stroy the army and the National banks, and in order to Ishow that it is sincere it nominates for President a Major-General in that very army, and also nominates for the second place on the ticket a President of a National Bank. Now you know they are honest. I have not one word to say against General Hancock. No doubt he was

a good, brave, splendid soldier; but if he was right at Gettysburg, he is wrong now; if he believed in State rights then, he had no right to trample that right between the hoofs of his horse. The South

WENT AT GETTYSBURG

believing in State sovereignty. Lee believed in it. Jackson fought for it, and Hampton swears that the cause of Democracy to-day is the same cause that Lee and Jackson fought for. Hampton, an honorable man, told the truth. Who has changed since the battle of Gettysburg, Hancock or the South, The South remains where it was, firm as ever; the men who shot at him there wish to vote for him now. They have not changed. Who has? Hancock is a soldier, I know, but a few of his ideas in regard to government—all I know I get from Order No. 40, from his letter of acceptance, which is in general terms an approval of the constitution (laughter), and from two or three letters and telegrams that he has written and sent since his nomination. They say that by Order No. 49 General Hancock showed that he was in favor of exalting the civil power above the military. That order did no such thing; that order tells the General that he must not interfere unless for the purpose of keeping order. Who under that order would decide whether there was order, the General or the civil power? Under that

order the General was to decide whether there was order or disorder. From his decision there was no appeal, and Order No. 49 puts the civil power beneath the feet of the military authorities, and everybody knows it that has sense to read. General Hancock, too, the other day had the kindness to certify that if his party did wrong he would not. He tells the American people in substance: "Of course you cannot trust the Democracy, but you can rely on me. (Great laughter.) If my party passes a law to pay the Southern claims, I now give you my honor that I will defeat that party that exalts me to power." (Laughter and applause.) In other words, he agrees to veto the bill in advance; he agrees even before he is elected President. He swears how he will use a certain discretionary power vested in him by the Constitution, and he cannot foresee what the circumstances will be; yet in advance he solemnly swears what his better judgment will be then. He knows exactly how discreet he will be. (Laughter.) He certifies to the American people that he will veto any law that the party may pass

for the

PAYMENT OF SOUTHERN CLAIMS.

How did he ever come to suspect that his party would pass such a law? (Laughter and prolonged applause.) Garfield has written no letter that de will veto a law to pay Southern claims. Is it not a little strange that the candidate has to certify to his party? As a rule, in this country, the party has always certified to the candidate. If General Garfield would certify that he would veto a certain law if it was passed by the Republican party, the whole party would feel insulted. We would say to him: "We will take care of ourselves; when you become Presi

dent, exercise your power as in your discretion you believe you ought, but do not certify to the moral character of the Republican party." Why did Hancock think it necessary to certify to their character? Because he knew it is bad. He really thought the American people had more confidence in him than in the Democratic party; for that reason he steps to the front and says to the country: "I will not allow these ragamuffins behind me—I will not allow these rebels who placed me in power-I will not allow them to pass a law that I don't

want.

He says, "I admit they are bad; look at them. I admit you cannot trust them, but between the hungry horde and the American people, I promise to throw the shield of my veto." He says, “Ladies and gentlemen, I will protect you from this party. All I want of these men is to make me President, and then I will protect you and let them go to the Devil." General Hancock might die; Death might veto him. From the grave he could not carry out his promise, and who comes in then? Mr. English. Death has never yet elected a good President in the United States, yet Death has always made a frightful mistake. Read the letter of acceptance made by Mr. English, and tell me whether you are willing to trust that man. Read his history. A man who has done nothing but loan money, take deeds of trust on the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the people, and then foreclose the deed, and yet, after nominating that man the Democratic party passes a resolution that they will save the people from

THE CORMORANTS.

It won't do; we don't want him. I had rather trust a

party than any man; so would you-you had rather trust the Republican party than simply General Hancock. He says: "I am a shepherd; I will take care of the sheep; I admit that my followers are wolves." Well, I say, rather than have the wolves we will dispense with you. (Applause and laughter.) What are the ideas of this soldier? What are his ideas about money! He was a hardmoney man they tell me. Mr. Bayard, the representative of hard money, a man who once in the Senate voted to pay the bonds in depreciated money, and to pay them at the same price at which they were originally sold, that man now says: "As fast as we redeem a greenback let us burn it up; let us put the greenback out of the country; when he knows the greenback bears no interest; when he knows it is gold. What are the opinions, I say, of General Hancock? I say he is for hard money, and yet when a Greenbacker carried Maine, he congratulated him. Why should he do that if he is a believer in hard money? Why should he be delighted because a believer in paper money carried the State of Maine? I don't know. Maybe, after all, he was not so glad that the Greenbackers carried the State as that the Republicans lost it. What does that man believe in? Does he believe in free trade? I don't know. What kind of a tariff does he want? I don't know. What is his opinion about things of interest to every man here? I don't know. You do not know. I would like to hear from him. I wish we had heard from him years and years ago. In 1868 he was opposed to all legislation that has made the negro a citizen. In 1868 he was opposed to all the

LEGISLATION GROWING OUT OF THE WAR.

Only a little while ago he was in favor of soft money;

only a little while ago he said that we never could redeem; only a little while ago he was a Democrat of that

school; and now we are

Now we are told he is

told he is a hard-money man. in favor of the constitutional

amendments. Now we are told he is in favor of an honest vote everywhere. It won't do.

GARFIELD.

On the other hand, we have a man who is a trained statesman, who has discussed those questions time and time again, and whose opinions are well known to all the intelligent people of this Union. He was as good a soldier as Hancock was. (A voice, "A volunteer," and applause.) The man who makes up his mind in a time of profound peace to make war the business of his life; the man who is adopted by the Government; the man who makes war his profession, is, in my judgment, no better than the man who in time of peace would rather follow the avocations of peace, and who, when war comes, when the blast of conflict blows in his ears, buckles on his sword and fights for his native land, and, when the war is over, goes back to the avocations of peace. (Applause.) I say that Garfield was as good a soldier as Hancock, and I say that Garfield took away from the field of Chickamauga as much honor as one man can carry. He is a trained statesman. He knows what he is talking about, and he talks about it well. I have known him for years. I know him as well as I know any other man, and I tell you that he has more brains, more education, wider and more splendid views, than any other man who has been nominated for the Presidency since I was born. (Applause.)