below the previous rate, and Republicans claim credit for this; but in fact why was it done by them? The election in 1874 showed great Democratic gains; the people were rising in their might and demanding reform. Seeing that there would be a large majority of Democrats in the next House to overhaul their doings, the Republicants went to work to set their house in order that they might die with decency. "Coming events cast their shadows before them," and the shadows of the national Democracy, as they marched forward, fell over them, and filled them with alarm. And when the Democrats actually came in, though compelled to fight both the Senate and the President, they effected these great results. Let us this year give them all the departments and we may hope for complete relief.

In Gov. Samuel J. Tilden we have the right man for this work. About six years ago he discovered that there had been fraudulent embezzlements of the public funds in New York. He took the matter in hand and prosecuted the guilty so vigorously that he broke up the ring, scattered its members, and got some of the more guilty into the penitentiary. His work was done so thoroughly and successfully, that the people of his State insisted on running him for the office of Governor. His opponent, Gov. Dix, was the strongest man the Republicans had in their ranks, and had been elected to the office by 50,000 majority. Tilden beat him by 51,000 votes, making the enormous gain of more than 100,000 votes. When he became Governor he did not rest on what he had done. There was in the State an immense combination of bad men of both parties, known as the "canal ring. With great labor he succeeded in breaking it up, and convicting many of its leaders. This ring had for years existed, and though composed mainly of Republicans, it had drawn into it, for the sake of their influence, some dishonest Democrats. Its power may be judged from this circumstance. Formerly the State of New York derived a large revenue from the tolls on its great canals, but this was all stopped by this ring, and they actually had the influence to obtain in taxes, from the people, to keep the canals in order, $2,400,000. Governor Tilden stopped this great stealing operation, and relieved the State from this immense tax on the people, and now the canals are in better condition without this subsidy than they were with it in the hands of the thieves.

He has also reduced the expenses of the State government from sixteen millions a year to little above eight millions. So overwhelming is his popularity that the people of his State presented him at St. Louis for our Presidential candidate, and pressed his claims with the most unbounded enthusiasm.

Gentlemen, is he not just such a man as we need to take charge both of our State and national governments? When Tilden is inaugurated at Washington, as I believe he will be on the 4th of March next, he will find such an immense operation before him that I think he will have to try the plan of Hercules. As you doubtless remember, Hercules was a bound boy, and like other boys in that condition, he was compelled to do a great amount of hard work. He was so strong, and worked so rapidly that he was obliged to travel from place to place to obtain em

ployment. During his ramblings he came into the dominions of a certain King Augeus. This king was a great stock raiser, and he had kept 30,000 yoke of oxen for thirty years in one stable without ever having it cleaned out. Hercules undertook the job, but on looking into it, he saw it was useless to try it with the spade. There was a considerable river not far off, on high ground. Hercules tore open the side of the mountain, and let the water down into the stables, and everything was thus swept out.

Providence, who foresees all things, and in His goodness provides for all things, has created on this continent such rivers as Hercules never saw when he marched through Greece. On the North there is the great St. Lawrence, with its immense column of blue water at Niagara; then west of the Alleghanies is the beautiful Ohio and the majestic Mississippi, the father of rivers, and the mighty Missouri, rising in the Rocky Mountains 10,000 feet above the sea, and coming down with the falling force of its two miles descent. Tilden will combine all these rivers into one mighty mass of falling water, and direct its immense volume against the city of Washington, and as it sweeps through the White House and the various Departments of the government, there will be a froth, a foam and a filth never hitherto seen. In its onward course, carrying such a load with it, it will sweep across the Chesapeake Bay and out into the broad Atlantic. But when it strikes against the Gulf Stream, that great ocean river, seventy miles wide, and running with the speed of the Mississippi itself, it will, I think, be deflected northward. The first land it will strike against will be the State of Maine. It will carry along with it, some things not a stranger to that State. The "carpet-baggers" will all get a free ride home. With our approbation this time, they will go go back as dead-heads. Upon reflection I think that great advantage will result to the State of Maine from this operation, for some years ago I read in the Patent Office Report that the land in the State of Maine was so poor that a man could not support himself by agriculture. This material, if we may judge of its qualities from the odors it sends out, is the strongest manure in the world, far surpassing Peruvian guano, or any other known substance. After fertilizing that State, it will be swept on northward, and the rocky coast of Labrador will bloom like a flower garden, and Greenland will become green again, and the Esquimaux Indians in their snow huts, will smell a sweet savor as it passes by. The greater portion of it will be carried to the North Pole, and there locked in everlasting ice, unless it shall occur that when "Satan is loosed for a season" to plague the nations, he should chance to poke up his horn in that quarter, and by liberating it add to the affliction of humanity.

