The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-04-06
cARFIELD'S HARANGUE.
.rrECH ABOUT WHICH DEMOCRATS
EXPRESS roo MUCH CONCERN.
m tIaring Inconsistencies and Its Prob
able 0ntc0me-Aa Unnecessary search
tor nm Unsav0ry Rsc0rd-The Isusbear
Of Il SOLID North.


WASHINGTON, April $. 1870
The fact that the speech Of Garfield last
saturday In thu House has been the leading
tcpic Of comment In Democratic circles here
aver since, proves nothing except that the
Democratic organization Ms represented In the
two branches Of Congress Ia deficient In two
qualities which, In military parlance. are de-
nominated steadlness and morale. | did not
hear
GARrIEbD's SPEECH.
I never do hear bis speeches If / am able TO
Qet out OF earshot about the time no opens
the principal oriilce In that oozy countenance
of his: for despise the man and contemn his
methods, and you know one never cares to
listen to q man one despises or to wit
ness the employment Of methods one
holds In contempt. But when ! saw
alarm depicted on the countenances OF my
Democratic friends, and heard no hing ex-
cept speculations as to "the probable effect
DR. aarfields speech" the Incident aroused
ID me din interest cognate to that which IN
pels ono To seek out the details OF some dis
uustips righteousness which 1t Ia a foible OF
human nature to read with avidity In ratio OF
their revoltingness. Under this Impulse !
nrocured copy Of the Record and read the
speech Of Garfield
was not disappointed. except In one par
ticular to wit: In that the amount Of COM
\ mept 1t had provoked had led me to antlci-
nate for II character " novelty In idea, II
not of force In expression, superior to Gar
nelds average, and tho reality die not meet
this anticipation.
II does not require much space to describe
this speech. IL was simply special plea for
Tho Divine Right OF Radicallsm; an ca pdrie
treatise on the Holiness of the Pharsee In
politics; mass Of sophistry. ingenious and
intricate In come parts, shallow and diapha-
nous In others and flimsy and feeble M q
whole. Its teachtng-if IL taught anythin,
atall-was that everything which is not Gar
field must be- ipso facto, wicked, barbarous.
revolutionary and wrong.
IL was pronunciamento to the effect that
the voice or the people ID the voice Of God only
when the voice of the people IL uttered out Of
the mouth of Garfield; but that whenever God
chooses other channels OF expression than
the mouth Of Garfield 1t IL clear case Of I'M
pertinence on the party Of Deity.
Az soon rs Garfield had finished, some of
the Democrats rushed Off to hunt up his
record as late as last December, when he in
Weighed against the sort III discussion which
Ne now INDUCED In, But that was q work Of
supererogation. 1t is not necessary at any
time to go back four months In order to make
Garfield stand himself on his head. He has
been appended too often inside Of twenty
bis veracity between December and March
aformidable affair. A man who could solemnly
asseverate on the floor of the House that he
had never touched dollars help him God,
and upon his sacred honor as an able states
man he had never seen a paving contract or
0 certificate of Credit Mobilier stock and
then 40 down on his knees In committee
room to explain q fee Of $4,000 In one case and
Cakes Ames memoranda In another, before
his denial had ceased to reverberate against
the skylghts, ought not to be held up on a
point of consistency four months old
The question whether Garfield has been
consistent " not, ~ to my mind one Of the
\ least important and most embarrassing ques-
tons that could be raised. In fact,
THE RAISING OF SUCH QUESTION
tends to invest him and his utterances with
dignity they do not merit; for that II involves
the presumption that his views on some side
d some question at some time ought to be
entitled to some weight. In his own estimation
A least, and | am not ready to admit even
that much Of consequences to him.
No, there has been altogether too much
Democratic worry over Garheld's speech. 1t
possesses value, but not in the direction
given It, The value of Garfield's speech lies
70 its character as an index Of the utter des-
peration OF Radicalism; the complete aban-
comment Of the spirit of that organization to
the Impulses OF crime, fury and revenge, re-
CARELESS Of sense, reason or decency. Be-
tween Gariields raising his hand to assas-
slnate the peace and fellowship Of the land
because the return OF that peace and fellow
snip involves the hurting OF himself and all
lhe brood of which he is the sample spawn
nom power and Tom Buford raising his
hand to assassinate the upright Judge, who,
IN discharging his duty under the law, had
ocne him out OF some property that belonged
% somebody else, there is not more than ten
cents worth Of difference and even that Is In
hvor Of Tom Buford,
The crime OF Butord, In addition to It's
shock upon the moral sense of the community.
raises the graver question as to the condi-
lions of society under which such diabolism
becomes possible. 10 perhaps the speech Of
varheld. In addition to the shock 1t gives to
y THE MORAL SENSE OF THE COUNTRY"
may raise question as to the political cors,
dltions under which such doctrine may be
uttered as a party Keynote in the national
Vongress. On this hypothesis there is some
excuse for the alarm OF my Democratic
friends; but on no other.
The spectre which the Democrats see
clothed in the garb OF Garfeld's rhetoric Is
Solid North"-a vague, intangible thing
enough when attempt is made to reduce 1t to
.acss and figures but horrible as distant
aOogoblin. Now, then, a solid North set over
sgalnst solid South means state OF war In
snument il not In act-means conflict be-
Meen two peoples, or rather two civilizations,
which may be waged in debate or in battle,