute their best influence in favor of an early
     organization of their respective States, in accordance with the
     requirements of the recent reconstruction act. Congress claims the
     right to control this whole question. In my humble judgment, it is
     unwise to contend longer against its power, or to struggle further
     against its repeatedly expressed will."

       *       *       *       *       *

     "The freedmen are now to vote the first time. We should cherish
     against them no ill-feeling. The elective franchise is conferred
     upon them; let them exercise it freely, and in their own way. No
     effort should be made to control their votes, except such as may
     tend to enable them to vote intelligently, and such as may be
     necessary to protect them against mischievous influences to which,
     from their want of intelligence, they may possibly be subjected.
     Above all things, we should discourage everything which may tend to
     generate antagonism between white and colored voters."

     In Mississippi, Albert G. Brown, a former Democratic United States
     Senator, and a rebel, says:

     "To those who think it most becoming men in my situation to keep
     quiet, I am free to say 'that is very much my own opinion.'"

     "As I speak reluctantly, you will not be surprised if I say as
     little as possible."

       *       *       *       *       *

     "The negro is a fixture in this country. He is not going out of
     it; he is not going to die out, and he is not going to be driven
     out. Nor is his exodus from the country desirable. I am frank in
     saying if they, every one of them, could be packed in a balloon,
     carried over the water, and emptied into Africa, I would not have
     it done, unless, indeed, it were already arranged that the balloon
     should return by the way of Germany, Ireland, Scotland, etc., and
     bring us a return cargo of white laborers. If the negro is to stay
     here, and it is desirable to have him do so, what is the duty of
     the intelligent white man toward him? Why, to educate him, admit
     him, when sufficiently instructed, to the right of voting, and as
     rapidly as possible prepare him for a safe and rational enjoyment
     of that 'equality before the law' which, as a free man, he has a
     right to claim, and which we can not long refuse to give."

     The Mississippi _Index_ says:

     "There are some laws on our statute-book respecting negroes that
     are of no practical use, and will have to be done away with some
     day. The sooner we dispense with them the better. But in the matter
     of educating the negro we can accomplish more toward convincing the
     people of the North that we have been misrepresented and slandered
     than by legislative action. Let us take the work of education out
     of the hands of the Yankees among us. We can do this by encouraging
     the establishment of negro schools and placing them in the charge
     of men and women whom we know to be competent and trustworthy."

     In Louisiana, General Longstreet, one of the most distinguished of
     the rebel Generals, says:

     "The striking feature, and the one that our people should keep in
     view, is, that we are a conquered people. Recognizing this fact
     fairly and squarely, there is but one course left for wise men to
     pursue--accept the terms that are offered us by the conquerors.
     There can be no discredit to a conquered people for accepting the
     conditions offered by their conquerors. Nor is that any occasion
     for a feeling of humiliation. We have made an honest, and I hope
     that I may say, a creditable fight, but we have lost. Let us come
     forward, then, and accept the ends involved in the struggle.

     "Our people earnestly desire that the constitutional government
     shall be re-established, and the only means to accomplish this is
     to comply with the requirements of the recent Congressional
     legislation."

       *       *       *       *       *

     "The military bill and amendments are peace offerings. We should
     accept them as such, and place ourselves upon them as the
     starting-point from which to meet future political issues as they
     arise."

     "Like other Southern men, I naturally sought alliance with the
     Democratic party, merely because it was opposed to the Republican
     party. But, as far as I can judge, there is nothing tangible about
     it, except the issues that were staked upon the war and lost.
     Finding nothing to take hold of except prejudice, which can not be
     worked into good for any one, it is proper and right that I should
     seek some standpoint from which good may be done."

