The schools were, however, good, though the teachers were not always efficient or capable of instructing in the higher branches of learning now commonly taught in public schools in Ohio. But in reading, spelling, writing, English grammar, geography within certain limits, and arithmetic, the instruction was quite thorough, and scholars inclined to acquire an education early became proficient in the branches taught.

At school I made progress, though attending usually only about three—sometimes four—months in the year. But I had the exceptional advantage of aid at home from my father and mother; also older sisters, who had all of them become fitted for teachers. My natural inclination was to mathematics and physical geography rather than to English grammar or other branches taught. While engaged in the study of geography my father arranged to make a globe to illustrate the zones, etc., and grand divisions of the world. Though then but twelve years of age I aided him in chopping down a native linden tree, from which a block was cut and taken to a man (Crain) who made spinning-wheels, which was by him turned, globe-shaped, about a foot in diameter, and hung in a frame. My father marked on it the lines of latitude and longitude and laid off the grand divisions, islands, oceans, seas, etc., and with appropriate shadings to indicate lines or boundaries, it was varnished and became a veritable globe, fit for an early student of geography, and far from crude. It now stands before me as perfect as when made fifty years since. In mathematics I soon, out of school, passed to the study of algebra, geometry, natural philosophy, etc. My common school and home advantages were excellent, and while my father lived, even when at work in the field, problems were being stated and solved, and interesting matters were discussed and considered. The country boy has an inestimable advantage over the town or city boy in the fact that he is more alone and on his own resources, which gives him an opportunity for independent thought, and forces him to become a thinker, without which no amount of scholastic advantages will make him, in any proper sense, learned.

I had the misfortune, before ten years of age, of injuring, by accident, my left foot, and in consequence went on crutches about two years of my boyhood life. This apprehension of again becoming lame early turned my thought to an occupation other than farming. When sixteen years of age I decided to try to become a lawyer, and in this decision my mother seconded me heartily. Though continuing to labor on the farm without intermission, I pursued, as I had long before, a regular study of history, and procured and read some elementary law books, including a copy of Blackstone's Commentaries, which I systematically and constantly read and re-read, and availed myself, without an instructor, of all possible means of acquiring legal knowledge. In my eighteenth year I was regularly entered as a student at law with Anthony & Goode, attorneys, at Springfield, Ohio, though my reading was still continued on the farm, noons, nights, and between intervals of hard work.( 7)

Lyceums or debating societies which met at the villages or schoolhouses were then common. They were usually well conducted, and they were excellent incentives to study, affording good opportunity for acquiring habits of debate and public speaking. They are, unfortunately, no longer common. These lyceums I frequented, and participated in the discussions. I taught public school "a quarter," the winter of 1852-53, at the Black-Horse tavern schoolhouse, on Donnels Creek, for sixty dollars pay.

I attended Antioch College (1854-55) in Horace Mann's time, for less than a year, reciting in classes in geometry, higher algebra, English grammar, rhetoric, etc., pursuing no regular course, and part of the time taking special lessons, and while there actively participated in a small debating club, to which some men still living and of high eminence belonged. One member only of the club has, so far, died upon the gallows. This was Edwin Coppoc, who was hanged with John Brown in December, 1859.

In the exciting Presidential campaign of 1856 (though not old enough to vote) I made, in Clark and Greene Counties, Ohio, above fifty campaign speeches for Fremont, the excitement being so high that mobbing or egging was not uncommon. The pro-slavery people called Fremont's supporters abolitionists—the most opprobrious name they conceived they could use. Colonel Wm. S. Furay (now of Columbus, Ohio), of about my age, also made many speeches in the same campaign, and we were joint recipients of at least one egging, at Clifton, Ohio.

In the midst of my farm work and duties, by employing room hours, evenings, rainy days, etc., I could make much progress in studies, and besides this I did a little fishing in the season, and some hunting with a rifle, in the use of which I was skillful in killing game. Hunting became almost a passion, hence had to be wholly given up.

At the close of the 1856 Presidential campaign, my mother having, in consequence of my purpose to practise law, removed from the farm to Yellow Springs, Ohio, I became a resident of Springfield, and there pursued, regularly, in Anthony & Goode's office, the study of law.

Before this I had ventured to try a few law cases before justices of the peace, both in the country, in villages, and in the city, and I had some professional triumphs, occasionally over a regular attorney, but more commonly meeting the "pettifogger," who was of a class once common, and not to be despised as "rough and tumble," ad captandum, advocates in justices' courts. They often knew some crude law, and they never knew enough to concede a point or that they were wrong.

My studies went on in much the usual way until I was admitted to the bar, January 12, 1858, by the Supreme Court of Ohio, at Columbus. I recognize now more than I did then that my preparation for the profession of the law, which demands knowledge of almost all things, ancient, modern, scientific, literary, historical, etc., was wholly defective. All knowledge is called into requisition by a general and successful legal practitioner. My early deficiency in learning, and the many interruptions in the course of about forty years, have imposed the necessity of close and constant application. On being admitted to the bar, I determined to visit other parts and places before locating. I visited Toledo; it was then muddy, ragged, unhealthful, and unpromising. Chicago was then next looked over. It was likewise apparently without promise. The streets were almost impassable with mire. The sidewalks were seldom continuously level for a square. The first floors of some buildings were six to ten feet above those of others beside them. So walking on the sidewalks was an almost constant going up and down steps. There was then no promise of its almost magic future. At Springfield, Illinois, I saw and heard, in February, 1858, before the Supreme Court, an ungainly appearing man, called Abe Lincoln. He was arguing the application of a statute of limitations to a defective tax title to land. He talked very much in a conversational way to the judges, and they gave attention, and in a Socratic way the discussion went on. I did not see anything to specially attract attention to Mr. Lincoln, save that he was awkward, ungainly in build, more than plain in features and dress, his clothes not fitting him, his trousers being several inches too short, exposing a long, large, unshapely foot, roughly clad. But he was even then, by those who knew him best, regarded as intellectually and professionally a great man. When I next saw him (March 25, 1865, twenty days before his martyrdom) he looked much the same, except better dressed, though he was then President of the United States and Commander-in- Chief of its Army and Navy. He appeared on both occasions a sad man, thoughtful and serious. The last time I saw him he was watching the result of an assault on the enemy's outer line of works from Fort Fisher in front of Petersburg, the day Fort Stedman was carried and held for a time by the Confederates.

I also visited St. Louis, and took a look at its narrow (in old part) French streets; thence I went to Cairo, the worst, in fact and appearance, of all. In going alone on foot along the track of the Illinois Central Railroad from Cairo to Burkeville Junction, in crossing the Cash bottoms, or slashes, I was assailed by two of a numerous band of highwaymen who then inhabited those parts, and was in danger of losing my life. In a struggle on the embankment one of the two fell from the railroad bed to the swamp at its side, and on being disengaged from the other I proceeded without being further molested to my destination.

By March 1, 1858, I was again at home, resolved to practise law in my native county, at Springfield, where I opened an office for that purpose. To locate to practise a profession among early neighbors and friends has its disadvantages. The jealous and envious will not desire or aid you to succeed; others, friendly enough, still will want you to establish a reputation before they employ you.

All will readily, however, espouse your friendship, and proudly claim you as their school-mate, neighbor, and dearest friend when you have demonstrated you do not need their patronage.

I did succeed, in a way, from the beginning, and was not without a good clientage, and some good employments. I was prompt, faithful, and persistently loyal to my clients' interests, trying never to neglect them even when they were small. Then litigations were sharper generally than at present, and often, as now understood, unnecessary. The court-term was once looked forward to as a time for a lawyer to earn fees; now it is, happily, otherwise with the more successful and better lawyers. Commercial business is too tender to be ruthlessly shocked by bitter litigations. Disputes between successful business men can be settled usually now in good lawyers' offices on fair terms, saving bitterness, loss of time, and expensive or prolonged trials. A just, candid, and good attorney should make more and better fees by his advice and counsel and in adjusting his client's affairs in his office than by contentions in a trial court-room.