Wherever we look, gentlemen, there seems to be a growing desire for a change in the action of the government. When a great party is thrown out of office, it is sometimes said that it has lost the floating vote. Many suppose that the vote thus referred to, is that of persons without stability of purpose. But that class consists of individuals, who are secured on the day of the election by the agents of either party. This is not the vote, that usually is the instrument that throws out one party and puts in another. There are in the country men of intelligence, principle, and great firmness of purpose, who scorn to be mere party "hacks.' Their patriotism and integrity enable them to rise above mere party consider

tions, and look to the great interest of their country. While true to principle, they may seem to be changeable as respects party. Suppose that a shallow and superficial man should for the first time, enter a court room during a trial. After listening to the counsel of the plaintiff and then of the defendant, he will hear the charge of the Judge, which settles the case in favor of the plaintiff; when the next case comes up, he would be ready to say, he knew how the case would go, because the Judge appeared to be a firm man, and to be consistent he must be in favor of the plaintiff again. What, then, would be his astonishment to see that the Judge in that case had gone over to the side of the defendant? After witnessing a week's proceedings he might exclaim, "Was there ever such a floater as this Judge?" He might not be able to see, that the Judge was all the while, pursuing the direct line of truth.

If, when you happen to be on the jury, a man should say to you, “Sir, last court you decided a case in my favor, and as you are a firm and consistent man, I know you'll decide in my favor at this term," you might reply, "It is true that I did find in your favor in that land suit, but the issue is now quite a different one in the horse stealing case, with which you are now charged." And yet, gentlemen, it is precisely by such argument as this, that the present Republican leaders seek to induce you to stand by that party. They say you voted with us formerly, and that you must do it again, or be inconsistent. You may reply to them that you formerly voted with them for reconstruction perhaps, but that there is a very different issue now to be decided, and that is whether the country is to be ruined by their oppression and robberies.

As patriots and true friends of your country, it is now your duty to remove from office, those who abuse the trust you have given them.

Instead of making any fair or manful defence, they seek to divert your minds from the true issue and excite your prejudices by referring to past events, that in fact, have no connection with the present. The man who, when you are moving forward, tries to make you look backward all the while, wishes you to fall in the pit he has dug for you. If it were not for feelings and prejudice growing out of events long since passed by, the people would with one voice demand a change. Of course I except the officeholders who wish to get a living at your expense.

When travelling on a steamboat along a river, I have observed that occasionally, a heavy weight on rollers is moved from one side of the boat to the other. The movement of this mass changes the direction of the vessel, so that it does not run on a quicksand, or against dangerous rocks and, in fact, it regulates the steamer and directs it safely on its course. In like manner, when the men of intelligence and public spirit change their position, they carry weight with them, and regulate properly the action of the government, and the country is saved from danger.

Let us then, fellow-citizens, discard all past prejudices, and by common consent move forward to reform the government. We can thus restore prosperity to the people, and show to all the world, that we are capable of maintaining in its purity, the free system, which we have inherited from glorious ancestors.

MODES OF PUBLIC SPEAKING.

With respect to speech making in general, it may not be out of place to say this much. Mr. Fox is reported to have remarked once, that if a speech read well, we might depend on it, that it was a bad speech when delivered, and if on the contrary, it were a good speech as delivered, then it would read badly. This remark is not, however, universally true, for there are many exceptions to its accuracy. Nevertheless, it must be admitted, that in a majority of cases, to a certain extent, it may be accepted. Or it may be said, with more propriety perhaps, that the style of speaking directly to an audience, is so different from the usual style of the mere essayist, that the distinction between them is very striking.

