any other man to make that charge with- | ations-and I am loth to believe that any out a proper answer.

Mr. HILL, of Georgia. Oh, well.

Senator Mahone's Reply to Senator Hill in Extra Senate Session, March 28th, 1881. Mr. MAHONE. Mr. President, my profound respect for the wisdom and experience of my seniors in this Chamber compels me to renew expression of the reluctance with which I so soon intrude upon its deliberations. Senators and the country will concede that to this seeming forwardness I have been provoked.

honorable Senator has so intended-in the
language of another, I say:

If thou saidst I am not peer
To any lord in Scotland here,
Lowland or highland, far or near,
Lord Angus, thou hast lied!

And now, Mr. President, permit me to say that Senators can no more realize my regret than they can measure my amazement that my colleague should have felt it incumbent upon him to join the assaulting column in this Chamber. He first introduces the consideration of my political consistency, and he next introduces me, with the eighty-odd thousand of his fellowcitizens who sent me here, to this honor

If I do not challenge generous consideration from those who would appear to have found pleasure in their unjustifiable as-able body as a repudiator of public obligasaults, I do not doubt that I shall command the respect of the brave and independent here, as I know I shall command that of my own people. I shall not complain of the intolerance and indirection which have characterized the allusions of some Senators to myself. Doubtless they comport entirely with their own sense of manly deportment and senatorial dignity, however little they do with mine. Virginia is accustomed to meet occasions where the independent spirit of the AngloSaxon is required to assert itself; Virginia has ever met, with fortitude and dignity, every duty that destiny has imposed, always, however, with much contempt for small party tactics where principles were involved to which her faith and her honor were committed.

tions. The sense of justice of fellow Senators renders it unnecessary for me to apologize for noticing my colleague's criticisms on the one hand and his perversions on the other. However much he and his friends may endeavor, by the chop-logic of the attorney, to demonstrate what I ought to be, I know by my convictions and by my sense of duty what I am. In this particular I have largely the advantage of my colleague; for if I take him by his record, diminutive as it is, he neither knows what he was, what he is, or what duty he came here to perform. A very brief recital of Virginia political history, covering but a decade, will give a clear view of the Virginia situation as it is represented on this floor. My colleague gave the first page, and then, like the lazy, truant school-boy, skipped With absolute confidence in my loyalty many pages, or, like the shifty lawyer, read to her and my devotion to every interest of only so much of the authority as suited his her people, I shall not relax my purpose case. I am duly grateful to him for the to repel every impeachment of the consti- small meed of praise he would deal out to tuency which sent me here with clearly me for the humble part I bore in the great defined duties which they and I compre-liberal movement of 1869, which was underhend. I was elected to the Senate of the United States to do their will, not to a caucus to do its petty bidding. Virginia earned her title of the Old Dominion by the proud and independent action of her own people, by the loyalty of her sons to the instincts of independence, without help at the hands of those who would now interfere with her affairs.

taken to return our State to her normal condition in the Union.

I am the more grateful because the organs of the faction he represents here have recently published columns to prove that I was breathed into political existence subsequently to that momentous period. Not being sworn, my colleague thought it was sufficient for him to tell the truth withHowever feebly I may assert that spirit out the usual obligation to tell the whole against the gratuitous and hypocritical truth. It is now my privilege, as well as concern for her of strangers to her trials, duty, to supply all deficiencies. The views her sacrifices, and her will, I feel that the I entertained then I still adhere to, and spirit of my people inspires me when I though, as far as my information goes, we scornfully repel for them and for myself had no material assistance from him in ungracious attempts to instruct a Virginia that severe and trying ordeal of 1869, I do Senator as to his duty to them and to him- know that after his election to this body self. Senators should learn to deal with he confessed himself in entire accord with their constituencies, while I answer to mine. all that had been done by Virginia as a To him who would insinuate that my condition-precedent to her restoration, and action in respect to the organization of with the zeal of a new convert expressed the committees of this body and the pro- the hope that other States of the Union posed election of its officers has been without the same propelling cause should governed or controlled by impure consider- do likewise. In a letter addressed to the

then governor of Virginia (Walker) he | inent candidates other than those named wrote as follows:

by the Senator. Two of them had been major-generals and one a brigadier-general. What an omission! Shades of departed