I was an active member of the Independent Rover Fire Company in Springfield, and with it ran to fires and worked on the brakes of a hand-engine, etc.

I gave little attention to matters outside of the law, though a little to a volunteer militia company of which I was a member; for a time a lieutenant, then in 1860 brigade-major on a militia brigadier's staff. We staff officers wore good clothes, much tinsel, gaudy crimson scarfs, golden epaulets, bright swords with glistening scabbards, rose horses in a gallop on parade occasions and muster days, yet knew nothing really military—certainly but little useful in war. We knew a little of company drill and of the handling of the old-fashioned muster.

My wife (Eliza Stout) was of the same Stout family of New Jersey from whence came my maternal grandmother. She was born at Springfield, Ohio, July 11, 1834, and died there March 12, 1899.

Her father, Charles Stout, and mother, Margaret (McCord) Stout, emigrated from New Jersey, on horseback, in 1818, to Ohio, first settling at Cadiz, then at Urbana, and about 1820 in Clark County. The McCords were Scotch-Irish, from County Tyrone. Thus in our children runs the Scotch-Irish blood, with the German, Dutch, Welsh, English, and what not—all, however, Aryan in tongue, through the barbaric, Teutonic tribes of northern Europe.

Thus situated and occupied, I was, after Sumter was fired on, and although wholly unprepared by previous inclination, education, or training, quickly metamorphosed into a soldier in actual war.

Five days after President Lincoln's first call for volunteers I was in Camp Jackson, Columbus, Ohio (now Goodale Park), a private soldier, and April 27, 1861, I was commissioned and mustered as Major of the 3d Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and with the regiment went forthwith to Camp Dennison, near Cincinnati, for drill and equipment. Here real preparations for war, its duties, responsibilities, and hardships, began. Without the hiatus of a day I was in the volunteer service four years and two months, being mustered out, at Washington, D. C., June 27, 1865, on which date I settled all my ordnance and other accounts with the departments of the government, though they covered several hundred thousand dollars.

I served and fought in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, and Maryland, and campaigned in other States. I was thrice slightly wounded, twice in different years, near Winchester, Virginia, and severely wounded in the left forearm at the battle of the Wilderness, May 5, 1864. I was off duty on account of wounds for a short time only, though I carried my arm in a sling, unhealed, until after the close of the war.

The story of my service in the Civil War is told elsewhere.

II PUBLIC SERVICES SINCE THE CIVIL WAR

On my return from the war I resumed, in Springfield, Ohio, the practice of law, and have since pursued it, broken a little by some official life.( 8) I took a deep interest in the political questions growing out of the reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion, and especially in the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first of these abolished slavery in the United States; the second (1) secured to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, citizenship therein and in the State wherein they resided; prohibited a State from making any law that would abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, and from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws; (2) required Representatives to be apportioned among the States according to number, excluding Indians not taxed, but provided that when the right of male citizens over twenty-one years to vote for electors and Federal and State executive, judicial or legislative officers, was denied or abridged by any State, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein should be reduced proportionately; (3) excluded any person who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or of a State Legislature, or as an officer of the United States or of a State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged or aided in rebellion, from holding any office under the United States or any State, leaving Congress the right by a two-thirds vote of each House to remove such disability, and (4) prohibited the validity of the public debt, including debts incurred for the payment of pensions and bounties, from being questioned, and prevented the United States or any State from paying any obligation incurred in aid of the Rebellion, or any claim for the emancipation of any slave, and the third provided that citizens shall not be denied the right to vote "By any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."( 9) Those amendments completed the cycle of fundamental changes of the Constitution, and were necessary results of the war.

Ohio ratified each of them through her Legislature, but, in January, 1868, rescinded her previous ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. I voted and spoke in the Ohio Senate against this recession.

The Constitution of Ohio gave the elective franchise only to "white" persons. In 1867 the people of the State voted against striking the word "white" from the Constitution. In that year I was elected to the Ohio Senate, and participated in the political discussion of those times, both on the stump and in the General Assembly, and favored universal suffrage and the political equality of all persons. The wisdom of such suffrage will hardly be settled so long as there exists a great disparity of learning and moral, public and private, among the people, race not regarded.

I originated some laws, still on the statute books of Ohio, one or two of which have been copied in other States. An amendment to the replevin laws, so as to prevent the plaintiff from acquiring, regardless of right, heirlooms, keepsakes, etc., is an example of this. I served on the Judiciary and other committees of the Ohio Senate in the sessions of 1868-69.

I supported my old war chief for President in 1868 and 1872. I was Commander of the Department of the Ohio, Grand Army of the Republic, for the years 1868, 1869, and 1870, during which time, under its auspices, the Ohio Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home was established at Xenia, through a board of trustees appointed by me. The G. A. R. secured the land, erected some cottages and other buildings thereon, and carried on the institution, paying the expense for nearly two years before the State accepted the property as a donation and assumed the management of the Home. I was Junior Vice- Commander-in-Chief of the G. A. R., 1871-72; was trustee of the Orphans' Home from April, 1871, date when the State took charge of it, to March, 1878; have been a trustee of Antioch College since June, 1873; was the first President of the Lagonda National Bank, Springfield, Ohio, (April, 1873), a position I still hold; was a delegate-at-large from Ohio to the National Republican Convention in Cincinnati, in June, 1876, when General Hayes was nominated for President; was thereafter, serving in the Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, Forty-seventh, and Forty-eighth Congresses, ending March 4, 1885, covering the administrations of Presidents Hayes, Garfield, and Arthur. I served in the Forty-fifth on the Committee on War Claims, and in the Forty-sixth on Elections, and on other less important committees.

I opposed the repeal of the act providing for the resumption of specie payments, January 1, 1879. In a somewhat careful speech (November 16, 1877), I insisted that the act "to strengthen the public credit" (March 18, 1869), and the resumption act of January 14, 1875, reaffirmed the original promise and renewed the pledges of the nation to redeem, when presented, its notes issued during and on account of the Rebellion, thus making them the equivalent of coin. I then, also against the prophecy of many in and out of Congress, demonstrated the honesty, necessity, and ability of the government to resume specie payment.

The act was not repealed, and resumption came under it without a financial shock, and the nation's credit, strength, honor, and good faith were maintained inviolate with its own people.

I advocated the payment of claims of loyal citizens of the insurrectionary States for supplies furnished or seized by the Union Army, necessary for its use for subsistence, but opposed payment, to even loyal citizens, of claims based on the loss or destruction of property incident to the general devastation of the war. Claims for destruction of property were the most numerous, and the most energetically pressed, and, in some instances, appropriations were made to pay them, but the great majority of them failed. The loyalty of claimants from the South was often more than doubtful. For want of a well defined rule, which it is impossible to establish in Congress, very many just claims against the United States never are paid, or, if paid, it is after honest claimants have been subjected to the most vexatious delays, and, in many instances, forced to be victimized by professional lobbyists. Many claimants have spent all they and their friends possessed waiting in Washington, trying to secure an appropriation or to pay blackmailing claim-agents or lobbyists. It is doubtful whether the latter class of persons ever really aided, by influence or otherwise, in securing an honest appropriation, though they, to the scandal of the members, often had credit for doing so. It is doubtful whether there is any case where members of either House were bribed with money to support a pending bill, yet many claimants have believed they paid members for their influence and votes.

An illustrative incident occurred when Wm. P. Frye of Maine was serving on the War Claims Committee of the House. A lobbyist in some way ascertained that Mr. Frye was instructed by his committee to report a bill favorably by which a considerable claim would be paid. The rascal found the claimant, and told him that for five hundred dollars Mr. Frye would make a favorable report, otherwise his report would be adverse. The claimant paid the sum. But for an accident Mr. Frye never would have known of the fraud, and the claimant would have believed he bribed an honest member.

I opposed the payment of a large class of claims presented for institutions of learning or church buildings destroyed by one or the other army, not so much on account of their disloyal owners, but because their destruction belonged to the general ravages of war, never compensated for, as of right, according to the laws and usages of nations.

