Читать книгу Speeches of Benjamin Harrison, Twenty-third President of the United States - Benjamin Harrison - Страница 7

Table of Contents

Marquette Club Banquet.

On the evening of March 20, 1888, General Harrison was the honored guest of the Marquette Club of Chicago—one of the leading social and political organizations of that great city—at their second annual banquet, given at the Grand Pacific Hotel.

The officers of the club for that year were: George V. Lauman, President; William H. Johnson, First Vice-President; Hubert D. Crocker, Second Vice-President; Charles U. Gordon, Secretary; Will Sheldon Gilbert, Treasurer.

The Banquet Committee and Committee of Reception for the occasion comprised the following prominent members: James S. Moore, Frederick G. Laird, LeRoy T. Steward, Wm. H. Johnson, James E. Rogers, F. W. C. Hayes, Henry T. Smith, Harry J. Jones, Chas. S. Norton, Irving L. Gould, T. A. Broadbent, Jas. Rood, Jr., Wm. A. Paulsen, T. M. Garrett, Geo. W. Keehn, Harry P. Finney, C. B. Niblock, Wm. A. Lamson, S. E. Magill, R. D. Wardwell, Fred. G. McNally.

President Lauman was toastmaster, and opened the banquet with an address of welcome to Senator Harrison.

The other speakers of the evening were Edward J. Judd, Theodore Brentano, Hon. Thomas C. MacMillan, Hon. John S. Runnells, Newton Wyeth, Mayor Roche and President Tracy of the State League of Republican Clubs.

Amid hearty applause General Harrison rose to respond to the toast, "The Republican Party." He spoke as follows:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Marquette Club—I am under an obligation that I shall not soon forget in having been permitted by your courtesy to sit at your table to-night and to listen to the eloquent words which have fallen from the lips of those speakers who have preceded me. I count it a privilege to spend an evening with so many young Republicans. There seems to be a fitness in the association of young men with the Republican party. The Republican party is a young party. I have not yet begun to call myself an old man, and yet there is no older Republican in the United States than I am. My first presidential vote was given for the first presidential candidate of the Republican party, and I have supported with enthusiasm every successor of Frémont, including that matchless statesman who claimed our suffrages in 1884. We cannot match ages with the Democratic party any more than that party can match achievements with us. It has lived longer, but to less purpose. "Moss-backed" cannot be predicated of a Republican. Our Democratic friends have a monopoly of that distinction, and it is one of the few distinguished monopolies that they enjoy; and yet when I hear a Democrat boasting himself of the age of his party I feel like reminding him that there are other organized evils in the world, older than the Democratic party. "The Republican party," the toast which you have assigned to me to-night, seems to have a past, a present and a future tense to it. It suggests history, and yet history so recent that it is to many here to-night a story of current events in which they have been participants. The Republican party—the influences which called it together were eclectic in their character. The men who formed it and organized it were picked men. The first assembly that sounded in its camp was a call to sacrifice, and not to spoils. It assembled about an altar to sacrifice, and in a temple beset with enemies. It is the only political party organized in America that has its "Book of Martyrs." On the bloody fields of Kansas, Republicans died for their creed, and since then we have put in that book the sacred memory of our immortal leader who has been mentioned here to-night—Abraham Lincoln—who died for his faith and devotion to the principles of human liberty and constitutional union. And there have followed it a great army of men who have died by reason of the fact that they adhered to the political creed that we loved. It is the only party in this land which in the past has been proscribed and persecuted to death for its allegiance to the principles of human liberty. After Lincoln had triumphed in that great forum of debate in his contest with Douglas, the Republican party carried that debate from the hustings to the battle-field and forever established the doctrine that human liberty is of natural right and universal. It clinched the matchless logic of Webster in his celebrated debate against the right of secession by a demonstration of its inability.

