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