Chapter XIV: Appendix (3)

"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."