Besides making reports on various war claims, I spoke (December 13, 1878) at some length against a bill to reimburse William and Mary College, Virginia, for property destroyed during the war, in which I collated the precedents and reviewed the law of nations in the matter of payment of claims for property destroyed in the ravages of war by either the friendly or opposing army. I also frequently participated in the debates on the floor of the House involving war claims and other important matters.

The necessity for presenting claims for the judgment of Congress results in the most grievous wrong to honest claimants, and often results in the payment of fraudulent claims through the persistency of claimants and the lack of time and adequate means for investigation. In the absence of judicial investigation according to the usual forms of procedure it quite frequently happens that fraudulent claims are made to appear honest, and hence paid. Want of time causes other, however just, to fail of consideration, thus doing incalculable injustice. The government of the United States suffers in its reputation from its innumerable failures to pay, at least promptly, its honest creditors. Thousands of bills to pay claims are annually introduced which go to committees and to the calendar, never to be disposed of for want of time. To remedy this, on April 16, 1878, I proposed in the House an amendment to the Constitution in these words:

"Article ——

"Section 1. Congress shall have no power to appropriate money for the payment of any claims against the United States, not created in pursuance of or previously authorized by law, international treaty, or award, except in payment of a final judgment rendered thereon by a court or tribunal having competent jurisdiction.

"Section 2. Congress shall establish a court of claims to consist of five justices, one of whom shall be chief-justice, with such original jurisdiction as may be provided by law in cases involving claims against the United States, and with such other original jurisdiction as may be provided by law, and Congress may also confer on any other of the courts of the United States inferior to the Supreme Court, original jurisdiction in like cases.

"Section 3. All legislation other than such as refers exclusively to the appropriation of money in any appropriation act of Congress shall be void, except such as may prescribe the terms or conditions upon which the money thereby appropriated shall be paid or received." —Con. Record, Vol. vii., Part III., p. 2576.

The adoption of this amendment would have relieved Congress of much work; have given claimants at all times a speedy and certain remedy for the disposition of their claims and at the same time secured protection to the government against unfounded claims. A statute of limitations could have put a rest old and often trumped-up claims, still constantly being brought before Congress. It is impossible for Congress to make a statute of limitations for its own guidance.(10) It never will obey a law against its own action.

In the Forty-sixth Congress there were many contested election cases, growing out of frauds and crimes at elections, especially in the South. The purpose of the dominant race South to overthrow the rule of the blacks or their friends was then manifest in the conduct of elections. The colored voter was soon, by coercion and fraud, practically deprived of his franchise. The plan of stuffing ballot-boxes with tissue ballots (printed often on tissue paper about an inch long and less in width) was in vogue in some districts. The judge or clerk of the election would, when the ballot-box was opened, shake from his sleeve into the box hundreds of these tickets. In these districts voters were encouraged to vote, but the tissue ballot was mainly counted to the number of the actual voters; those remaining were burned. The party in the majority in the House, however, generally voted in its men, regardless of the facts.

As early as June 7, 1878, I proposed to amend the postal laws so as to extend the free-delivery letter-carrier system to post offices having a gross revenue of $20,000. This amendment subsequently became a law, and gave many cities the carrier system. Prior to this, population alone was the test for establishing such offices.

I opposed the indiscriminate distribution of the remaining $10,000,000 of the $15,500,000 paid by Great Britain, as adjudged by the Geneva Arbitration, for indemnity for losses occasioned by Confederate cruisers which went to sea during the Rebellion from English ports with the connivance or through the negligence of the British Government. I insisted in a speech (December 17, 1878) that the fund should be distributed in payment of claims allowed by the arbitrators in making the award, or retained by the government as general indemnity. Many of the losers whose claims were taken into account in making the award could not be proper claimants to the fund, as they had been fully paid by marine insurance companies. It was insisted by some members that the companies had no equitable right to be subrogated to the rights of the claimants who were thus paid, because the companies had charged war-premiums, and hence did not deserve reimbursement.(11)

The Forty-sixth Congress will long be memorable in the history of our country. It was Democratic in both branches, for the first time since the war.

The previous Congress (House Democratic) adjourned March 4, 1879, without having performed its constitutional duty of appropriating the money necessary to carry on,. for the coming fiscal year, the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the government, and for the pay of the army. The avowed purpose of this failure was to coerce a Republican President to withhold his veto and approve bills prohibiting the use of troops "to keep the peace at the polls on election days"; taking from the President his power to enforce all laws, even to the suppression of rebellion, except on the motion first taken by State authorities; repealing all election laws which secured the right, through supervisors of elections and special deputy marshals, to have free, fair elections for electors and members of Congress; and also that made it a crime for an officer of the army to suppress riots or disorder or to preserve the peace at elections.

The President called the Forty-sixth Congress in extra session, March 18, 1879, to make the necessary appropriations. The effort was at once made, through riders to appropriation bills and by separate bills, to enact the laws mentioned. Excitement ran high. For the first time in the history of the United States (perhaps in the history of any government) it was announced by a party in control of its law-making power, and consequently responsible for the proper conduct and support of the government, that unless the Executive would consent to legislation not by him deemed wise or just, there should not be provided means for maintaining the several departments of the government—that the government should be "starved to death." In vain were precedents sought for in the history of England for such suicidal policy. The debate in both branches of Congress ran high, and there was much apprehension felt by the people. Mr. Blackburn of Kentucky, speaking for his party, said:

"For the first time in eighteen years past the Democracy are back in power in both branches of this Legislature, and she proposes to signallize her return to power; she proposes to celebrate her recovery of her long-lost heritage by tearing off these degrading badges of servitude and destroying the machinery of a corrupt and partisan legislation. We do not intend to stop until we have stricken the last vestige of your war measures from the statute- book, which, like these, were born of the passions incident to civil strife and looked to the abridgment of the liberty of the citizen."

Others threatened to refuse to vote appropriations until the "Capitol crumbled into dust" unless the legislation demanded was passed. President Hayes' veto alone prevented the legislation. It is not here proposed to give a history of the struggle, fraught with so much danger to the Republic, but only to call attention to it. The contest lasted for months.

Senators Edmunds, Conkling, Blaine, Chandler of Michigan, and other Republicans, and Thurman, Voorhees, Beck, Morgan, Lamar, and other Democrats participated in the debates. In the House Mr. Garfield, Mr. Frye, Mr. Reed, and other Republicans, and Mr. Cox, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Carlisle, and other Democrats took a more or less prominent part in the discussion. I spoke against the repeal of the election laws on April 25, 1879, and against the prohibition of the use of troops at the polls to keep the peace on election days, on June 11, 1879. The necessity for the pay of members for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, had the effect, finally, after many vetoes of the President, to cause the Democratic members to recede, for a time, from the false position taken. The whole question was, however, renewed in the first regular session of the same Congress. Precisely similar riders to appropriation bills and new bills relating to the use of troops at the polls, to repeal laws authorizing the appointment of supervisors and special deputy marshals for elections, and to make it a crime for an officer of the army to aid in keeping the peace at the polls on election days were brought forward and their enactment into laws demanded. I spoke on the 8th and on the 10th of April, 1880, against inhibiting the use of the army at the polls and restricting the President's power to keep the peace at elections when riots and disorder prevailed, and on March 18th, and again on the 11th of June, 1880, in opposition to a bill intended to repeal existing laws relating to the use of deputy marshals at elections. In these debates I sought to make clear the power of the government to protect the voter in Federal elections; to demonstrate the necessity for doing so; to show that it was as important to have peace on election day at the polls as on the other days of the year and at other places; that it was not intended, and had never been the purpose, to use troops or supervisors or deputy marshals to prevent a voter from voting for officers of his choice, but only to secure him in that right; and that the right to a peaceful election had always been sacredly maintained, and for this purpose the army had been used in England and in all countries where free elections had been held. I maintained that the citizen was as much entitled to be protected in his right peacefully and freely to exercise the elective franchise, as to be protected in any other right, and that it was as much the duty and as clearly within the power of the Federal Government to use, when necessary, the army as a police force on an election day as to use it on other days of the year to suppress riots and breaches of the peace; and I further insisted that it was the duty of the United States to protect its citizens at home as well as abroad in all their constitutional rights.(12) I also showed that the coercive policy of forcing legislation under threats of destroying the government was not only indefensible, treasonable, and unpatriotic, but wholly new. The precedents alleged to be found in the history of the British Parliament were shown not to exist in fact; that the farthest the English Parliament had ever gone was to refuse subsidies to the Crown, the princes, or to maintain royalty, or to vote supplies to carry on a foreign war not approved by the House of Commons; that in no case had the life of the nation been threatened as the penalty for the Crown's not approving laws passed by the House of Commons, and that the English statutes provided for preserving peace and order by the army, especially at elections.