     Quotations like these from prominent Democratic politicians, from
     rebel soldiers, and from influential rebel newspapers, might be
     multiplied indefinitely. Enough have been given to show how
     completely and how exactly the Reconstruction Acts have met the
     evil to be remedied in the South. My friend, Mr. Hassaurek, in his
     admirable speech at Columbus, did not estimate too highly the
     fruits of these measures. Said he:

     "And, sir, this remedy at once effected the desired cure. The poor
     contraband is no longer the persecuted outlaw whom incurable rebels
     might kick and kill with impunity; but he at once became 'our
     colored fellow-citizen,' in whose well-being his former master
     takes the liveliest interest. Thus, by bringing the negro under the
     American system, we have completed his emancipation. He has ceased
     to be a pariah. From an outcast he has been transformed into a
     human being, invested with the great National attribute of
     self-protection, and the re-establishment of peace, and order, and
     security, the revival of business and trade, and the restoration of
     the Southern States on the basis of loyalty and equal justice to
     all, will be the happy results of this astonishing metamorphosis,
     provided the party which has inaugurated this policy remains in
     power to carry it out."

     The Peace Democracy generally throughout the North oppose this
     measure. In Ohio they oppose it especially because it commits the
     people of the Nation in favor of manhood suffrage. They tell us
     that if it is wise and just to entrust the ballot to colored men
     in the District of Columbia, in the Territories, and in the rebel
     States, it is also just and wise that they should have it in Ohio
     and in the other States of the North.

     Union men do not question this reasoning, but if it is urged as an
     objection to the plan of Congress, we reply: There are now within
     the limits of the United States about five millions of colored
     people. They are not aliens or strangers. They are here not by the
     choice of themselves or of their ancestors. They are here by the
     misfortune of their fathers and the crime of ours. Their labor,
     privations, and sufferings, unpaid and unrequited, have cleared and
     redeemed one-third of the inhabited territory of the Union. Their
     toil has added to the resources and wealth of the nation untold
     millions. Whether we prefer it or not, they are our countrymen, and
     will remain so forever.

     They are more than countrymen--they are citizens. Free colored
     people were citizens of the colonies. The Constitution of the
     United States, formed by our fathers, created no disabilities on
     account of color. By the acts of our fathers and of ourselves, they
     bear equally the burdens and are required to discharge the highest
     duties of citizens. They are compelled to pay taxes and to bear
     arms. They fought side by side with their white countrymen in the
     great struggle for independence, and in the recent war for the
     Union. In the revolutionary contest, colored men bore an honorable
     part, from the Boston massacre, in 1770, to the surrender of
     Cornwallis, in 1781. Bancroft says: "Their names may be read on the
     pension rolls of the country side by side with those of other
     soldiers of the revolution." In the war of 1812 General Jackson
     issued an order complimenting the colored men of his army engaged
     in the defense of New Orleans. I need not speak of their number or
     of their services in the war of the rebellion. The Nation enrolled
     and accepted them among her defendants to the number of about two
     hundred thousand, and in the new regular army act, passed at the
     close of the rebellion, by the votes of Democrats and Union men
     alike, in the Senate and in the House, and by the assent of the
     president, regiments of colored men, cavalry and infantry, form
     part of the standing army of the Republic.

     In the navy, colored American sailors have fought side by side with
     white men from the days of Paul Jones to the victory of the
     Kearsarge over the rebel pirate Alabama. Colored men will, in the
     future as in the past, in all times of National peril, be our
     fellow-soldiers. Tax-payers, countrymen, fellow-citizens, and
     fellow-soldiers, the colored men of America have been and will be.
     It is now too late for the adversaries of nationality and human
     rights to undertake to deprive these tax-payers, freemen, citizens,
     and soldiers of the right to vote.

     Slaves were never voters. It was bad enough that our fathers, for
     the sake of Union, were compelled to allow masters to reckon
     three-fifths of their slaves for representation, without adding
     slave suffrage to the other privileges of the slaveholder. But free
     colored men were always voters in many of the Colonies, and in
     several of the States, North and South, after independence was
     achieved. They voted for members of the Congress which declared
     independence, and for members of every Congress prior to the
     adoption of the Federal Constitution; for the members of the
     convention which framed the Constitution; for the members of many
     of the State conventions which ratified it, and for every president
     from Washington to Lincoln.

