Year: 1867

The Hon. S. s. Cox, "a gentleman who left


Ohio because the people there got tired OF


electing him to Congress, and grayitated nat


urally enough to the Democratic city of New


York, said at the dedication Of the new Tam


many Hall on the 4th of last month, that a


bad harvest this fall would ensure Demo-


cratic victory at the polls. Mr.. Cox Is mistak-


en-. A famine followed by such plague as a


Democratic administration would be a con-


junction Of disasters too great for reasonable


anticipation. But it is instructive to note


how steadily Democratic politicians persist in


resting their hopes upon some national disas-


ter, some malgn operation OF the forces OF


nature, anything except a just and wise policy


prevailing by its own merits over the policy


of their opponents. During the war they had


strong hopes of prevailing by the aid of draft


riots and other mutinous demonstrations at


the North. To the very last they hoped


against hope for the success ofSouthern arms,


and one of their number on the very floor of


Congress prayed that our armies might never


sphiuGate the South When Lee surrendered,
they were shocked and staggereu, anu the
Connecticut election went by default. They
have rallied again. They hope now that the
Congressional scheme of reconstruction will
fail. Our Democratic President has stood
persistently in the way of reconciliation, and


the Democratic members of Congress have
helped Thaddeus Stevens carry the measures
which they regarded as most obnoxious to the
South. The Democratic party is mainly re-
sponsible for the delay in the restoration OF
the Southern States to THEN normal relations
to the general government. 1t is perhaps as
well. Their mischievous intentions have
doubtless been overruled for good. When the
Southern States are represented again, their
representatives viii be democrats indeed and
not in name. II raVh41rd lEs


Who has heard any Democrat in Congress
complaining of the exemption of United


States bonds from taxation? Jack Rogers did
introduce bill repeating all acts Of Con-
gress exempting these stocks from taxation.
Whether he did not know that the exemp-
tion rests not upon the laws OF Congress, but
upon the constitution as interpreted by the
Supreme Court, or whether the bill was mere
ly designed for effect, it is immaterial to In
quire; but when less than month after
ward Mr.. Spalding brought forward a resolu-
ton defining the act of June 80, 1864, and
declaring money on hand in the form of
United States notes not exempt from taxa
alton, it was Jack Rogers and nobody else
who moved to lay the resolution on the table.
1t has not been the purpose Of the Democratic
members of Congress and is not the purpose
of the Democratic party to raise this question
in any practical form. 1t is the threat of re-
puliation and the consequent depreciation of
government securities which they hope to
find available for party purposes. When
President johnson propounded his astonish-
ing theory about the responsibility of the ma
tional government for the Southern State
debts. though no Democrat in Congress was
foolish enough to commit himself to such an
absurdity, there were Democratic new spapers
which did MT hesitate to defend 1t. The sole
effect of such doctrine was, and was design
ed TO be, to disturb public confidence. That
it had no disastrous influence is simply due
to the fact that it was promptly and unani-
mously condemned in the United States Sen
ate. d .nsHsi sal .sa


We hear good deal lately from the Demo
cratic press about the decline in American
shipping. Well, Secretary McCulloch called
attention to that matter in his last annual re-
port. The Republican press took it up imme-
diately, and called upon Congress to provide
a remedy. Did the Democratic newspapers
say anything then +? Not word. Did Dem
ocratic CongressmeE propose a remedy? Not
at ALL Congress provided for the discontinue
ance of the oppressive duplication OF tonnage
duties, and attempted to relieve the overbur-
dened shipbuilders. The twenty-second sec
ton of the tariff bill allowed drawback of
all duties levied on materials imported for use
in the construction Of shipping. The passage
OF this bill would have enabled our shipbuild-
ers to compete once more with the shipbuild-
ers in the British Provinces. Why was that
bill defeated? Does noteverybody know that
it was opposed by the solid vote of the Demo
Gratis in Congress and the unanimous howl of
the Democratic press? 1t is the opposition
of the Democratic party which defeated this
beneficent measure. Is anybody foolish
enough to believe that party sincerely anx-
ious to relieve our shipbuilders?


This is the party which talks of increasing
its vote iu Maine this fall-a party which has
vainly hoped for a failure of the crops, which
opposes any measure designed to restore to our
their former prosperity, which has
persistently stood in the way Of any just set
Element of our quarrel with the South, in
short party without policy and without pa
triotism, depending for its sole hope of sue
cess upon the chances which may turn up in
the confusion attending some public disaster,
and deliberately seeking to bring about the
misfortunes by which it hopes to pront' as
thieves set fire to towns to profit by the op-
portunity for pillage. When such a party
succeeds, honesty will have ceased to be the
best policy and love of country will have be-