In some cases during this memorable contest in the Forty-sixth Congress I took issue in the House with the majority of my party colleagues when they, through timidity, or for other causes, yielded their opposition to proposed legislation touching the use of the army and special deputy marshals and supervisors of elections to secure peaceable and fair elections. In one notable instance (June 11, 1879), Mr. Garfield of Ohio, Mr. Hale of Maine, and the other Republican members of the appropriation committee so far surrendered their previously expressed views as to concur in the adoption of a section in the army appropriation bill which prohibited any of the money appropriated by it from being "paid for the subsistence, equipment, transportation, or compensation of any portion of the army of the United States to be used as a police force to keep the peace at any election held within any State."

The application of the previous question cut off general debate, and I was only able to get five minutes to state my objections to the proposed measure.

Though the section was plainly intended to deprive the President of his constitutional power as Commander-in-Chief of the army, eleven Republicans only of the House joined me in voting against it. The Republican Senators, however, generally opposed the section when the bill reached the Senate. Later in the same Congress the Republicans of the House unitedly supported the position taken by me. This and other like incidents led, however, to a charge being made later by some weak, jealous, and vain Republicans that I was not friendly to Mr. Garfield as a leader and not always loyal to my party.

In the last army appropriation bill of the same Congress, after full discussion, a similar provision was omitted, and no such limitation on the use of the army has since been or is ever again likely to be attempted to be enacted into law.

The political heresies of the Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth Congresses have apparently passed away, and a more patriotic sentiment generally exists in all parties, and, fortunately, the necessity for troops, supervisors of elections, and special deputy marshals at the polls no longer exists in so marked a degree.

I spoke, December 7, 1880, and again, February 9, 1881, at length, against the adoption of a joint rule of Congress relating to counting the electoral vote, which rule, among other things, undertook to give Congress the right to settle questions that might arise on objection of a member as to the vote of the electors of a State. I maintained that, under the Constitution, Congress neither in joint session nor in separate sessions had the right to decide that the vote of a State should or should not be counted, or that there was any power anywhere to reject the vote of any State after it had been cast and properly certified and returned; that the two Houses only met, as provided in the Constitution, to witness the purely ministerial work of the Vice-President in opening and counting the electoral vote as returned to him. I cited the precedents from the beginning of the government under the Constitution in support of my position, excepting only the dangerous one of 1877, growing out of the Electoral Commission.

I spoke on many other important subjects, especially on the true rule of apportionment of representation in the House; on election cases, and parliamentary questions. I was not always in harmony with my party leaders. I denied the policy of surrendering principle in any case, even though apparent harmony was, for the time being, attainable thereby.

At the November election of 1880, James A. Garfield was elected President, and the Republicans had a bare majority in the House at the opening of the Forty-seventh Congress over the Democrats and Greenbackers, but not a majority over all. There were three Mahone re-Adjusters elected from Virginia. I formed no purpose to become a candidate for Speaker of the House, until the close of the Forty- sixth, and then only on the solicitation of leading members of that Congress who had been elected to the next one.

Shortly after Mr. Garfield was inaugurated President of the United States, a violent controversy arose over appointments to important offices in New York, which led to the resignation of Senators Conkling and Platt. This was followed by President Garfield being shot (July 2, 1881) by a crazy crank (Guiteau) who, in some way, conceived that he, through the controversy, was deprived of an office. In company with General Sherman I saw and had an interview with Mr. Garfield in his room at the White House the afternoon of the day he was shot. His appearance then was that of a man fatally wounded. He lingered eighty days, dying September 19, 1881. (He is buried at Cleveland, Ohio.) Garfield was a man of great intellect, and attracted people to him by his generous nature. I have spoken of him in an oration delivered, May 12, 1887, at the unveiling of a statue of him at the foot of Capitol Hill, Washington, D. C., erected by the Society of the Army of the Cumberland.(13)

Over such competitors as Mr. Reed, of Maine, Mr. Burrows of Michigan, Mr. Hiscock of New York, and others, I was chosen Speaker of the Forty-seventh Congress, December 5, 1881. The contest was sharp before the caucus met, but when my nomination became reasonably apparent, Mr. Hiscock, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Burrows, my three leading competitors, generously voted and had their friends vote for my nomination.

Chester A. Arthur, as Vice-President, succeeded to the Presidency on the death of Mr. Garfield. There came, later, an acute division in the Republican party, Blaine and Conkling (both then out of office by a singular coincidence), being the assumed heads of the opposing factions. President Arthur tried, faithfully, to bring the elements together by recognizing both, but in this, as is usually the case, he was not successful and had not the active support of either faction. Mr. Blaine was too inordinately ambitious and jealous of power to patiently bide his time, and Mr. Conkling was too imperious and vengeful to tolerate, through his political friends, fair treatment of his supposed enemies. Mr. Conkling was a man of honesty and sincerity, true to his friends to a degree, of overtowering intellect, with marvellous industry. Notwithstanding his many unfortunate traits of character, Mr. Conkling was a great man.

Mr. Blaine was essentially a politician, and possessed of a vaulting and consuming ambition, and was jealous of even his would-be personal and political friends. Mr. Conkling advised some of his friends in Congress to support me for Speaker, as did also his former senatorial colleague, Mr. Platt of New York. The members from New York state, however, though many of them were followers of Mr. Conkling, unitedly supported Mr. Hiscock until the latter decided, during the caucus, himself to vote for me. Mr. Blaine, though to me personally professing warm friendship, held secret meetings at the State Department and at his house to devise methods of preventing my election.(14) He had been a member, for many terms, of the House, and thrice its Speaker, had been a Senator, and for a few months Secretary of State under Presidents Garfield and Arthur. He had an extended acquaintance and many enthusiastic friends. He lacked breadth and strength of learning, as well as sincerity of character. He, however, came near being a great man, especially in public, popular estimation.

The Forty-seventh Congress met December 5, 1881, and being elected its Speaker over Mr. Randall, the candidate of the Democrats, I made this inaugural address:

"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,—I thank you with a heart filled with gratitude for the distinguished honor conferred on me by an election as your Speaker. I will assume the powers and duties of this high office with, I trust, a due share of diffidence and distrust of my own ability to meet them acceptably to you and the country. I believe that you, as a body and individually, will give me hearty support in the discharge of all my duties. I invoke your and the country's charitable judgment upon all my official acts. I will strive to be just to all, regardless of party or section. Where party principle is involved, I will be found to be a Republican, but in all other respects I hope to be able to act free from party bias.

"It is a singular fact that at this most prosperous time in our nation's history no party in either branch of Congress has an absolute majority over all other parties, and it is therefore peculiarly fortunate that at no other time since and for many years prior to the accession of Abraham Lincoln to the Executive chair have there been so few unsettled vital questions of a national character in relation to which party lines have been closely drawn.

"The material prosperity of the people is in advance of any other period in the history of our government. The violence of party spirit has materially subsided, and in great measure because many of the reasons for its existence are gone.

"While the universal tendency of the people is to sustain and continue to build up an unparalleled prosperity, it should be our highest aim to so legislate as to permanently promote and not cripple it. This Congress should be, and I profoundly hope it will be, marked peculiarly as a business Congress.