     Our government has been called the white man's government. Not so.
     It is not the government of any class, or sect, or nationality, or
     race. It is a government founded on the consent of the governed,
     and Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, therefore properly calls it "the
     government of the governed." It is not the government of the native
     born, or of the foreign born, of the rich man, or of the poor man,
     of the white man, or of the colored man--it is the government of
     the freeman. And when colored men were made citizens, soldiers, and
     freemen, by our consent and votes, we were estopped from denying to
     them the right of suffrage.

     General Sherman was right when he said, in his Atlanta letter, of
     1864: "If you admit the negro to this struggle for any purpose, he
     has a right to stay in for all; and, when the fight is over, the
     hand that drops the musket can not be denied the ballot."

     Even our adversaries are compelled to admit the Jeffersonian rule,
     that "the man who pays taxes and who fights for the country is
     entitled to vote."

     Mr. Pendleton, in his speech against the enlistment of colored
     soldiers, gave up the whole controversy. He said: "Gentlemen tell
     us that these colored men are ready, with their strong arms and
     their brave hearts, to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution,
     and to defend the integrity of the Union, which in our hands to-day
     is in peril. What is that Constitution? It provides that every
     child of the Republic, every citizen of the land is before the law
     the equal of every other. It provides for all of them trial by
     jury, free speech, free press, entire protection for life and
     liberty and property. It goes further. It secures to every citizen
     the right of suffrage, the right to hold office, the right to
     aspire to every office or agency by which the government is carried
     on. Every man called upon to do military duty, every man required
     to take up arms in its defense, is by its provisions entitled to
     vote, and a competent aspirant for every office in the government."

     The truth is, impartial manhood suffrage is already practically
     decided. It is now merely a question of time. In the eleven rebel
     States, in five of the New England States, and in a number of the
     Northwestern States, there is no organized party able to
     successfully oppose impartial suffrage. The Democratic party of
     more than half of the States are ready to concede its justice and
     expediency. The Boston _Post_, the able organ of the New England
     Democracy, says:

     "Color ought to have no more to do with the matter (voting) than
     size. Only establish a right standard, and then apply it
     impartially. A rule of that sort is too firmly fixed in justice and
     equality to be shaken. It commends itself too clearly to the good
     sentiment of the entire body of our countrymen to be successfully
     traversed by objections. Once let this principle be fairly
     presented to the people of the several States, with the knowledge
     on their part that they alone are to have the disposal and
     settlement of it, and we sincerely believe it would not be long
     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
     credit, and to all individual credit. All the rest of the world
     have the same standard of value. Our promises are worthless as
     currency the moment you pass our boundary line. Even in this
     country, very extensive sections still use the money of the world.
     Texas, the most promising and flourishing State of the South, uses
     coin. California and the other Pacific States and Territories do
     the same. Look at their condition. Texas and California are not the
     least prosperous part of the United States. This scheme can not be
     adopted. The opinion of the civilized world is against it. The vast
     majority of the ablest newspapers of the country is against it. The
     best minds of the Democratic party are against it. The last three
     Democratic candidates for the presidency were against it. The
     German citizens of the United States, so distinguished for
     industry, for thrift, and for soundness of judgment in all
     practical money affairs, are a unit against it. The Republican
     party is against it. The people of Ohio will, I am confident,
     decide in October to have nothing to do with it.

     Since the adoption of the inflation platform at Columbus, a great
     change has taken place in the feelings and views of its friends.
     Then they were confident--perhaps it is not too much to say that
     they were dictatorial and overbearing toward their hard money party
     associates. There was no doubt as to the intent and meaning of the
     platform. Its friends asserted that the country needed more money,
     and more money now. That the way to get it was to issue government
     legal tender notes liberally. But the storm of criticism and
     condemnation which burst upon the platform from the soundest
     Democrats in all quarters has alarmed its supporters. Many of them
     have been seized with a panic, and are now utterly stampeded and in
     full retreat. They say that they are not for inflation, not for
     inconvertible paper money, and that they never have been. That they
     are hard money men, and always have been. That they look forward to
     a return of specie payment, and that it must always be kept in
     view. Why what did they mean by their platform? Did they expect to
     make money plenty by an issue of more coin? Certainly not. By an
     issue of more paper redeemable in coin? Certainly not. They
     expected to issue more legal tender notes--notes irredeemable and
     depreciated. But public opinion as shown by the press is so
     decidedly against them, that Ohio inflationists now begin to desert
     their own platform. Even Mr. Pendleton is solicitous not to be held
     responsible for the Columbus scheme. He says, "I speak for myself
     alone. I do not assume to speak for the Democratic party. Its
     convention has spoken for it," and proceeds to interpret the
     platform as if it was for hard money. Senator Thurman did not so
     understand it. He thought the hard money men were beaten and felt
     disappointed. It now looks as if General Carey might be left almost
     alone before the canvass ends. If Judge Thurman could get that
     convention together again, it is evident that he could now in the
     same body rout the inflationists, horse, foot, and artillery.
     Nothing but a victory in Ohio can put inflation again on its legs.
     Let it be defeated in October, and the friends of a sound and
     honest currency will have a clear field for at least the life of
     the present generation.

