The Burchard Speech.

cedents have been rum, Romanism and rebellion. our flag. We are loyal to you.

159

We are loyal to

Dr. Burchard was followed by short addresses from Dr. Spear, Dr. MacArthur, Rabbi Browne, Dr. Roberts, and S. D. Halliday of Plymouth Church, and a word or two from others. Mr. Blaine was visibly affected by the occasion and replied briefly, but alluded in no way to the alliteration of Dr. Burchard. The meeting was held a little after noon, and before dark the streets of New York were covered with little handbills containing the words: "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion." It seemed as if millions of them had been suddenly thrown off the press and poured into every doorway, thrust into every hand, pasted upon every wall, almost literally covering the streets and sidewalks of the metropolis. The expression, which had not in any way impressed itself upon Mr. Blaine's mind at the time, was eagerly taken up by the Democratic committee, as its value was seen upon the eve of election. The Democratic and Mugwump press made the most of it, putting the words of Dr. Burchard into the mouth of Mr. Blaine, and making him alone responsible for the utterance. On the Saturday following at New Haven, Mr. Blaine himself in a speech remarked as follows:

There has been in my hands since my arrival in New Haven an address from the clergymen of this city expressing their respect and confidence, and through the person who delivered it the assurance that in matters of public right, and in matters of public participation under the laws and Constitution of the United States, they know no sect, they know no Protestant, no Catholic, no Hebrew, but the equality of all. In the city of Hartford I had a letter put in my hands asking me why I had charged the Democratic party with being inspired by Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. My answer in the first place is, that they put in my mouth an unfortunate expression of another man; and in the next place it gives me an opportunity to say, at the close of the campaign, that in public speeches which I have made I have refrained carefully and instinctively from making any disrespectful allusion to the Democratic party. I differ from that party profoundly on matters of principle, but I have too

much respect for the millions of my countrymen whom it embraces to assail it with epithets or abuse. In the next place, I am sure I am the last man in the United States who would make a disrespectful allusion to another man's religion.

The United States guarantees freedom of religious opinion, and before the law and under the Constitution the Protestant and the Catholic and the Hebrew stand entitled to absolutely the same recognition and the same protection, and if disrespectful allusion is here to be made toward the religion of any man, as I have said, I am the last man to make it, for though Protestant by conviction and connected with a Protestant church, I should esteem myself of all men the most degraded if under any pressure or under any temptation I could in any presence make a disrespectful allusion to that ancient faith in which my revered mother lived and died.

On the same evening, following the Burchard incident, Mr. Blaine dined at Delmonico's as the guest of Cyrus W. Field and other business men. The Democratic and Mugwump papers, however, emphasized the fact that Mr. Blaine had dined with Jay Gould, although Mr. Gould was but one of the two hundred prominent men present. Ex-Secretary Evarts presided and read several letters and telegrams of regret, closing the proceedings by saying: "I have the pleasure of reading another telegram from one who stands among the highest of all living poets of this country, a faithful combatant from the outbreak of the scheme of universal liberty until its consummation." He then read the following:

CYRUS W. FIELD:

AMESBURY, MASS., October Twenty-nine.

but

I cannot avail myself of the invitation to the banquet to-day, I join you in the hope that the coming election will call your honored guest to the high place he is so well fitted to fill.

JOHN G. WHITTIER.

An editorial in the New York Tribune of Saturday, November 1st, addressing the Mugwumps, said:

Consider, first, the provocation this year for a revolt from the Republican party. Mr. Blaine was the free and deliberate choice

Questions for Mugwumps.

161

of the Republican party. You cannot question this. But you fear the instinct of the great mass of Republican voters was wrong and that Mr. Blaine was not a proper candidate. Why do you fear this? Because Mr. Schurz, Mr. Curtis and Mr. Beecher say so? Is Carl Schurz a better lawyer or a more honorable public man than Mr. Evarts? Or is Mr. Curtis purer and more wholesome in his political convictions than Dr. Woolsey, or Dr. Porter, or Dr. Hopkins, or President White? Or is Henry Ward Beecher a safer guide in politics and morals than Dr. Storrs, or hundreds of the metropolitan clergy, who paid their respects to Mr. Blaine on Wednesday last? Be honest with yourselves and with the country. Are they three men to be blindly followed when the judgment of the shrewdest and most distinguished lawyers, the noblest and most conscientious statesmen, and the purest and most devout divines of the land is arrayed against theirs?

Nowhere during the campaign did the candidacy of Mr. St. John or Mr. Butler cause much attention, and yet the vote of each had no little bearing upon the result of the election. The election itself on November 4th passed off without particular incident, and the result will be seen in the table found on the next page:

VOL. II.-II

CHAPTER VII.

ADMINISTRATION OF CLEVELAND-FREE-TRADE MESSAGE

FOR

TARIFF DISCUSSION—THE MILLS BILL.

OR the first time since the Republican party elected its first President it was defeated, and yet by a margin so narrow that any one of a dozen causes can be given as the particular reason for the defeat of Mr. Blaine. A change of less than six hundred votes in the State of New York would have elected him. As it was, he received in New York State 220,000 more votes than did Mr. Folger in 1882. It is pretty clear, therefore, that he was not defeated by the Mugwump vote. The Burchard incident and the dinner given by the socalled capitalists and plutocrats at Delmonico's were no doubt the means of changing several hundred men from Mr. Blaine who had determined to vote for him. Mr. Butler drew away enough votes to have changed the result, as did also Mr. St. John. There were more than enough fraudulent votes cast and counted in the city of New York and Long Island to bring about the defeat of Mr. Blaine. Senator Hoar, in his Autobiography of Seventy Years, says:

I suppose it would hardly be denied now by persons acquainted with the details of the management of the Democratic campaign, at any rate I have heard the fact admitted by several very distinguished Democrats, members of the Senate of the United States, that the plurality of the vote of New York was really cast for Mr. Blaine, and that he was unjustly deprived of election by the fraud at Long Island City by which votes cast for the Butler Electoral Ticket were counted for Cleveland.