"It may be true that additional laws are yet necessary to give to every citizen complete protection in the exercise of all political rights. With evenly balanced party power, with few grounds for party strife and bitterness, and with no impending Presidential election to distract us from purely legislative duties, I venture to suggest that the present is an auspicious time to enact laws to guard against the recurrence of dangers to our institutions and to insure tranquillity at perilous times in the future.

"Again thanking you for the honor conferred, and again invoking your aid and generous judgment, I am ready to take the oath prescribed by law and the Constitution and forthwith proceed, with my best ability, guided by a sincere and honest purpose, to discharge the duties belonging to the office with which you have clothed me."

The duties of Speaker were arduous, varied, and delicate. Under the law, rules, and practice of the House he had control of the Hall of the House, and of the assignment of committee rooms; signed orders for the monthly pay of each member, and the pay of employees; approved bonds of officers; appointed and removed stenographers; examined and approved the daily journal of the proceedings of the House before being read; received and submitted messages from the President and heads of departments; appointed three regents to the Smithsonian Institution, and three members annually as visitors to the Military Academy, and a like number to the Naval Academy, and performed many other duties cast upon him, besides appointing all the committees of the House. The Speaker is naturally the person to whom members, employees, and others having business with the House flock for advice, assistance, and with their real or imaginary grievances. An extensive correspondence and social duties demand much of the Speaker's time. All this, independent of his real duties as presiding officer of the House, in performing what is expected, without time for deliberation, to decide correctly all parliamentary questions and inquiries. And he is obliged, in addition, to discharge the ordinary duties of a member for his district and constituents. The members from all parts of the Union have diverse and often conflicting interests to press upon the attention of the House, and the jealousy of members in matters of precedence or recognition by the Speaker renders his duties severely trying. It constantly occurred that several members with equal rights, urging matters of equal merit, were dependent on the recognition of the Speaker in a "morning hour," when not more than one or two of them at most could, for want of time, be recognized. The Speaker has to be invidious, relying on the future to even matters up. The recognition of a member by the Speaker is final, and from which there is no appeal. Members and often personal friends not infrequently feel aggrieved at the Speaker, for a time at least. All this regardless of political party lines. It is the Speaker's duty to equally divide recognition on party sides, and this duty, from the member's standpoint, is often a ground of complaint.

The first duty of the Speaker, ordinarily, after the House is organized and before it can proceed regularly to business, is to appoint the standing committees.

Chairmanships of committees and appointments on leading ones are much sought after, and members appeal to the Speaker on all kinds of grounds to give them the coveted places. Personal and party friendship is pressed upon him to induce favorable action. The same place is often sought by a number of members. Experience in congressional service, regardless of the member's prior duties, pursuit, or occupation, is generally urged as a reason for making a desired appointment. Some construct a geographical reason for a particular selection. Out of all this and more, the Speaker, with little or no acquaintance with a large number of the members, does the best he can. A few always are disappointed, and, necessarily under the circumstances, some mistakes are made, but generally those who make the loudest complaint are the weak, vain, and inefficient members who hope to be made great in the eyes of their constituents by being named on one or more important committees by the Speaker.

Some who seek and obtain committee appointments of their own choice soon find they are not what they had expected, and they also join the clamor against the Speaker. There are, however, only a small number out of the whole who are unreasonable or dissatisfied. This small number, by their wailing, give the appearance of a general discontent. Complaint was made by the disappointed that I gave preference on committees to personal and party friends who supported me for Speaker. I always believed in rewarding my friends.

I, however, appointed Hon. Thomas B. Reed (since Speaker), Hon. Frank Hiscock, Hon. J. C. Burrows (all competitors for Speaker), Chairmen, respectively, of the Committees on the Judiciary, Appropriations, and Territories. Hon. William D. Kelley was made Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. He was the acknowledged leading advocate of a high protective tariff to which the Republican party was then pledged, though the party was then honeycombed with free-traders, some of whom edited leading newspapers. Some of the latter in New York, Chicago, and Cincinnati, took occasion to assail me for appointing Mr. Kelley, and to give weight to their unjust attacks made many false statements as to the organization of other committees.(15) In this they were inspired by Mr. Blaine, and a very few others outside of Congress, who imagined their dictations should have been regarded, or who were otherwise disappointed in not being able to say who should be Speaker. The Speaker could not go into the newspapers and contradict these and like malicious stories, and hence some of them are still ignorantly repeated.(16)

After fuller acquaintance with the members, it became obvious that in assigning them to committee work I had overrated some and underrated others, but a better working Congress never met. Its work abundantly proves this, not only in amount of work done, but in the importance and character of the legislation, and its freedom from all that was corrupt or vicious. I cannot recall that even the weak and vicious slanderers or disappointed lobbyists ever risked charging me while I was Speaker or during my eight years in Congress with favoring any corrupt measure pending in Congress. Polygamy, notwithstanding it had maintained itself in the United States for fifty years, and was then more firmly established in Utah than at any time before, was given a blow, under which it has since about disappeared. The first three-per-cent. funding bill was passed by this Congress. Pauper immigration was prohibited, and immigrants were required to be protected on their way across the sea; national bank charters were extended, letter postage was reduced to two cents, and many public acts wisely regulating the Indian and land policy of the government were passed. Liberal pension laws were enacted; internal-revenue taxes were largely reduced, and there was a general revision (March 3, 1883) of the tariff laws. The Civil Service Act was also passed in this Congress.

More bills were introduced for consideration in the Forty-seventh than came before Congress in the first fifty years of its existence.

In discharging the duties of Speaker I had no strong parliamentary leader of my party on the floor to aid me, and I had had but little experience as a presiding officer. Of the opposite party were Mr. Randall, who had been Speaker of the three preceding Congresses; Mr. Cox of New York, the pugnacious, who had acted as Speaker for a time in the Forty-third; Mr. Carlisle (my successor as Speaker), and Mr. Knott of Kentucky, and others who laid just claim to much parliamentary learning. The House was hardly Republican; and in my own party were disappointed aspirants who often thought they saw opportunities to gain a little cheap applause.(17) Notwithstanding this situation, no parliamentary decision of mine was overruled by the House, though many appeals were taken, and more than the usual number of important questions were raised by members and decided by me. The most memorable of the decisions was the one which put an end to dilatory motions to prevent the House from making or amending its rules of procedure. The occasion of this holding arose on the consideration of a report of the Committee on Rules whereby it was proposed to so amend the rules as to prevent filibustering and dilatory motions in the consideration of contested election cases. It may be observed that for the first time in the history of Congress, dilatory methods were resorted to, to prevent the consideration of election cases. I was then ready to hold (and so stated) that dilatory motions were not in order to prevent the consideration of such cases, as their disposition affected the organization of the House for business; and I was also prepared to count a quorum when a quorum of members was present not voting, but these questions did not arise, and it was then understood that leading Republicans (Mr. Reed of Maine among the number (18)) did not agree with my views on these two points. A point of order was made against a dilatory motion, which was debated at much length, and with some heat, by the ablest parliamentarians of all parties in the House. My opinion on the question made is quoted from the Record of May 29, 1882.

"Mr. Reed, as a privileged question, called up the report of the Committee on Rules made on Saturday last; when Mr. Randall raised the question of consideration; pending which, Mr. Kenna moved that the House adjourn; pending which Mr. Blackburn moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next; and the question being put thereon, it was decided in the negative.

* * * * *

"The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Kenna that the House adjourn; pending which Mr. Randall moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thursday nest;

"Mr. Reed made the point of order that the said motion was not in order at this time, on the ground that pending a proposition to change the rules of the House, dilatory motions cannot be entertained by the Chair.

"After debate on said point of order,

"The Speaker. The question for the Chair to decide is briefly this: The gentleman from Maine (Reed) has called up for present consideration the report of the Committee on Rules made on the 27th inst., and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) raised, as he might under the practice and the rules of the House, the question of consideration. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Kenna) then moved that the House adjourn, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Blackburn) moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next, which last motion was voted down; and thereupon the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thursday next. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) then raised the point of order that such motions are mere dilatory motions, and therefore, as against the right of the House to consider a proposition to amend the rules, not in order.