Frequently in speaking, something is gained for the moment, by a little dwelling on a thought, which requires the use of a word or two, that in print, appear unnecessary. But on the other hand, it more frequently occurs that fewer words are needed by the speaker, his gesture, look, and tone, assisting to make a strong impression. During the first years of my service in Congress, there was no verbal reporting, but only a synopsis of a speech, taken down by a ready-writer. The speaker then might have the use of these notes, to assist him in writing out his speech, for publication. One or two weeks thus elapsed before the speech appeared in print. It may be remembered, that on one occasion, when Mr. Clay complained that General Jackson had not sent in a veto message to a bill, which had passed about the last day of the session, Mr. Benton said, that this demand was unreasonable, because it required senators, with the aid of reporters, two or three weeks to prepare their own speeches for the press. As to Mr. Benton's method, he instead of denying his dependance on preparation, as many vain and insincere men do, rather plumed himself on his labor. Mr. Mangum, who always remained on good terms with him, told me that Mr. Benton said, that his practice was to write his speech out fully, and then re-write and condense it as much as possible, and after its delivery, give it to the reporters with the understanding that they might add, if necessary to it, before it went to press.

I always found that I could get along while speaking with fewer words usually, than when I attempted to express the same thoughts in writing. One of my earlier speeches was published in the Intelligencer more than a week after its delivery. On the day of its appearance, Mr. Barnard, a member from New York, said to me, "I wish you to explain this to me. When I saw your speech this morning, it occupied so much space in the paper, that I supposed you had added greatly to it, but on reading it over, I could find nothing that you had not, while speaking, distinctly stated." In my practice I have frequently found that I could easily throw into the words of a single sentence, thoughts that if written out, would require two or three sentences to present them clearly, and in a proper order.

But on

On my complaining one day to Mr. Gales of the delay then required in getting speeches out, on account of the imperfect system of reporting at that time, he said, "If you will write out the report of your speech, and on its delivery, hand it to me, I will insert it at once." In some instances I tried the experiment, with advantage as far as the publication was concerned. the other hand, it was rather prejudicial to the delivery, not only because the freshness and animation of the first utterance of the thoughts was somewhat diminished, but also because it was a disadvantage, if any of the particular words written should be remembered while I was speaking. Hence, if at any

time I tried this mode, with a view of getting a neat and accurate report, I avoided re-reading what was verbally prepared, and endeavored to let it pass out of the mind, so that I might, as much as possible, speak from the impulse of the time, untrammeled by memory. On the contrary, if one is merely rehearsing what he has verbally prepared, it is difficult for him to speak with the animation and force of a natural speaker.

Persons wishing to compare the two modes in the same speaker, may see the difference exemplified in this volume. The speech on the tariff, delivered on the 21st of August, 1852, in the House, appears as reported by the stenographers, while that in the Senate of February 10, 1859, on the same subject, has the marks of written construction in its sentences. Again, the speech of February 5, 1857, had verbal preparation, while that on the same subject, delivered May 5, 1858, went the same evening to the press, as reported by the stenographers.

The speech of January 16, 1860, was carefully prepared for publication, while that of May 7th and 8th, 1860, appears, as taken down by the reporters. These examples are sufficient to illustrate the differences between speeches as written, and as spoken.

MODE OF ELECTING A PRESIDENT.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

CITY OF WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 1877.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:

GENTLEMEN: As a citizen and one of your constituents, I avail myself of the privilege of addressing you directly, on a subject of great public interest. You have recently, in your places as Senators and Representatives, been much and earnestly occupied with the consideration of the best mode of amending the Constitution, so as to improve the administration of the Government.

Even if you do not concur in the opinions I may express, yet the suggestions made may not be without value, as while combatting error, we often arrive at the truth.

The evils resulting from the present mode of choosing a President of the United States are too well known to you to render it necessary, that they should be recapitulated. With a view of averting them, it has been proposed to extend the term of the President to six years.

It is respectfully submitted that this would merely aggravate the mischief of the present mode. It is the magnitude of the interests involved that causes the danger, rather than the frequency of the elections. After a contest has been decided, we often hear those disappointed say that four years will soon roll round, and then they hope for a better result. If a President were elected for life, in a close contest there would prob