principal of the interest-bearing debt had, under Republican legislation, been reduced over six hundred million dollars; the annual interest-charge had been reduced to seventy-five million dollars; the debt bearing no interest had been reduced by thirty-seven million dollars; the total debt, less cash in the Treasury, to about two thousand million dollars; and the burden of the whole debt had fallen from $78.25 per capita to $47.44.

Having put in the way of extinction the funded debt caused by the Rebellion, the Republican party proceeded, in 1875, to relieve the people of the evils of a depreciated and fluctuating currency.

They provided for the redemption in coin, on the 1st of January, 1879, of the "United States legal tender notes then outstanding," and to make "free" to all and at once the privileges conferred by the national banking system. The act provided for retiring the fractional currency; for a reduction of the "legal tender" circulation in connection with the issue of bank circulation until the limit of $300,000,000 for" legal tender" notes was reached; and named January 1, 1879, as the date at which these notes were to be redeemed in coin. Four years were thus given for preparation, so that market values might be adjusted to it, and the people prepare in their multifarious business relations for the change. This "legal tender" circulation had been issued, it will be remembered, as a “military necessity." Notwithstanding such "necessity," it had been opposed in 1862 on constitutional grounds, by a united and vindictive Democracy. In their view it was an unauthorized and dishonored issue, a forced loan, a menace to business, an unjust invasion of the sanctity of private rights. To them it had been as nothing that the circumstances which called the notes into being were such an overwhelming national necessity as always subordinates minor interests to the greater and all-absorbing interest.

Now the opportunity was offered the fault-finding Democracy to aid in wiping out the dishonor and removing the menace which their issue was alleged to have involved and to be continually involving. And, marvelous to relate, they refused to participate in the effort, and stood as one man

in opposition. They persisted in maintaining all the evils both of principle and policy against which they had fiercely inveighed in 1862, and practically insisted upon the excellence of a currency which they had denounced as unconstitutional and which they were acting so as to keep unredeemed. Nevertheless the bill passed. It had a majority of 18 in the Senate and 38 in the House.

A few Republicans who desired an earlier day for redemption than January 1, 1879, voted against the final passage of the bill, but the old Democracy pretended to no such reason. What were their reasons for opposition? All claimed to be resumptionists, but none favored this way of getting to resumption. As and always before, they preferred some other thing to the pending thing. One of them feared that the "proper conditions" did not exist in the country, and he must be excused. Another regarded the bill as rather adverse than favorable to resumption, and he begged to be excused. A third would not support it because it did not contain an outright and instantaneous repeal of the Legal Tender Act, which would redress the "great wrong perpetrated in 1862;" therefore he went on the other side. A fourth regarded the bill as a "juggle,” and he esteemed himself too virtuous to become a juggler. And a fifth was sure that under the bill the country would be no nearer specie payments in 1879 than it then was in 1875; and as "money in reality as well as in name" was very near to his heart, he felt compelled to utter a sharp, shrill Nay.

So it came that all these "resumptionists" voted against resumption. The bill was not a good enough resumption bill for them. Thus they completed a record distinguished by maliciousness in the beginning of war legislation with a record distinguished by ignorance at the end of it-for resumption was effected under that act as then passed.

At once upon the approval of this act Democratic agitation and Democratic trimming began. When Congress met in December, 1875, the Democratic House threw every possible obstruction in the way of resumption. It voted by 54 majority against a resolution pledging themselves to sustain the Treasury in this effort. By a majority of two votes it passed

a resolution in favor of the repeal of the clause giving the Secretary power to sell U. S. bonds for the accomplishment of resumption. And it actually passed, by a majority of 20 votes, a bill to repeal the clause fixing a day for resumption. But the Republican Senate declined to participate in this demagogy, and it came to naught.

The Republican National Convention of 1876 demanded "continuous and steady progress to specie payment." Their candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, promised to "approve every appropriate measure to accomplish the desired end, and oppose any steps backward."