"It cannot be disputed that the Committee on Rules have the right to report at any time such changes in the rules as it may decide to be wise. The right of that committee to report at any time may be, under the practice, a question of privilege; but if it is not, resolutions of this House, adopted December 19, 1881, expressly give that right.

"The Clerk will read the resolutions.

"The Clerk read as follows:

'Resolved, That the rules of the House of Representatives of the Forty-sixth Congress shall be the rules of the present House until otherwise ordered; and,

'Resolved further, That the Committee on Rules when appointed shall have the right to report at any time all such amendments or revisions of said rules as they may deem proper.'

"The Speaker. It will be seen that these resolutions not only give the right to that committee to report at any time, but the committee is authorized to report any change, etc., in the rules. The right given to report at any time carries with it the right to have the proposition reported considered without laying over. The resolutions are the ones adopting the present standing rules of the House for its government; and it will be observed that they were only conditionally adopted; and the right was expressly reserved to the House to order them set aside. Paragraph 1 of Rule xxviii provides that.—

'No standing rule of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice of the motion therefor.'

"This clause of the rule, if applicable at all, may fairly be construed to make it in order under the standing rules of the House to consider any motion to rescind or change the rules after one day's notice.

"But the question for the Chair to decide is this: Are the rules of this House to be so construed as to give to the minority of the House the absolute right to prevent the majority or a quorum of the House from making any new rules for its government; or in the absence of anything in the rules providing for any mode of proceeding in the matter of consideration, when the question of changing the rules is before the House, shall the rules be so construed as to virtually prevent their change should one-fifth of the House oppose it? It may be well to keep in mind that paragraph 2 of section 5 of article 1 of the Constitution says that—

'Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.'

"The same section of the Constitution provides that—

'A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business.'

"The right given to the House to determine the rules of its proceedings is never exhausted, but is at all times a continuing right, and in the opinion of the Chair gives a right to make or alter rules independent of any rules it may adopt. Dilatory motions to prevent the consideration of business are comparatively recent expedients, and should not be favored in any case save where absolutely required by some clear rule of established practice.

"In any case it is a severe strain upon common sense to construe the rules so as to prevent a quorum of the House from taking any proceedings at all required by the Constitution; and it is still more difficult to find any justification for holding that the special resolutions of this House adopted December 19th last, or the standing rules even of the House, were intended to prevent the House, if a majority so desired, from altering or abrogating the present rules of the House.

"There seems to be abundant precedent for the view the Chair takes. The Clerk will read from the Record of the Forty-third Congress, volume ix, page 806, an opinion expressed by the distinguished Speaker, Mr. Blaine, which has been repeatedly alluded to to-day.

"The Clerk read as follows:

'The Chair has repeatedly ruled that pending a proposition to change the rules dilatory motions could not be entertained, and for this reason he has several times ruled that the right of each House to determine what shall be its rules is an organic right expressly given by the Constitution of the United States. The rules are the creature of that power, and, of course, they cannot be used to destroy that power. The House is incapable by any form of rules of divesting itself of its inherent constitutional power to exercise its functions to determine its own rules. Therefore the Chair has always announced upon a proposition to change the rules of the House he never would entertain a dilatory motion.'

"The Speaker. It will be observed that the then Speaker says he has frequently held that pending a proposition to change the rules dilatory motions could not be entertained. The precedents for ruling out dilatory motions where an amendment of the rules is under consideration are many.

"During the electoral count my immediate predecessor (Mr. Randall) decided, in principle, the point involved here. On February 24, 1877, after an obstructive motion had been made, the following language was used, as found in the Record of the Forty-fourth Congress, page 1906.

'The Speaker. The Chair is unable to recognize this in any other light than as a dilatory motion.

'The mover then denied that he made the motion as such.

'The Speaker. The Chair is unable to classify it in any other way. Therefore he rules that when the Constitution of the United States directs anything to be done, or when the law under the Constitution of the United States enacted in obedience thereto directs an act of this House, it is not in order to make any motion to obstruct or impede the execution of that injunction of the Constitution and laws.'

"While this decision is not on the precise point, it clearly covers the principle involved in the case with which we are now dealing.

"The Chair thinks the Constitution and the laws are higher than any rules, and when they conflict with the rules the latter must give way. There is not one word in the present rules, however, which prescribes the mode of proceeding in changing the standing rules except as to the reference of propositions to change the rules, with the further exception that—

'No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice.'

"But it will be observed that there is an entire absence from all these standing rules of anything that looks to giving directions as to the procedure when the rule is under consideration by the House. This only refers to the time of considering motions to rescind or change a standing rule to the reference of propositions submitted by members, and to the time and manner of bringing them before the House for consideration, and not to the method of considering them when brought before the House.

"It seems to purposely avoid saying one word as to the forms of proceedings while considering such motions. This is highly significant.

"There is nothing revolutionary in holding that purely dilatory motions cannot be entertained to prevent consideration or action on a proposition to amend the rules of the House, as this right to make or amend the rules is an organic one essential to be exercised preliminary to the orderly transaction of business by the House. It would be more than absurd to hold otherwise.

"Rule XLV undertakes to fasten our present standing rules on the present and all succeeding Congresses. It reads as follows:

'These rules shall be the rules of the House of Representatives of the present and succeeding Congresses, unless otherwise ordered.'

"If this rule is of binding force on succeeding Congresses, and the rules apply and can be invoked to give power to a minority in the House to prevent their abrogation or alteration, they would be made perpetual if only one-fifth of the members of the House so decreed.

"The fallacy of holding that the standing rules can be held to apply to proceedings to amend, etc., the rules will more sharply appear when we look to the case in hand. The proposition is to so amend the rules in contested-election cases as to take away the right to make and repeat dilatory motions, to prevent consideration, etc. And the same obstructive right is appealed to to prevent its consideration. To allow this would be to hold the rules superior not only to the House that made them but to the Constitution of the United States.

"The wise remarks quoted in debate, made long since by the distinguished speaker, Mr. Onslow of the House of Commons, about the wisdom of adhering to fixed rules in legislative proceedings, were made with no reference to the application of rules which it was claimed were made to prevent any proceedings at all by the body acting under them.

"The present occupant of the chair has tried, and will try, to give full effect to all rules wherever applicable, and especially to protect the rights of the minority to the utmost extent the rules will justify.

"The Chair is not called upon to hold that any of the standing rules of the House are in conflict with the Constitution, as it is not necessary to do so. It only holds that there is nothing in the rules which gives them application pending proceedings to amend and rescind them. It also holds that under the first of the resolutions adopted by the House on December 19, 1881, the right was reserved to order the standing rules set aside at any time this House so decided, and without regard to dilatory forms of proceedings provided for in them. The Chair does not hold that pending the question of consideration no motion shall be in order. It is disposed to treat one motion to adjourn as proper at this time, as it is a well-known parliamentary motion, and that such motion may be liable at some stage of the proceedings to be repeated if made for a proper and not a dilatory purpose.

"The Chair feels better satisfied with its ruling in this case, because the rule proposed to be adopted is one which looks to an orderly proceeding in the matter of taking up and disposing of contested-election cases, a duty cast directly on the House by the Constitution of the United States, and an essential one to be performed before it is completely organized.

"The Chair is unable to find in the whole history of the government that any dilatory motions have ever been made or entertained to prevent the consideration or disposition of a contested-election case until this Congress. The point of order has not yet been made against obstructive motions to prevent the consideration of a contested-election case, and the Chair is not now called on to decide whether such motions are in order or not where they would prevent a complete organization of the House. The principle here involved will suffice to indicate the opinion of the Chair on that question.

"The question here decided the Chair understands to be an important one, because it comprehends the complete organization of the House to do business, but it feels that on principle and sound precedents the point of order made by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) must be sustained to the extent of holding that the motion made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall), which is in effect a dilatory motion, is not at this time in order.