No party ever entered upon its administration of the affairs of this Nation under circumstances so beset with danger and difficulty as those which surrounded the Republican party when it took up the reins of executive control. In all other political contests those who had resisted the victorious party yielded acquiescence at the polls, but the Republican party in its success was confronted by armed resistance to national authority. The first acts of Republican administration were to assemble armies to maintain the authority of the Nation throughout the rebellious States. It organized armies, it fed them, and it fought them through those years of war with an undying and persistent faith that refused to be appalled by any dangers or discouraged by any difficulties. In the darkest days of the rebellion the Republican party by faith saw Appomattox through the smoke of Bull Run, and Raleigh through the mists of Chickamauga; and not only did it conduct this great civil war to a victorious end, not only did it restore the national authority and set up the flag on all those places where it had been overthrown and that flag torn down, but it in the act and as an incident in the restoration of national authority accomplished that act which, if no other had been recorded in its history, would have given it immortality. The emancipation of a race, brought about as an incident of war under the proclamation of the first Republican President, has forever immortalized the party that accomplished it.

But not only were these dangers and difficulties and besetments and discouragements of this long strife at home, but there was also a call for the highest statesmanship in dealing with the foreign affairs of the Government during that period of war. England and France not only gave to the Confederacy belligerent rights, but threatened to extend recognition, and even armed intervention. There was scarcely a higher achievement in the long history of brilliant statesmanship which stands to the credit of our party than the matchless management of our diplomatic relations during the period of our war; dignified, yet reserved, masterful, yet patient. Those enemies of republican liberty were held at bay until we had accomplished perpetual peace at Appomattox. That grasping avarice which has attempted to coin commercial advantages out of the distress of other nations which has so often characterized English diplomacy naturally made the Government of England the ally of the Confederacy, that had prohibited protective duties in its constitution, and yet Geneva followed Appomattox. A trinity of effort was necessary to that consummation—war, finance and diplomacy; Grant, Chase, Seward, and Lincoln over all, and each a victor in his own sphere. When 500,000 veterans found themselves without any pressing engagement, and Phil Sheridan sauntered down towards the borders of Mexico, French evacuation was expedited, and when Gen. Grant advised the English Government that our claims for the depredations committed by those rebel cruisers that were sent out from British ports to prey upon our commerce must be paid, but that we were not in a hurry about it—we could wait, but in the mean time interest would accumulate—the Geneva arbitration was accepted and compensation made for these unfriendly invasions of our rights. It became fashionable again at the tables of the English nobility to speak of our common ancestry and our common tongue. Then again France began to remind us of La Fayette and De Grasse. Five hundred thousand veteran troops and an unemployed navy did more for us than a common tongue and ancient friendships would do in the time of our distress. And we must not forget that it is often easier to assemble armies than it is to assemble army revenues. Though no financial secretary ever had laid upon him a heavier burden than was placed upon Salmon P. Chase to provide the enormous expenditures which the maintenance of our army required, this ceaseless, daily, gigantic drain upon the National Treasury called for the highest statesmanship.

And it was found, and our credit was not only maintained through the war, but the debt that was accumulated, which our Democratic friends said could never be paid, we at once began to discharge when the army was disbanded.

And so it is that in this timely effort—consisting first in this appeal to the courage and patriotism of the people of this country that responded to the call of Lincoln and filled our armies with brave men that, under the leadership of Grant and Sherman and Thomas, suppressed the rebellion, and under the wise, magnificent system of our revenue enabled us to defray our expenses, and under the sagacious administration of our State Department held Europe at bay while we were attending to the business at home. In these departments of administration the Republican party has shown itself conspicuously able to deal with the greatest questions that have ever been presented to American statesmanship for solution. We must not forget that in dealing with these questions we were met continually by the protest and opposition of the Democratic party. The war against the States was unconstitutional. There was no right to coerce sovereign States. The war was a failure, and a dishonorable peace was demanded. The legal tenders were illegal. The constitutional amendments were void. And so through this whole brilliant history of achievement in this administration we were followed by the Democratic statesman protesting against every step and throwing every impediment in the way of National success until it seemed to be true of many of their leaders that in their estimation nothing was lawful, nothing was lovely, that did not conduce to the success of the rebellion.