     Two years ago, the Democratic party came fully into power in Ohio,
     in the State legislature, and for the first time in twenty years,
     elected the executive of the State. They were also entrusted with
     the affairs of the leading cities, and a majority of the wealthiest
     and most populous counties in the State. It would be profitable in
     us to inquire how this came about, and what are the results. In the
     course of the canvass it is my purpose to show in detail how
     unfortunate their management of State affairs has been. It will
     appear, on investigation, that the interests of the State in the
     benevolent, penal, and reformatory institutions have been
     sacrificed to the spoils doctrine: how the cities, and especially
     the chief city of the State, has suffered by the corruption of its
     rulers; how public expenditures have been increased, until the
     aggregate of taxation in Ohio, in this time of money depression, is
     vastly larger than ever before; how the number of salaried officers
     was increased; how the members of the legislature were corrupted by
     bribery, notorious, and shameless; and how the dominant party
     utterly failed to deal with this corruption as duty and the good
     name of the State demanded. Fallacious and deceptive statements
     have been made as to the reduction of the levy for State taxes, and
     as to the appropriations. It is enough now to say that the
     aggregate taxation in Ohio in 1874, was over $27,000,000, a larger
     sum than was ever before collected by tax-gatherers in Ohio.

     Altogether the most interesting questions in our State affairs are
     those which relate to the passage, by the last legislature, of the
     Geghan bill and the war which the sectarian wing of the Democratic
     party is now waging against the public schools. In the admirable
     speech made by Judge Taft at the Republican State Convention, he
     sounded the key-note to the canvass on this subject. He said "our
     motto must be universal liberty and universal suffrage, secured by
     universal education." Before we discuss these questions, it may be
     well, in order that there may be no excuse for further
     misrepresentation, to show by whom this subject was introduced into
     politics, and to state explicitly that we attack no sect and no
     man, either Protestant or Jew, Catholic or Unbeliever, on account
     of his conscientious convictions in regard to religion. Who began
     the agitation of this subject? Why is it agitated? All parties have
     taken hold of it. The Democratic party in their State convention
     make it the topic of their longest resolution. In their platform
     they gave it more space than to any other subject except the
     currency. Many of the Democratic county conventions also took
     action upon it.

     The Republican State Convention passed resolutions on the question.
     It is stated that it was considered in about forty Republican
     county conventions. The State Teachers' Association, at their last
     meeting, passed unanimously the following resolution. Mr. Tappan,
     from the Committee on Resolutions, reported the following:

     "_Resolved_, That we are in favor of a free, impartial, and
     unsectarian education to every child in the State, and that any
     division of the school fund or appropriation of any part thereof to
     any religious or private school would be injurious to education and
     the best interests of the church."

     An able address by the Rev. Dr. Jeffers, of Cleveland, showing the
     "perils which threaten our public schools," was emphatically
     applauded by that intelligent body of citizens.

