The Osceola times., 1876-09-16

that honesty and efficiency, not poll
tical activity, would determine the
tenure of Office" That approval and
assurance are found in an executive
: order" Many of you trusted and ex.
pressed your confidence by voting fol
Gen. Grants reelection. You thought
that with the aid of a board of officers
he could and would remedy the growing
evils. You trusted him because you
admired him as a great and successful
soldier. And you relied upon his per.
sonal integrity and his iron will. Have
you been disappointeds Political assess.
ments, the most pernicious influence
have been and are enforced with relent.
less exaction. Collected as a tax and
expended as a bribe, manhood, honor
and public virtue are all assailed. And
has that other assurance been kept tc
the hope? Have "honesty and eff
cheney, and not political activity" de.
termined the tenure of Office? Again
the answer is found in investigations, re-.
ports, indictments, verdicts and judg.
ments. Whose fault is it that there has
been no reform, but on the contrary that
the public service has been drifting from
bad to worse? 1t is not fair to charge it
altogether upon Gen. Grant. That
charge springs from an unworthy motive
on the part of a class of republicans who
seek Gov. Hayes election upon the
ground that he can accomplish reforms
which Gen. Grant could net or would
not bring about. Upon this subject
Gov. Morton expressed the following
opinion in his late speech:
"The administration of any president
will be in the main what the party
which elected him makes it, If he
breaks away from his party, the chances
are that he will be broken down. In q
government of parties like ours the presi-
dent must have his choice of officers
The men to whom he owes his election,
who have defended him from assaults, to
whom he must look for support in the
future, will ordinarily control his action,
and he will do nothing offensive to them"
In a larger degree that expresses the
truth in respect to Gen. Grants admin
istration. 1t is what its party has made
it. And his party is what its leaders
have made it. Four years ago, in my
opening address as a candidate for gov
nor, Iexpressed my personal respect for
Gen. Grant in the opinion that the peo-
pie had less cause to apprehend an evil
policy from him than from the malign
and powerful influences with which he
would be surrounded. You all know
that the results have more than realized
my predictions. Civil service reform is
now sneered at, and has ceased to be
even pretense. Wasteful expenditures
have continued, and official misconduct
has become widespread and alarming.
Surely the president can not be relieved
of responsibility Of so shameful a condi-
tion of public affairs, but yet the admin.
istiation IL, in the main, what the party
managers have made 1t. Will II be
otherwise if that party elects the suc-
cessor? Do you find the ground of such
hope and expectation in the candidate
himself? Do you claim that he is a per-
son of higher personal character than
Gen. Grant And that he will more
certainly keep his pledges to the people?
Or do you think he is a man of stronger
will to stand by his convictions and his
| pledges? Gen. Grant had four years of
civil experience when he pledged him
self and his administration to reform.
Even he was not strong enough TO
achieve success in the midst Of the ad-
verse influences which party and party
leaders brought him.
Is the party, with the machinery in
the hands of the well-known managers
and leaders, better than Gen. Grant?
Does it show disposition or ability for
reform? A democratic house ;of repre-
sentatives has lifted the covering and the
country is astounded and shocked at the
spectacle. You may judge of the tenn
per of the party by the manner in which
1t receives the investigations, exposures
| and proposed reforms. When you see
the newspapers and aders convulsed
with rage because crime is exposed and
criminals are brought to punishment,
you know full well that party under
such control can not restore public vir.
| tue. Again, YOU seek retrenchment in
public expenditures. Can you rea-
sonably expect it from the party in
power? Turn to the history of the past
eight months. A democratic house de-
termined upon retrenchment. In every
bill appropriating money they applied
the test the lowest sum possible cOnsis
tent with efficient administration. I'm
less offices were abolished, extravagant
salaries reduced, and unnecessary work
suspended or abandoned, and the result
was reduction of about forty million
dollars as the bills passed the house.
| The retreL ment WAS resisted in the
senate and the opposition was carried TO
the extreme Of threatened suspension
of the public service. So determined
was the senate that upon many bills the
house was compelled to yield somewhat.
The result was a reduction of only thirty
millions in the appropriations, as they
finally passed. A reduction Of thirty
millions at the first session is the reform
in economy with which the house re-
turns to the people. Will YOU stand by
the house, or will you sustain the senate
and the administration? Ny fellow.
citizens, upon which side of this we'll
defined line will you stand?
| have another inquiry to make Of
you, the answer to which will influence
your votes Have you reason to confide
in and rely upon the pledges of reform
made at St Louis? The pledges were
distinctly made not so in the Cincinnati
platform. There no reform, no retrench-
ment was promised. The assurance that
the civil service should be purified, the
expenditures reduced. and useless offices
abolished, would have been rebuke and
condemnation of the administration Of
Gen. Grant. On the contrary, the Gin
cinnati platform declares the national
administration merits commentator for
its honorable work in the management
r l.-....:, a,I fora;vx, ofT.;rsv y Dut