"It has been, in debate, claimed that on January 11, 1882, the present occupant of the chair made a different holding. The question then made and decided arose on a matter of reference of a proposition to amend the rules to an appropriate committee as provided for under the rules, and not on the consideration of a report when properly brought before the House for its action. The two things are so plainly distinguishable as to require nothing further to be said about them.

"Mr. Randall. From your decision, Mr. Speaker, just announced, I appeal to the House, whose officer you are.

"Mr. Reed. I move to lay the appeal on the table.

"The Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) appeals from the decision of the Chair, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) moves that the appeal be laid upon the table.

"The question was taken; and there were—yeas 150, nays 0, not voting 141.

"So the appeal was laid on the table."(19)

There was much clamor and undue excitement over this decision of the Speaker cutting off the, always to me, foolish and unjustifiable, though time-honored, practice of allowing a turbulent minority to stop business indefinitely, by purely dilatory, though in form, privileged motions. This holding, however, received the commendation of sober, learned men of this country, and in Europe it was quoted approvingly by Gladstone in the House of Commons of England, and was followed, in principle, by its Speaker in upholding the rule of cloture against violent filibustering of the Irish party. Such dilatory methods have been little resorted to since.

At the end of this Congress a resolution was adopted, on the motion of Mr. Randall, thanking "the Speaker for the ability and courtesy with which he has presided over the deliberations of the House during the Forty-seventh Congress."

My valedictory as Speaker was as follows:

"Gentlemen, the time has come when our official relations as Representatives in the Forty-seventh Congress are to be dissolved. In a moment more this House of Representatives will be known only in history. Its acts will stand, many of them, it is believed, through the future history of the Republic.

"On the opening day of this Congress, I ventured the suggestion and the expression of a hope that it would be marked 'as peculiarly a business Congress.'

"It has successfully grappled with more of the vital, material, and moral questions of the country than its predecessors. Many of these have been settled wisely and well by appropriate legislation. It would be quite impossible at this time to enumerate the many important laws which have been enacted to foster and promote the substantial interests of the whole country.

"This Congress enacted into a law the first 3 per cent. funding bill known to this country, and under it a considerable portion of the government debt has been refunded at lower rates than ever before.

"It did not hesitate to take hold of the question of polygamy, and it is believed it has struck the first effective blow in the direction of destroying that greatest remaining public crime of the age.

"Laws have been passed to protect the immigrant on his way across the sea and upon his arrival in the ports of this country.

"Laws have also been passed to extend the charters of the banking institutions so that financial disorder cannot take place, which would otherwise have come at the expiration of the old bank charters.

"Many public acts will be found relating to the Indian policy and the land policy of this country which will prove to be wise.

"The post-office laws have been so changed as to reduce letter postage from three to two cents, the lowest rate ever known in the United States.

"No legislation of this Congress will be found upon the statute books, revolutionary in character or which will oppress any section or individual in the land. All legislation has been in the direction of relief.

"Pension laws have been enacted which are deemed wise, and liberal appropriations have been made to pay the deserving and unfortunate pensioner.

"Internal-revenue taxes have been taken off, and the tariff laws have been revised.

"Sectionalism has been unknown in the enactment of laws.

"In the main a fraternal spirit has prevailed among the members from all portions of the Union. What has been said in the heat of debate and under excitement and sometimes with provocation is not to be regarded in determining the genuine feeling of concord existing between members. The high office I have filled through the session of this Congress has enabled me to judge better of the true spirit of the members that compose it than I could otherwise have done.

"It is common to say that the House of Representatives is a very turbulent and disorderly body of men. This is true more in appearance than in reality. Those who look on and do not participate see more apparent confusion than exists in reality. The disorder that often appears on the floor of the House grows out of an earnest, active spirit possessed by members coming from all sections of the United States, and indicates in high degree their strong individuality and their great zeal in trying to secure recognition in the prompt discharge of their duty. No more conscientious body of men than compose this House of Representatives, in my opinion, ever met. Partisan zeal has in some instances led to fierce word-contests on the floor, but when the occasion which gave rise to it passed by, party spirit went with it.

"I am very thankful for the considerate manner in which I have been treated by the House in its collective capacity. I am also very thankful to each individual member of this body for his personal treatment of me. I shall lay down the gavel and the high office you clothed me with filled with good feeling towards each member of this House. I have been at times impatient and sometimes severe with members, but I have never purposely harshly treated any member. I have become warmly attached to and possessed of a high admiration, not only for the high character of this House as a parliamentary body, but for all its individual members. I heartily thank the House for its vote of thanks.

"The duties of a Speaker are of the most delicate and critical kind. His decisions are in the main made without time for deliberation and are often very far-reaching and controlling in the legislation of the country on important matters, and they call out the severest criticism.

"The rules of this House, which leave to the Speaker the onerous duty and delicate task of recognizing individuals to present their matters for legislation, render the office in that respect as exceedingly unpleasant one. No member should have the legislation he desires depend upon the individual recognition of the Speaker, and no Speaker should be compelled to decide between members having matters of possibly equal importance or of equal right to his recognition.

"I suggest here that the time will soon come when another mode will have to be adopted which will relieve both the Speaker and individual members from this exceedingly embarrassing if not dangerous power.

"During my administration in the chair very many important questions have been decided by me, and I do not flatter myself that I have, in the hurry of these decisions, made no mistakes. But I do take great pride in being able to say that no parliamentary decision of mine has been overruled by the judgment of this almost evenly politically balanced House, although many appeals have been taken.

"I congratulate each member of this House upon what has been accomplished by him in the discharge of the important duties of a Representative, and with the sincerest hope that all may return safely to their homes, and wishing each a successful and happy future during life, I now exercise my last official duty as presiding officer of this House by declaring the term of this House under the Constitution of the United States at an end, and that it shall stand adjourned sine die. (Hearty and continued applause.)"— Con. Record, Vol. xiv., Part IV., p. 3776.

I was the caucus nominee and voted for by my party friends for Speaker of the Forty-eighth Congress, but Mr. Carlisle was elected, the Democrats being in the majority. I served on the Committees on Appropriations and Rules of the Forty-eighth Congress, and performed much hard work. I participated actively in much of the general business of this House, and in the debates. On January 24, 1884, I made an extended speech against a bill for the relief of Fitz-John Porter, by which it was proposed to make him "Colonel in the Army," and thus to exonerate him from the odium of his conduct while under General Pope, August 29, 1862, at the Second Bull Run, as found by a general court-martial. I advocated (January 5, 1885) pensioning Mexican soldiers. I spoke on various other subjects, and especially advocated (February 20, 1885) the increase of the naval strength of the government so that it might protect our commerce on the high seas in peace, guard our boundary coast line (in length, excluding Alaska, one and two thirds times the distance around the earth at the equator), and successfully cope, should war come, with any naval power of the world.

My principal work in this Congress was in the rooms of the Committee on Appropriations in the preparation of bills. Hon. Samuel J. Randall (Democrat) of Pennsylvania was Chairman of this committee. He was conscientious, industrious, and honest, absolutely without favorites, personal and political, in the making of appropriations. This committee, chiefly, too, by the labor of a very few of its members, each annual session prepared bills for the appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars, which (with the rarest exception) passed the House without question (and ultimately became laws), the members generally knowing little or nothing as to the honesty or special necessity, if even the purpose, of the appropriations made. In the preparation of these bills the expenditures and estimates in detail of all the departments of the government including all branches of the public service and all special matters of expense, liability, and obligation, were examined and scrutinized, to avoid errors, injustice to the government or individuals, extravagance, or fraud. I have, covering as many as five of the last days of a session, remained with Mr. Randall in the committee rooms at the Capitol, working, almost uninterruptedly, night and day, to complete the bills necessary to be passed before adjournment. This committee work brought no immunity from attendance in the House.

My service in Congress ended March 4, 1885, since which time I have participated in public and political affairs as a private citizen, and assiduously pursued the practice of the law and attended to my personal affairs; writing this volume, mainly, in the winter nights of 1896 and 1897, incident to an otherwise busy life.

