JK2352 1894 NOTICE. In the preparation of this volume the editor has made use of material found in the Congressional Record without giving credit to the several Senators and Representatives whose remarks have been utilized, except in cases where the character of the debate was such that names must necessarily appear. The services of:Hon, W. W. Curry, of Indiana, are acknowledged in the preparation of the work The tables used have been verified and corrected throughout the entire work: The figures can therefore be quoted with absolute assurance by speakers and writers. Great care should be taken in noticing the BLACK-FACED TITLES of the book, as this will guide the reader invariably to the subject without the use of an index. All important matter relating to money is found under the headings of "Currency" and "Coin." The volume has been prepared under great disadvantages to the editor, by reason of the haste and confusion incident to the work of the campaign and the closing hours of Congress. It is therefore not so full and complete in all it details as at first contemplated by the editor; but we believe it to be sufficiently so to be of invaluable assistance to those interested in the subjects herein contained. THOMAS H. MCKEE, September 12th, 1894. Assistant Secretary. Copyrighted 1894, by Thomas H. McKee.) DE If a Nation was made of adamant, free trade would grind it to powder.' -Napoleon. UNIV. OF ORIGIN AND PARTY. Political parties exist in all free governments, representing opinions and purposes more or less coherent. Many of these parties are evanescent, because representing passing phases of public opinion; but some are permanent and endure for generations. Their organizations are necessarily loose, their declarations often incongruous, and their personnel stantly shifting; but still there are certain permanent tendencies in public affairs around which parties must adhere, under whatever changes of names, and pursuing whatever different immediate results. This will be found true of all parties in the United States. UNDER THE CONFEDERATION. During the revolutionary war the colonies were kept together by the spirit of patriotism, and the pressure of a common enemy. At its close the necessity presented itself of maintaining some sort of union in order to receive recognition in the family of nations. A confederation was formed; but its utter inefficiency soon became apparent, and they were driven to the adoption of the present Constitutional Government in order to form a more perfect Union for the purposes enumerated. Before and during the formation of this government there was developed a very wide and permanent difference of opinion as to what should be its scope and character, Before the war the colonies were independent of each other, having no political connection except through the distant mother country. In the formation of the new government, one class insisted on maintaining this indopendence as Sovereign States, while another demanded a united country under one sovereignty. Between these extremes, as a matter of necessity, the Constitution was finally adopted. The independence of the States was preserved in all that related to their local affairs,while the general government was made sovereign in all that concerned their external relations, The Constitution was formed in the name of the people, and not of the States. It was declared to be the supreme law of the land, even as against the state constitutions, and the nation was charged with the supreme au thority of guaranteeing to each state a government, republican in form. On the other hand, it was to be a government of delegated powers, and all pewer not delegated was expressly reserved to the states respectively, and the people M111892 The last eight decades have witnessed an And now at once began political contests as to what powers were delegated, and what reserved, and therefore as to whether the United States was a Nation or a Confederacy, and as to what it might and should do, and what it might not and should not do. In this controversy, which has not yet ceased, we find the origin and explanation of the permanent party divisions of the country. One side, realizing the disintegrating influences of local interests, jealousies, and ambitions, and the necessity for a strong common government to combine and hold these in permanent union, interpreted the constitutional grants of power broadly, insisted strongly on the supreme powers of the nation, and came to be called "Federalists." The other side, realizing the tyranny of centralized power, and the tendency of sovereigns, of whatever kind, to oppress the people, insisted on a strict construction of the constitutional grants and a limitation of govermental action to its narrowest limits, and came to be called "Republicans." And so the Federalists and Republican parties became the first parties to divide the voters of the country. It would not be correct to say that either of these parties consistently maintained its principle, or desired to push it to its ultimate results; but it is unquestionably true to say that each was decidedly influenced thereby in its' treatment of current politics. A logician might say that Federalism must necessarily end in centralization, and a loss of the independence or the states, and that Republicanism, as set out in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, must necessarily end in secession and national dissolution. This may be true, but party politics is not logical, and so long as the two tendencies can be made to balance each other, the present framework of our government may be very well preserved. SLAVERY IN POLITICS. In accounting for the present Democratic and Republican parties and the controversies between them, it is impossible not to see the influence of the original party difference. On the collapse of the nullification movement, under the vigorous repression of President Jackson, the strenuous advocates of state sovereignty proceeded to intrench themselves behind the institution of slavery, and to convert the Democratic party into its advocate. The inconsistency of slavery with free institutions was generally felt and acknowledged from the beginning, and in the Constitution are evident marks of unfriendliness toward it. But the right of the States to continue it where it existed was not disputed, and no power to deal with it there was given to the general government. The most ardent Abolitionist did not pretend that it could be gotten rid of by National authority. Indeed, they denounced the Constitution because of its impotence in this respect. But the question of slavery was one which could not be kept out of politics. Should new States be admitted with Should it be allowed to exist in any place under exclusive' This is not a question of a seven-per-cent, reduction in tariff schedules; but it is a question of wide-apart principles.' -Benjamin Harrison, SLAVERY IN POLITICS, (Continued.) national control? Should the interstate traffic in slaves be permitted? Under what provisions of law should fugitive slaves be returned? Such questions would not down, but led to passionate controversies, and involved questions of constitutional power and duty, as well as of policy. The admission of Missouri led to protracted and bitter debate, and the compromise division of territory proved ineffectual. The annexation of Texas and the acquisition of new territory by the Mexican war added fuel to the flames, which the compromise measures of 1850 did not quench. The Kansas-Nebraska controversy quickly arose, and the Civil war soon followed. Up to the Missouri compromise the northern wing of the Democratic party was not committed to the extension of Slavery, nor the party avowedly pro-slavery, although from the days of Jack. son's breach with the nullifiers it was becoming more and more infected with the virus of the state sovereignty, pro-slavery poison of Calhounism. At no time was the Whig party an anti-slavery party. Among the most strenuous opponents to slavery extension were leaders in the Democratic party of the North, but their exertions were in vain against the slave propagandists of the South. The Whig leaders strove successfully to keep their party organization from taking sides and thereby sealed its death warrant. The storm of slavery agitation swept everything before it, and parties were compelled to allign themselves on the issues thus aroused, or give way to others. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. By the repeal of the Missouri compromise the last pretext was removed, and the Democratic party stood revealed as the instrument of slavery extension. The Whig party was dissolved after its imbecile campaign of 1852, and the Republican party arose to take its place. This party was not organized to abolish slavery in the states where it existed, but with an unalterable determination to prevent its extension into any of the territories either north or south of the Missouri line. The new party was composed of the body of the Whigs, and of large accessions from the Democratic party of such as would not be committed to the extension of slavery, and some of such Democrats were among its most conspicuous and ardent leaders. Its first national campaign, under John C. Fremont, was not successful in the election of a President; but the large vote that it polled, and the increasing dissensions in the Democratic ranks, were ominous to the propagandists. The four years of President Buchanan's administration were entirely under their control, and were spent in preparing for the eventuality of Republican success. Mr. Lincoln's election led to the immediate execution of their plans. The Government had been disarmed, its navy dispersed, its treasury emptied, and its credit sadly impaired. Before Mr. Lincoln's inauguration, seven states had passed ordinances of secession, and a Confederate Government was set up |