     The assemblies of the different religious denominations in the
     State, which have recently been held, have generally, and I think
     without exception, passed similar resolutions. If blame is to
     attach to all who consider and discuss this question before the
     public, we have had a very large body of offenders. But I have not
     named all who are engaged in it. I have not named those who began
     it; those who for years have kept it up; those who in the press, on
     the platform, in the pulpit, in legislative bodies, in city
     councils, and in school boards, now unceasingly agitate the
     question. Everybody knows who they are; everybody knows that the
     sectarian wing of the Democratic party began this agitation, and
     that it is bent on the destruction of our free schools. If
     Republicans acting on the defensive discuss the subject, and
     express the opinion that the Democratic party can't safely be
     trusted, they are denounced in unmeasured terms. General Carey
     calls them "political knaves" and "fools" and "bigots." But it is
     very significant that no Democratic speaker denounces those who
     began the agitation. All their epithets are leveled at the men who
     are on the right side of the question. Agitation on the wrong
     side--agitation against the schools may go on. It meets no
     condemnation from leading Democratic candidates and speakers. The
     reason is plain. Those who mean to destroy the school system
     constitute a formidable part of the Democratic party, without whose
     support that party, as the legislature was told last Spring, can
     not carry the county, the city, nor the State.

     The sectarian agitation against the public schools was begun many
     years ago. During the last few years, it has steadily and rapidly
     increased, and has been encouraged by various indications of
     possible success. It extends to all of the States where schools at
     the common expense have been long established. Its triumphs are
     mainly in the large towns and cities. It has already divided the
     schools, and in a considerable degree impaired and limited their
     usefulness. The glory of the American system of education has been
     that it was so cheap that the humblest citizen could afford to give
     his children its advantages, and so good that the man of wealth
     could nowhere provide for his children anything better. This gave
     the system its most conspicuous merit. It made it a Republican
     system. The young of all conditions of life are brought together
     and educated on terms of perfect equality. The tendency of this is
     to assimilate and to fuse together the various elements of our
     population, to promote unity, harmony, and general good will in our
     American society. But the enemies of the American system have begun
     the work of destroying it. They have forced away from the public
     schools, in many towns and cities, one-third or one-fourth of their
     pupils and sent them to schools which it is safe to say are no whit
     superior to those they have left. These youth are thus deprived of
     the associations and the education in practical Republicanism and
     American sentiments which they peculiarly need. Nobody questions
     their constitutional and legal right to do this, and to do it by
     denouncing the public schools. Sectarians have a lawful right to
     say that these schools are "a relict of paganism--that they are
     Godless," and that "the secular school system is a social cancer."
     But when having thus succeeded in dividing the schools, they make
     that a ground for abolishing school taxation, dividing the school
     fund, or otherwise destroying the system, it is time that its
     friends should rise up in its defense.

     We all agree that neither the government nor political parties
     ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that
     religious sects ought not to interfere with the government or with
     political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and
     the cause of religion both suffer by all such interference. But if
     Sectarians make demands for legislation of political parties, and
     threaten that party with opposition at the elections in case the
     required enactments are not passed, and if the political party
     yields to such threats, then those threats, those demands, and that
     action of the political party become a legitimate subject of
     political discussion, and the sectarians who thus interfere with
     the legislation of the State are alone responsible for the
     agitation which follows.

     And now a few words as to the action of the last legislature on
     this subject. After an examination of the Geghan bill, we shall
     perhaps come to the conclusion that in itself it is not of great
     importance. I would not undervalue the conscientious scruples on
     the subject of religion of a convict in the penitentiary, or of any
     unfortunate person in any State institution. But the provision of
     the constitution of the State covers the whole ground. It needs no
     awkwardly framed statute of doubtful meaning, like the Geghan bill,
     to accomplish the object of the organic law. The old constitution
     of 1802, and the constitution now in force, of 1851, are
     substantially alike. Both declare (I quote section 7, article 1,
     constitution of 1851):

     "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty
     God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person
     shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of
     worship, or maintain any form of worship against his consent; and
     no preference shall be given by law to any religious society; nor
     shall any interference with the right of conscience be permitted."