The Democratic National Convention denounced as a "hindrance" to resumption the resumption clause of the act of 1875, and demanded its "repeal." Their candidate, Samuel J. Tilden, denounced a "legislative command fixing a day, an official promise fixing a day, as shams, as worse-a snare and a delusion to all who trust them." He predicted that the then existing plan for resumption " would end in a new suspension," which would be a "fresh calamity, prolific of confusion, distrust, and distress." But he said he was in favor of advancing to a resumption of specie payments on its legal-tender notes "by gradual and safe processes tending to relieve the present business distress." Like the Democrats in Congress the year before, Tilden was in favor of resumption—at some other time, not at this time; in some other way, not in this way; at some other rate of speed, not at this rate; to the distress of some other generation, not of this generation.

One would have supposed, from the freeness of his criticism, that Mr. Tilden knew all about the subject of which he wrote. But events have incontestably proved that he knew nothing about it. Of his many predictions not one was fulfilled. Resumption came as intended and when intended. It came absolutely without a shock to the country or any part of it. But it severely shocked and dislocated such political gamesters as Mr. Tilden and the Democratic Senators and Representatives. They became stranded as leaders, discredited as prophets, critics without character, professed statesmen having no statesmanship. When Mr. Tilden wrote so freshly

of what would be the "inevitable failure" of resumption. under the act of 1875, the "greenback" dollar was worth 90.2 cents in gold. It had advanced from 67.3 cents in 1865. During those eleven years, notwithstanding the large business "distress" which then weighed upon this tender-hearted candidate, it had appreciated about 33 per cent. It was then within 9.8 cents of par. His defeat and Hayes's inauguration gave the country an assurance of stable purpose; and within three months thereafter the "greenback" dollar was worth 94.7 cents, and in July, 1878, 99.4 cents. On the first of January, 1879, it became par, not only without injury to the country, but with a sense of infinite relief.

Thus the paper money of the Union, issued in its hour of weakness, was redeemed in its day of strength. The promise of 1862, made in gloom but in strong faith, became glorious fruition in 1879. In both the promise and the fruition the Democratic party had no part. The Republican party alone had the courage to issue it. The Republican party alone had the courage to redeem it.

THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1876, 1880, AND 1884.

At the election of 1876 Governor Hayes of Ohio was the Republican candidate, and Governor Tilden of New York the Democratic candidate. The poll was enormous, being a gain of 2,000,000 over that of 1872, and of 2,700,000 over the exciting election of 1868. Hayes received 4,033,768 votes; Tilden 4,285,992. There were 81,737 "Greenback" and 9,522 "Prohibition" votes. Tilden had a plurality of about 250,000 votes, but was in a minority of one in the electoral college, in which the vote stood: Hayes 185, Tilden 184. After a memorable struggle, Hayes was declared elected. Under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, he conducted the country with firmness through a perilous crisis. He maintained with dignity his rights as President, redeemed his public pledges with scrupulous exactitude, took advanced steps in the direction of civilservice reform, restored specie payments, and resisted with courage the repeal, by a Democratic Congress, of statutes en

acted to protect polls from frauds and jury-boxes from the polluting presence of the criminal-sympathizing class.

The accession of President Hayes has come to be regarded. in Democratic literature as the colossal fraud of the century. But the principle which controlled the Electoral Commission in its various judgments upon the points submitted to them is an impregnable one. It was, that the "votes to be counted are those presented by the States, and when ascertained and presented by the proper authorities of the States they must be counted." Outside of this principle all is chaos. If this were ever open to doubt, it must now be regarded settled since the recent act of 1887, defining how the Presidential count is to be made, enacts definitely that a determination, by the proper authorities of a State, of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of electors in such State is "conclusive and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes" of such State. The Democratic members of the Electoral Commission of 1877 unitedly resisted the application of this plain principle to the count of that year. But the Democratic members of Congress and the Democratic President of 1887 unitedly prescribed the rigid application of this plain principle to all future Presidential counts. The Democracy furnished in this a striking illustration of a most characteristic trait-applying to a pending case a convenient rule which suits their interests, and content to apply to all future cases a different rule which is the law. So happily do they blend present greed with future duties, their interests of to-day with their principles of to-morrow. The critical reader of events who carefully scans the fierce Democratic denunciations of the decisions of the Electoral Commission to which the country is quadrennially treated cannot help asking why the principle of the act of 1887 can be considered sound enough to control all future contests and not sound enough to have properly controlled the contest of 1877. The question will never be answered. But the denunciation will, neverthe

less, go on.

But it is said that certain local Returning Boards illegally excluded from their count of the popular vote certain votes. cast for the Tilden electors, and thereby changed the result.