Now, what conclusion shall we draw? Is there anything in this story, so briefly and imperfectly told, to suggest any conclusion as to the inadequacy or incompetency of the Republican party to deal with any question that is now presented for solution or that we may meet in the progress of this people's history? Why, countrymen, these problems in government were new. We took the ship of state when there was treachery at the helm, when there was mutiny on the deck, when the ship was among the rocks, and we put loyalty at the helm; we brought the deck into order and subjection. We have brought the ship into the wide and open sea of prosperity, and is it to be suggested that the party that has accomplished these magnificent achievements cannot sail and manage the good ship in the frequented roadways of ordinary commerce? What is there now before us that presents itself for solution?

What questions are we to grapple with? What unfinished work remains to be done? It seems to me that the work that is unfinished is to make that constitutional grant of citizenship, the franchise to the colored men of the South, a practical and living reality. The condition of things is such in this country—a government by constitutional majority—that whenever the people become convinced that an administration or a law does not represent the will of the majority of our qualified electors, then that administration ceases to challenge the respect of our people and that law ceases to command their willing obedience. This is a republican government, a government by majority, the majorities to be ascertained by a fair count and each elector expressing his will at the ballot-box. I know of no reason why any law should bind my conscience that does not have this sanction behind it. I know of no reason why I should yield respect to any executive officer whose title is not based upon a majority vote of the qualified electors of this country. What is the condition of things in the Southern States to-day?

The Republican vote is absolutely suppressed. Elections in many of those States have become a farce. In the last congressional election in the State of Alabama there were several congressional districts where the entire vote for members of Congress did not reach 2,000; whereas in most of the districts of the North the vote cast at our congressional elections goes from 30,000 to 50,000. I had occasion to say a day or two ago that in a single congressional district in the State of Nebraska there were more votes cast to elect one Congressman than were cast in the State of Alabama at the same election to elect their whole delegation. Out of what does this come? The suppression of the Republican vote; the understanding among our Democratic friends that it is not necessary that they should vote because their opponents are not allowed to vote. But some one will suggest: "Is there a remedy for this?" I do not know, my fellow citizens, how far there is a legal remedy under our Constitution, but it does not seem to me to be an adequate answer. It does not seem to me to be conclusive against the agitation of the question even if we should be compelled to respond to the arrogant question that is asked us: "What are you going to do about it?" Even if we should be compelled to answer: "We can do nothing but protest," is it not worth while here, and in relation to this American question, that we should at least lift up our protest; that we should at least denounce the wrong; that we should at least deprive the perpetrators of it of what we used to call the usufructs of the crime? If you cannot prevent a burglar from breaking into your house you will do a great deal towards discouraging burglary if you prevent him from carrying off anything, and so it seems to me that if we can, upon this question, arouse the indignant protest of the North, and unite our efforts in a determination that those who perpetrate these wrongs against popular suffrage shall not by means of those wrongs seat a President in Washington to secure the Federal patronage in a State, we shall have done much to bring this wrong to an end. But at least while we are protesting by representatives from our State Department at Washington against wrongs perpetrated in Russia against the Jew, and in our popular assemblies here against the wrongs which England has inflicted upon Ireland, shall we not at least in reference to this gigantic and intolerable wrong in our own country, as a party, lift up a stalwart and determined protest against it?

But some of these independent journalists, about which our friend MacMillan talked, call this the "bloody shirt." They say we are trying to revive the strife of the war, to rake over the extinct embers, to kindle the fire again. I want it understood that for one I have no quarrel with the South for what took place between 1861 and 1865. I am willing to forget that they were rebels, at least as soon as they are willing to forget it themselves, and that time does not seem to have come yet to them. But our complaint is against what was done in 1884, not against what was done during the war. Our complaint is against what will be done this year, not what was done between 1861 and 1865. No bloody shirt—though that cry never had any terrors for me. I believe we greatly underestimate the importance of bringing the issue to the front, and with that oft-time Republican courage and outspoken fidelity to truth denouncing it the land over. If we cannot do anything else we can either make these people ashamed of this outrage against the ballot or make the world ashamed of them.