     If the Geghan bill is merely a reënactment of this part of the bill
     of rights, it is a work of supererogation, and it is not strange
     that the legislature did not, when it was introduced, favor its
     passage. The author of the bill wrote, "the members claim that such
     a bill is not needed." The same opinion prevails in New Jersey,
     where a similar bill is said to have been defeated by a vote of
     three to one. But the sectarians of Ohio were resolved on the
     passage of this bill. Mr. Geghan, its author, wrote to Mr. Murphy,
     of Cincinnati:

     "We have a prior claim upon the Democratic party. The elements
     composing the Democratic party in Ohio to-day are made up of Irish
     and German catholics, and they have always been loyal and faithful
     to the interests of the party. Hence the party is under obligations
     to us, and we have a perfect right to demand of them, as a party,
     inasmuch as they are in control of the State legislature and State
     government, and were by both our means and votes placed where they
     are to-day, that they should, as a party, redress our grievances."

     The organ of the friends of the bill published this letter, and
     among other things said:

     "The political party with which nine-tenths of the Catholic voters
     affiliate on account of past services that they will never forget,
     now controls the State. Withdraw the support which Catholics have
     given to it and it will fall in this city, county, and State, as
     speedily as it has risen to its long lost position and power. That
     party is now on trial. Mr. Geghan's bill will test the sincerity of
     its professions."

     That threat was effectual. The bill was passed, and the sectarian
     organ therefore said:

     "The unbroken solid vote of the Catholic citizens of the State will
     be given to the Democracy at the fall election."

     In regard to those who voted against the bill, it said: "They have
     dug their political grave; it will not be our fault if they do not
     fill it. When any of them appear again in the political arena, we
     will put upon them a brand that every Catholic citizen will
     understand." No defense of this conduct of the last legislature has
     yet been attempted. The facts are beyond dispute. This is the first
     example of open and successful sectarian interference with
     legislation in Ohio. If the people are wise, they will give it such
     a rebuke in October that for many years, at least, it will be the
     last.

     But it is claimed that the schools are in no danger. Now that
     public attention is aroused to the importance of the subject, it is
     probable that in Ohio they are safe. But their safety depends on
     the rebuke which the people shall give to the party which yielded
     last spring at Columbus to the threats of their enemies. It is said
     that no political party "desires the destruction of the schools." I
     reply, no political party "desired" the passage of the Geghan bill;
     but the power which hates the schools passed the bill. The
     sectarian wing of the Democratic party rules that party to-day in
     the great commercial metropolis of the Nation. It holds the balance
     of power in many of the large cities of the country. Without its
     votes, the Democratic party would lose every large city and county
     in Ohio and every Northern State. In the presidential canvass of
     1864, it was claimed that General McClellan was as good a Union man
     as Abraham Lincoln, and that he was as much opposed to the
     rebellion. An eminent citizen of this State replied: "I learn from
     my adversaries. Who do the enemies of the Union want elected? The
     man they are for, I am against." So I would say to the friends of
     the public schools: "How do the enemies of universal education
     vote?" If the enemies of the free schools give their "unbroken,
     solid vote" to the Democratic ticket, the friends of the schools
     will make no mistake if they vote the Republican ticket.

     The Republicans enter upon this important canvass with many
     advantages. Their adversaries are loaded down with the record of
     the last legislature. Democratic legislatures have not been
     fortunate in Ohio. Since the present division of parties, twenty
     years ago, no Democratic legislature has ever failed to bring
     defeat to its party. The people of Ohio have never been willing to
     venture on the experiment of two Democratic legislatures in
     succession. The Democratic inflation platform offends German
     Democrats, has driven off the Liberal Republicans, and is accepted
     by very few old-fashioned Democrats in its true intent and meaning.
     The Republicans are out of power in the cities and in the State,
     and are everywhere taking the offensive. If Democrats assail them
     on account of some affair of years ago, or in a distant Southern
     State, or at Washington, Republicans reply by pointing to what
     Democrats are now doing in their own cities, or have just done in
     the last legislature. The materials for such retort are abundant
     and ready at hand. The Republicans are embarrassed by no entangling
     alliance with the sectarian enemies of the public schools, and they
     have yielded to no sectarian demands or dictation in public
     affairs. We rejoice to see indications of an active canvass and a
     large vote at the election. Such a canvass and such a vote in Ohio
     never yet resulted in a Democratic victory. Our motto is honest
     money for all and free schools for all. There should be no
     inflation which will destroy the one, and no sectarian interference
     which will destroy the other.