III SERVICE IN SPANISH WAR

After the foregoing was written, a war arose between the United States and Spain, growing out of the latter's bad government of Cuba, which Spain had held (except for a brief time) since its discovery in 1492.

Spain was only partially successful in putting down the ten years' (1868-1877) struggle of the Cubans for independence, and was forced to agree (1876) to give the inhabitants of Cuba all the rights, representation in the Cortes included, of Spanish citizens. This agreement was not kept, and in February, 1895, a new insurrection broke out, supported by the mass of the Cuban population, especially by those residing outside of the principal coast cities. Notwithstanding Spain employed in Cuba her best regular troops as well as volunteers, she failed to put down this insurrection. Governor-General Weyler inaugurated fire and slaughter wherever the Spanish armies could not penetrate, not sparing non-combatants, and, February 16, 1896, he adopted the inhuman policy of forcing the rural inhabitants from their homes into closely circumscribed so-called military zones, where they were left unprovided with food, and hence to die. Under Weyler's cruel methods and policy about one third (600,000) of the non-combatant inhabitants of the island were killed or died of starvation and incident disease before the end of the Spanish-American War. Yet a war was maintained by the insurgents under the leadership of able men, inspired with a patriotic desire for freedom and independence. The barbarity of the reconcentrado policy excited, throughout the civilized world, deep sympathy for the Cubans, and, April 6, 1896, a resolution passed Congress, expressing the opinion that a "state of war existed in Cuba," and declaring that the United States should maintain a strict neutrality, but accord to each of the contending powers "the rights of belligerents in the ports and territory of the United States," and proposing that the friendly offices of the United States "be offered by the President to the Spanish government for the recognition of the independence of Cuba." This resolution and the proffered friendly offices bore no fruit. To meet a possible attack upon our citizens in Havana, the battle-ship Maine, commanded by Captain C. D. Sigsbee, was sent there in January, 1898. It was peacefully anchored in the harbor, where, February 15th, it was destroyed by what was generally believed to have been a sub-marine mine, designedly exploded by unauthorized Spaniards. Of its officers and crew 266 perished, and the splendid war-ship was totally destroyed.

Preparations for war commenced at once in our country. Congress appropriated $50,000,000 "for the national defence."

It also, April 18, 1898, passed joint resolutions, declaring:

"That the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent"; demanding of Spain that it "at once relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba, and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters"; authorizing the President "to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States . . . and the militia of the several States, to such an extent as may be necessary to carry these resolutions into effect," but disclaiming that the United States had "any intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof," and asserting its determination that when that was completed to "leave the government and control of the island to its people." The resolutions were approved by the President April 20th, and in themselves had the effect of a declaration of war. The Spanish Minister at once demanded his passports and departed from Washington. The American Minister at Madrid was handed his passports on the morning of April 21, 1898, without being permitted to present the resolutions to the Spanish authorities. Congress, April 25th, by law, declared that war existed between the United States and Spain since and including April 21, 1898.

Thus, after a long peace of thirty-three years, our country was again to engage in war, and with and old and once powerful and war- like nation, which must be waged both by sea and land.

I do not intend to write a history of the one hundred and fourteen days' war that ensued. I merely summarize the conditions which caused me to turn from civil pursuits and a quiet home to again take up the activities of a military life in war.

The President called for volunteers (125,000 April 23d, and 75,000 May 25th), and, June 9th, I was, by him, appointed, and, June 14th, 1898, unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, a Major- General of Volunteers. I was the only person in civil life from a northern State, or who had served in the Union Army in the Civil War but never in the regular Army, on whom was originally conferred that high rank in the Spanish-American War.

This rank was conferred on Fitzhugh Lee of Virginia, Joseph Wheeler of Alabama, and Matthew C. Butler of South Carolina, each of whom had served as a general officer in the Confederate Army; and on James H. Wilson of Delaware, who had served as a Major-General in the Union Army in the Civil War. These four were from civil life, but, save Butler, each was a graduate of West Point and had served in the United States Army.

Hon. William J. Sewell of New Jersey declined an appointment to that rank, and Francis V. Greene of New York was appointed after the protocol was signed. He was a graduate of West Point, and had served in the United States Army. No other Major-General was appointed from civil life before the treaty of peace.

A feature of the Spanish War was the alacrity with which ex- Confederates and Southern men tendered their services to sustain it. It was worth the cost of the war, to demonstrate the patriotism of the whole people, and their readiness to unite under one flag and fight in a common cause.

I was assigned to the Seventh Army Corps, then being organized, with headquarters at Jacksonville, Florida. I reported there to Major-General Fitzhugh Lee, its commander, and was assigned to the First Division, then located at Miami, 366 miles farther south, on the east coast of Florida, at the terminus of railroad transportation. I assumed command of the Division, July 7th, with headquarters at Miami. It then numbered about 7500 officers and enlisted men. My tents were pitched in a cocoanut grove on the shore of the Biscayne Bay. The corps had been designated to lead an early attack on Havana. I had exercised no military command for a third of a century, and had misgivings of my ability to discharge, properly, the important duties. This feeling was not decreased by the fact that the division was composed of southern troops—1st and 2d Louisiana; 1st and 2d Alabama; and 1st and 2d Texas Volunteer Infantry regiments. Some of these regiments and many of the companies were commanded by ex-Confederate officers, and one brigade —the Second—was commanded by Brigadier-General W. W. Gordon, an ex-Confederate officer from Georgia. He commanded this brigade until the protocol, when he was made one of the evacuation commissioners for Porto Rico. Several of the staff were sons of Confederate officers. The only officer, other than staff-officers, who was not southern, was Brigadier-General Loyd Wheaton, who commanded the First Brigade. He had served in the Union Army in the Civil War from Illinois, and became, after the war, an officer in the United States Army, from which he was appointed a general officer of Volunteers in the Spanish War. Wheaton remained in my command until after our army occupied Havana, and commanded a division that entered that city, January 1, 1899, then shortly thereafter was ordered to the Philippines, where he has, in several battles with the Filipinos, distinguished himself, and deservedly acquired fame.

I soon, however, became familiar with my duties, and the command was a most agreeable and pleasant one. I became warmly attached to and proud of it; and it was, throughout, loyal to me. No better volunteer soldiers were ever mustered, and if occasion had arisen they would have proved their skill and valor by heroic deeds and willing sacrifices.

The camp at Miami was the farthest south of any in the United States, consequently the hottest, and by reason of the situation near the Everglades and the Miami River (their principal outlet to the sea) the water proved bad, and only obtainable for the troops through pipes laid on the rocky surface of the earth from the Everglades at the head of the river. It thus came warm, and sometimes offensive by reason of vegetable matter contained in it. The reefs—an extension of the Florida Reefs—which lay four miles from the west shore of the bay, cut off easterly sea breezes; and the mosquitoes were at times so numerous as to make life almost unbearable. All possible was done for the health and comfort of the command. Notwithstanding the location, hotness of the season, and bad general conditions, the health of the soldiers was better, numbers considered, than in any other camp in the United States. A good military hospital was established under capable medical officers, and, through some patriotic ladies—the wife and daughter of General W. W. Gordon and others—a convalescent hospital was established where the greatest care was taken of the sick, and wholesome delicacies were provided for them. A feeling of unrest amounting to dissatisfaction, however, arose, which caused the War Department to order my command to Camp Cuba Libre, Jacksonville, Florida. It was accordingly transported there by rail early in August, my headquarters having been at Miami just one month. My division was then camped in proximity to the St. John's River at Fairfield, immediately east of Jacksonville. My headquarters tents were pitched in a pine forest. Here the general conditions were much better than at Miami, though much sickness, chiefly typhoid and malarial fevers, prevailed in the corps, my own division having a far less per centum of cases than either of the other two. The water was artesian and good, but the absence of anything like a clay soil rendered it impossible to keep the camps well policed and the drainage was difficult. Florida sand is not a disinfectant; clay is. This camp, however, had a smaller list of sick in proportion to numbers than was reported in other camps farther north.