There is another question to which the Republican party has committed itself, and on the line of which it has accomplished, as I believe, much for the prosperity of this country. I believe the Republican party is pledged and ought to be pledged to the doctrine of the protection of American industries and American labor. I believe that in so far as our native inventive genius—which seems to have no limit—our productive forces can supply the American market, we ought to keep it for ourselves. And yet this new captain on the bridge seems to congratulate himself on the fact that the voyage is still prosperous notwithstanding the change of commanders; who seems to forget that the reason that the voyage is still prosperous is because the course of the ship was marked out before he went on the bridge and the rudder tied down. He has attempted to take a new direction since he has been in command, with a view of changing the sailing course of the old craft, but it has seemed to me that he has made the mistake of mistaking the flashlight of some British lighthouse for the light of day. I do not intend here to-night in this presence to discuss this tariff question in any detail. I only want to say that in the passage of what is now so flippantly called the war tariff, to raise revenue to carry on the war out of the protective duties which were then levied, there has come to this country a prosperity and development which would have been impossible without it, and that reversal of this policy now, at the suggestion of Mr. Cleveland, according to the line of the blind statesman from Texas, would be to stay and interrupt this march of prosperity on which we have entered. I am one of those uninstructed political economists that have an impression that some things may be too cheap; that I cannot find myself in full sympathy with this demand for cheaper coats, which seems to me necessarily to involve a cheaper man and woman under the coat. I believe it is true to-day that we have many things in this country that are too cheap, because whenever it is proved that the man or woman who produces any article cannot get a decent living out of it, then it is too cheap.

But I have not intended to discuss in detail any of these questions with which we have grappled, upon which we have proclaimed a policy, or which we must meet in the near future. I am only here to-night briefly to sketch to you the magnificent career of this party to which we give our allegiance—a union of the States, restored, cemented, regenerated; a Constitution cleansed of its compromises with slavery and brought into harmony with the immortal Declaration; a race emancipated, given citizenship and the ballot; a national credit preserved and elevated until it stands unequalled among the nations of the world; a currency more prized than the coin for which it may be exchanged; a story of prosperity more marvellous than was ever written by the historian before. This is in brief outline the magnificent way in which the Republican party has wrought. It stands to-day for a pure, equal, honest ballot the country over. It stands to-day without prejudice or malice, the well-wisher of every State in this Union; disposed to fill all the streams of the South with prosperity, and demanding only that the terms of the surrender at Appomattox shall be complied with. When that magnificent act of clemency was witnessed, when those sublime and gracious words were uttered by General Grant at Appomattox, the country applauded. We said to those misguided men: "Go home"—in the language of the parole—"and you shall be unmolested while you obey the laws in force at the place where you reside." We ask nothing more, but we cannot quietly submit to the fact, while it is true everywhere in the United States that the man who fought for years against his country is allowed the full, free, unrestricted exercise of his new citizenship, when it shall not also be true everywhere that every man who followed Lincoln in his political views, and every soldier who fought to uphold the flag, shall in the same full, ample manner be secured in his political rights.

This disfranchisement question is hardly a Southern question in all strictness. It has gone into Dakota, and the intelligent and loyal population of that Territory is deprived, was at the last election, and will be again, of any participation in the decision of national questions solely because the prevailing sentiment of Dakota is Republican. Not only that, but this disregard of purity and honesty in our elections invaded Ohio in an attempt to seize the United States Senate by cheating John Sherman, that gallant statesman, out of his seat in the Senate. And it came here to Illinois, in an attempt also to defeat that man whom I loved so much, John A. Logan, out of his seat in the United States Senate. And it has come into our own State (Indiana) by tally-sheet frauds, committed by individuals, it is true, but justified and defended by the Democratic party of the State in an attempt to cheat us all out of our fair election majorities. It was and is a question that lies over every other question, for every other question must be submitted to this tribunal for decision, and if the tribunal is corrupted, why shall we debate questions at all? Who can doubt whether, in defeat or victorious, in the future as in the past, taking high ground upon all these questions, the same stirring cause that assembled our party in the beginning will yet be found drawing like a great magnet the young and intelligent moral elements of our country into the Republican organization? Defeated once, we are ready for this campaign which is impending, and I believe that the great party of 1860 is gathering together for the coming election with a force and a zeal and a resolution that will inevitably carry it, under that standard-bearer who may be chosen here in June, to victory in November.