_Speech of_ GOVERNOR HAYES _to his neighbors at Fremont, delivered June
25, 1876._

     _Mr. Mayor, Fellow-Citizens, Friends, and Neighbors:_

     I need not attempt to express the emotions I feel at the reception
     which the people of Fremont and this county have given me to-night.
     Under any circumstances, an assemblage of this sort at my home to
     welcome me would touch me, would excite the warmest emotions of
     gratitude; but what gives to this its distinctive character is the
     fact that those who are prominent in welcoming me home, I know, in
     the past, have not voted with me or for me, and they do not intend
     in the future to vote with me or for me. It is simply that, coming
     to my home, they rejoice that Ohio, that Sandusky county, that the
     town of Fremont has received at that National Convention high
     honor, and I thank you, Democrats, fellow-citizens, Independents,
     and Republicans, for this spontaneous and enthusiastic reception.

     I trust that in the course of events the time will never come that
     you will have cause to regret what you do to-night. It is a very
     great responsibility that has been placed upon me--to be a
     representative of a party embracing twenty millions of people--a
     responsibility which I know I am not equal to. I understand very
     well that it was not by reason of ability or talents that I was
     chosen. But that which does rejoice me is that here, where I have
     been known from my childhood, there are those that come and rejoice
     at the result.

     I trust, my friends, that as I run along in this desultory way--for
     you well know that since I learned that I was to be here to-night,
     the multitude of letters, and visits, and telegrams requiring
     attention have given me no time to prepare for a reception like
     this--you must, therefore, put up with hastily-formed sentences,
     very unfitly representing the sentiments appropriate to the
     occasion. Let me, if I may do it without too much egotism, recur to
     the history of my connection with Fremont. Forty-two years ago my
     uncle, Sardis Birchard, brought me to this place, and I rejoice, my
     friends, in the good taste and good feeling which have placed his
     portrait here to-night. He, having adopted me as his child, brought
     me to Fremont. I recollect well the appearance of the then Lower
     Sandusky, consisting of a few wooden buildings scattered along the
     river, with little paint on them, and these trees none of them
     grown, the old fort still having some of its earthworks remaining,
     so that it could be easily traced. A pleasant village this was for
     a boy to enjoy himself in. There was the fishing on the river,
     shooting water-fowls above the dam, at the islands and the lake.
     Perhaps no boy ever enjoyed his departure from home better than I
     did when I first came to Fremont.

     But now see what this town is,--how it has grown. It has not
     increased to a first-class city, but it has become a pleasant home,
     so pleasant, so thriving that I rejoice to think that whatever may
     be the result next fall it will be pleasant to return to it when
     the contest is over. If defeated, I shall return to you oftener
     than if I go to the White House. If I go there I shall look forward
     with pleasure to the time when I shall be permitted to return to
     you, to be a neighbor with you again. And really we have cause to
     be satisfied with our home and the interests which the future has
     in store for us here. Larger cities always have strife and rivalry,
     from which we are free, and yet we are well situated between two
     commercial centers, the Eastern and Western, between which is the
     great highway of the world, and we can not but partake of their
     prosperity. Over the railroad passing through this place, or near
     it, will pass for all time to come the travel and trade of New York
     and San Francisco, of London and Pekin. Every town along this route
     partakes of the prosperity of this highway. Upper Sandusky, on the
     Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, and Tiffin, that
     thriving and beautiful city through which passes the Baltimore and
     Ohio Railroad, south of us, while along the lake shore passes the
     great northern division of the Lake Shore Road, making this route,
     as it were, the great artery of the world's travel, and we can
     abide with the prosperity that is to come in the future. Those of
     our friends who travel in Europe return sometimes dissatisfied,
     because there is a rawness in this country not seen in England and
     the older countries of Europe. But then the greatest happiness, as
     all of us know, in preparing a garden or a home is to see the
     improvements growing up under our hands. This is what we enjoy; and
     the change in Fremont from the time I first knew it till to-day
     gives me very great pleasure.

