Chapter XV: Appendix (4)

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 They do not wish them repealed by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.