behind every ballot." The necessity would easily be found if the Republican party controlled the power and needed the votes.

Then the bill, in order that no hostile House of Representatives may interfere with it, makes permanent the appropriations for carrying it out. Now note some of the objections to it.

First, it provides for an army of office-holders at an enormous expense. Over two hundred and fifty thousand is a moderate estimate of the number of officers provided for by the bill, and the expense would be many millions of dollars.

Second, it leads as certainly to corruption as it does to gross partisanship. All the "floaters" could be made deputy marshals at five dollars per day, and the chief could assign them to nominal duties.

Third, it surrounds the polls with paid agents of the Republican party, and authorizes the use of the army at the polls. We have had some experience of this in the Southern States. We have seen there United States troops at the polls and in the halls of legislation. Massachusetts has uttered her indignant and non-partisan protest against such action. She felt the danger from it to her as well as to Louisiana. "The Cradle of Liberty" rang out the warning that Federal interference with elections in a State, and Federal soldiers directing the functions of a State, were a menace to self-government and to free institutions; and to that meeting of protest in 1876 Mr. Lodge, I believe, gave the influence of his name and assistance.

Fourth, it interferes necessarily with the conduct of State elections, and leads to conflict, as I have said, between State and National authority.

Fifth, it drags the judiciary into politics, and may make it part of the Republican machine, and under the

control of a Republican chief supervisor of elections. We have had some experience of this, too, with the electoral commission of 1876, with the partisan orders of Republican judges in the South, and with the judicial release of the chief manipulator of the Republican corruption fund of 1888. The confidence of the people in their judiciary ought not to be impaired by asking judges to become partisans, and to be made responsible for the partisan acts of partisan officers.

Sixth, it may interfere with the secrecy of the ballot and the reforms accomplished by our Australian ballot law.

Seventh, it practically hands over to the Republican party, backed by Federal power, the right to canvass voters, register them, challenge them, count their votes, and certify the result of the election. The people prefer to do this themselves. They have not entire confidence in the Republican party, since it by gross fraud, and through just such agencies as the Lodge Bill creates, seized the Presidency in 1876. Recent events, too, in Montana, New Hampshire, and Connecticut remind us of their abuse of political power and their willingness to override the will and votes of the people in order to get and retain office.

The crime in the election of 1876 was followed by the scandals in the election of 1888. At last the Republican party, facing the fact that the people have lost confidence in them, their methods, and their selfish policy, seek to devise some means to override the people's will and defeat their free choice.

Eighth. Lastly, the Force Bill, changing the practice of one hundred years, tells the States that they cannot. be trusted to regulate and control their elections, and so this power must be taken from them. That bill says to Massachusetts: "The Republican party mistrusts

your fairness and honesty in elections. You must surrender the right you have always had to control them, and give over this right to the National Government, to be exercised by Republican officials aided by Federal soldiers."

The bill is an insult to the State and a blow at selfgovernment. I do not wonder that the Republican senator, Teller, whose vote was influential in defeating the measure after it had passed the House, thus described it:

"Two years nearly have elapsed. I have read that bill with care and attention more than twenty times. I have read it again in the light of calm consideration, and I repeat, that if it were presented to me now, with the question of my support or party dismissal, I should not vote for the bill. A more infamous bill, in my judgment, never passed the threshold of the Senate. Avowedly in the interest of good government, it was instigated, in my judgment, by men whose interest was in preventing a free expression of the voters at the polls."

The people are always jealous of their right of selfgovernment. They know the further political power is removed, the less control they have of it. To be selfgovernment, it must be kept within their reach. The control they exercise must be through their elections. When deprived of the right to control them, or when this right is put into partisan hands, self-government is put beyond their reach.

The Republican party stands thoroughly committed to this Force Bill. Not only by the declarations and acts of men like Mr. Lodge and Speaker Reed, who declared, "We must cut loose from State elections and do our own registration, our own counting, and our own certification," but it stands committed by the

recommendation of its President, and by repeated declarations in its National and State platforms.

Its National Convention this year again committed the party thoroughly to the support of the Force Bill; and almost without exception its State Conventions. have pledged the party to its support.

But Republican advocacy does not rest on pledge and declaration alone. Under the leadership of Mr. Lodge, by the coercion of Speaker Reed, and through the urgency of a Republican President, the law passed a Republican House, and was defeated in the Senate only because the conscience of a few Republicans rebelled against it.

Just as emphatically the Democrats stand opposed to this measure, and have shown their opposition by declaration and pledge, and by their united votes in Congress.

27

I

SPEECH

AT NEWBURYPORT, OCT. 14, 1892, UPON THE TARIFF, ESPECIALLY IN ITS RELATION TO TRUSTS.

PROPOSE to-night to consider with you the tariff question, and to begin by pointing out some of the evils of a high-tariff protection. I maintain, first, that it raises prices and the cost of living higher than they otherwise would be, and to that extent it is a burden which enters into every home and is felt by every individual. This is clearly shown by the official declaration of Mr. McKinley, the author of the bill, in his report submitting it to Congress. Speaking for his committee, he said: "We have not been so much concerned about the prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage a system of home production," etc.

No, sir, you were not concerned about prices to consumers, but you were concerned about privileges and profits to special interests. He further said in that report: "We have not believed that our people, already suffering from low prices" Mark that expression, "suffering from low prices!" He speaks of it as a calamity, like the cholera or the yellow fever. Do people suffer from low prices? Does the head of a family, earning his $1.50 per day, with a half-dozen little ones to support, suffer when coal is $1 a ton less, or flour $1 a barrel cheaper? I say that that phrase is an insult to the people of this country.