     There is another change which gives rise to mournful reflections.
     When I came here in the year 1834, I became acquainted with honored
     citizens who are no longer living. There was, Mr. Mayor, your
     father, Rudolphus Dickinson, Thomas I. Hawkins, Judge Olmsted,
     Judge Howland, and, among others, that marvel of business energy,
     George Grant; and I might go on giving name after name. But it is
     true that of all those I remember seeing on that first visit, not
     one is with us to-night. All who came with me, my uncle, my mother,
     and my sister, are gone. But this is the order of Providence.
     Events follow upon one another as wave follows wave upon the ocean.
     It is for each man to do what he can to make others happy. This is
     the prayer and this is the duty of life. Let us, my friends, in
     every position, undertake to perform this duty. For one, I have no
     reliance except that which Abraham Lincoln had when, on leaving
     Springfield, he said to his friends: "I go to Washington to assume
     a responsibility greater than that which has been devolved upon any
     one since the first president, and I beg you, my friends and
     neighbors, to pray that I may have that Divine assistance, without
     which I can not succeed, and with which I can not fail." In that
     spirit I ask you to deal with me. If it shall be the will of the
     people that this nomination shall be ratified, I know I shall have
     your good wishes and your prayers. If, on the other hand, it shall
     be the will of the people that another shall assume these great
     responsibilities, let us see to it that we who shall oppose him
     give him a fair trial.

     My friends, I thank you for the interest you have taken in this
     reception, and that you have laid aside partisan feeling. There has
     been too much bitterness on such occasions in our land. Let us see
     to it that abuse and vituperation of the candidate that shall be
     named at St. Louis do not proceed from our lips. Let us, in this
     centennial year, as we enter upon this second century of our
     existence, set an example of what a free and intelligent people can
     do. There is gathered at Philadelphia an assemblage representing
     nearly all the Nations of the world, with their arts and
     manufactures. We have invited competition, and they have come to
     compete with us, and with each other. We find that America stands
     well with the works of the world, as there exhibited. Let us show,
     in electing a chief magistrate of the Nation--the officer that is
     to be the first of forty or forty-five millions--let us show all
     those who visit us how the American people can conduct themselves
     through a canvass of this kind. If it shall be in the spirit in
     which we have met to-night, if it shall be that justness and
     fairness shall be in all the discussions, it will commend free
     institutions to the world in a way which they have never been
     commended before.

     Well, friends, I am detaining you too long. Therefore I close what
     I have to say by expressing the feelings of gratitude entertained
     by myself and family for the kindness and regard shown us by the
     people of Fremont.

     About the middle of the war, General Sherman lost a boy, named
     after himself, aged about thirteen years. He supposed that he
     belonged to the Thirteenth Infantry, and when they went out to
     drill and dress parade, he dressed in the dress of a sergeant and
     marched with them. But he sickened and died. The regiment gathered
     about him, for he was to them a comrade--dear as the child is loved
     by men who are torn away from the associations of home. General
     Sherman, the great soldier, was touched by it. He said it would be
     idle for him to try to express the gratitude which he felt; but he
     said they held the key to the affections of himself and family, and
     if any of them should ever be in need, if they would mention that
     they belonged to the Thirteenth Infantry at the time his boy died,
     they would divide with him the last blanket, and last morsel of
     food. It is in this spirit that I wish to express my thanks to the
     people of Fremont for the welcome they have given me. I bid you, my
     friends, good night.





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Life, Public Services and Select
Speeches of Rutherford B. Hayes, by James Quay Howard

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LIFE OF RUTHERFORD HAYES ***

***** This file should be named 22037-8.txt or 22037-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
        https://www.gutenberg.org/2/2/0/3/22037/

Produced by Bryan Ness, Marcia Brooks, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced
from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Print
project.)


Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.



*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
https://gutenberg.org/license).


Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
     License.  You must require such a user to return or
     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.


Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.


Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at https://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:
     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
     Chief Executive and Director
     gbnewby@pglaf.org


Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit https://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate


Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.


Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.


Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     https://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.