The laws of those States gave those Boards this precise power, if on proofs made the facts justified such exclusion. These officers exercised this power upon their own judgment, as all officers must. Upon what proofs they acted is not now accurately known. If they abused their power and certified to a false result, and the electors so certified discharged that duty by casting their votes against the will of the majority of the legal votes cast at a legal election honestly held and honestly returned, the wrong was one for which the States had failed to provide a remedy, and for which, under our system, the Congress could not then prescribe a remedy. For the State could not reverse an act legally done, nor could the two houses of Congress, in counting the electoral vote, "inquire into the circumstances under which the primary vote for electors was given." Charges and counter-charges were freely made respecting frauds in the Presidential election. The facts were never fully inquired into, and the truth may never be known. But, whatever be the truth or falsehood of these various charges, the fact remains that as a question of law the act of the State bound the Commission and the Congress, and this rule is now impregnably established in statute as it was before in principle.

On the other side of this question there is no doubt. The discovery and interpretation of the "cipher telegrams," many of which were traced to Gramercy Park, New York City, make clear the existence among the Democratic leaders of a distinct purpose to meet the emergency by procuring, somehow, the vote of a Republican elector. This conspiracy had many ramifications. In the North it took the form of indignant remonstrance or seductive appeal. In the South it took the form of corruption. All failed. Tilden was beaten in the Electoral College, and was so discredited by the damaging proofs of his connection with the conspiracy to bribe that his party in 1880 could not be induced, by renominating him, to seek a vindication for him against the "fraud of 1876-27." They chose to give their favor to one not known as a manager of politics. This refusal to renominate Tilden in 1880 was a confession that Tilden's party dare not go to the country on his record in the Presidential count of 1876. Notwithstanding

this confession, that party, at every recurring interval, has the effrontery to resolve how grievously Tilden was cheated and how beautifully he bore the injustice. The play is intended to be touching. It is merely ridiculous. The known crimes of the Democratic leaders in that connection can safely be set off against all the charges made by them against either the popular or the electoral count.

In 1880 James A. Garfield was the Republican candidate, and Winfield S. Hancock the Democratic. Both had served. gallantly in the Union Army. But Garfield had also shone resplendently in the halls of legislation. In the election Garfield received 4,454,416 votes, and Hancock 4,444,952 votes. There were 308,578 "Greenback" votes and 10,305 "Prohibition." The popular vote of the two great parties was almost a tie, but Garfield had a majority of 59 in the Electoral College. His untimely death brought into the Presidency Chester A. Arthur. During his administration an advance step was taken in the duty of extirpating polygamy from Utah and other Territories; the Civil Service Act was passed; while the Tariff Act of 1883 and the American Merchant Marine Act gave marked relief to the business interests of the country.

In 1884 James G. Blaine was the Republican candidate, and Grover Cleveland the Democratic candidate. The campaign was the most disreputable since 1844, in the prominence given to malicious personalities and in the unimportance attached to policies and measures. The vote reached the aggregate of 10,067,610. Of these, Mr. Blaine had 4,851,081, Mr. Cleveland 4,874,968. There were 175,370 "Labor" votes, and 150,369 Prohibition. Cleveland had a plurality of 23,005 over Blaine, and a majority in the Electoral College of 37. But that majority was due to the 36 votes cast for Cleveland by the State of New York, in which the returns showed that he had a plurality of only 1,149. It has never been clear that the result as declared was the result shown by the ballots cast. But as it was manifestly impossible within the thirty days which elapsed between the election and the meeting of the Electoral College, to make a contest over the declared result in that State, where over one million of votes were cast, there was nothing left for the Re

publicans to do but to acquiesce in the return, and allow Gov. Cleveland to be declared elected President. By so narrow a margin did the Republicans lose the Presidency, which had been in their hands for the last preceding twenty-four years.

A SUMMARY.

The Republican party established the homestead policy. James Buchanan vetoed it as unconstitutional. And it was unconstitutional according to the prevailing Democratic interpretations of that instrument. It was not unconstitutional according to the Republican interpretation of that instrument, which no court has yet been found to overthrow. That policy has, since 1861, established not less than 771,700 homes, representing three and a half millions of people, with lands under cultivation reaching an aggregate in acres equal to that of all the New England States, of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware put together.

By the power of courageous and intelligent legislation it has broken down the barriers which made our Atlantic and Pacific States strangers to each other, has fused all these varied elements of population into one harmonious whole, and given from each strength to the other.

It has shed the light of its just and humane spirit upon the problems connected with the Indian question.

It has steadily and discreetly antagonized the remaining "relic of barbarism," which at last gives signs of yielding in its sources of power.

66

To the last act in this direction President Cleveland declined to lend the weight of executive approval. He allowed it to become law by lapse of time. Unwilling to veto it, unable to pocket" it, he sought avoidance in an attitude of indifference. It has embedded in law the principles of civil-service reform, which a hostile Democracy discards but has not yet had the courage to attempt repeal.

It stands ready to help cure the progressive illiteracy among voters, but finds relentless opposition in the Democratic party, which is most powerful in States which are most illiterate.

It is always and everywhere for an honest suffrage, for an honest count, for an honest return of the vote cast-a united Democracy giving to the same sacred cause a lip-service which it interprets by a dastardly record of acts.

It is the stalwart friend of every distinctively American thought, the defender of every American interest, and, by the very law of its being, the faithful protector of the rights of American labor, wherever or howsoever employed.

It embodies the only policies which are consistent with the highest, best development of the American people.

It represents the most brilliant post in the politics of civilization. By reason of causes within itself, it must be the great party of the future.