JOHNSTON TO GOVERNOR WALKER IN 1869. Believing fully not only that we in Vir-glory defend us! when a United States ginia could not prosper, but that our con- Senator of the Bourbon persuasion can tinued exclusion from the Union interfered omit imposing titles in detailing events with the business of the whole country, I with which they were intimately associahave been anxious for an early compliance ted. 'Tis true I was not nominated, lackwith the reconstruction laws, and that the ing forty votes of a certain majority of a State should itself inaugurate some move- convention composed of over fourteen hunment similar to that which resulted in your dred delegates against a combination of election for the purpose, and not wait, like five candidates, one of whom my colleague Micawber, "for something to turn up." preferred, that preference perhaps being based upon motives as unselfish as are usual in veteran politicians and office-holders.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

The fifteenth amendment, which I trust will soon be adopted by States enough to make it a part of the Constitution of the United States, will end a question which has agitated the country for half a century. I entirely approve of the principles of that amendment, and as we have invested the freedman with the right to vote, let us give him a fair opportunity to vote understandingly. He has civil rights, and it is our interest he should know their value.

That we are apparently so near to the consummation of reconstruction we are greatly indebted to President Grant's kind offices. The State was in a dilemma; it wanted a constitution; but the one made for it has at least two very objectionable features. We felt that we were suffering in all our material interests by staying out of the Union, and yet to go in under the constitution with all its provisions would have been worse.

The Gordian knot was happily cut by the President's first message to Congress and the prompt response of that body. Up to this time the conduct of the administration has been liberal, and if the same policy is pursued hereafter it ought to have the hearty support of this State. If we cast dead issues behind us and look only to that line of conduct which shall restore quiet and confidence, and encourage enterprise and industry, we shall even see the country richer and more prosperous than it has ever been.

Mr. President, I can scarcely hope, in the presence of this body, where my colleague has served for many years, and where the altitude of his statesmanship frowns contemptuously down upon all who would aspire to reach its summit, to attain the awful diffidence with which I should undertake to correct any of his statements. He is one of the conscript fathers of the Senate, old in all its ways and usages; and long absence from his constituency and perpetual service to the national democratic party in helping to organize its numerous defeats make him forgetful of recent events in Virginia. Hence the necessity of my attempting to inform him as to certain matters of recent history at home.

"The next event," says my colleague, "was that the readjusters separated themselves from the democratic party;" and after treating this at some length he says, "This brings us down to what is called Mozart Hall convention," in which, he adds, "I spoke of the conservative party as though I belonged to it."

Mr. President, I confess my inability to understand all this curious mixture of the odds and ends of my colleague's scrap-book. He parades his facts in curiously-contrived array. He empties his ill-assorted jewels of information and "chunks of wisdom," and seems to rely upon Senators to give them that consecutive arrangement as to fact and date which they have, possibly, in his own great mind. But, sir, the fact is This movement in 1869 accomplished there was no remarkable incident in Virthe restoration of our State under the ex-ginia politics between the election of 1877 purgated constitution and gave us representation here in the persons of my colleague and ex-Senator Lewis. We were relieved of military government, became rehabilitated in our sovereignty, with entire control of our local autonomy. Thus, for a period, Virginia seemed to be enjoying the full freedom of herlong-deferred hope for peace. In the curious panoramic exhibition of my colleague I next appear as a candidate for governor in 1877. To be a candidate in Virginia is a privilege which every qualified voter may constitutionally exercise, and in that year there were three prom

and 1879, the month of February of the latter year being, the date of the assembling of the Mozart Hall convention. Certainly until February, 1879, there was no change in the status of parties in Virginia within that period. There was no organization of readjusters until February, 1879, and there was no declared democratic party until 1880.

This brings me, Mr. President, to a period when I propose to do more than follow my colleague in his half-way candid and nearly always inaccurate statement. It is at this juncture, he says, that Mr. Riddle

berger and I are so much identified that he cannot separate us. It is at this point the organization of the readjusters begins; and it is at this point he appears to seek to make an impression wholly unwarranted by any act of the readjusters in Virginia. It is at this point, too, Mr. President, that I am constrained by a sense of duty to my people, my State, and myself to treat the question of our State debt as it presents itself in Virginia. In doing this, I wish it distinctly understood that I hold this to be a matter belonging exclusively to the State of Virginia, and I should repel any Federal interference with this as I would with any other question of mere State concern. I shall presume upon the indulgence of Senators because they have heard but one side, and that more than once, and I know they will be willing to hear a defense of Virginia against unjust attacks from those who ought to be her defenders.

league and the Senators who co-operate with him, when they stand here to represent the party for which Governor Walker then spoke, the pretended debt-payers of Virginia? It was this repeal bill which the Virginia court of appeals held to be unconstitutional, and here the matter rested until the State had accumulated interest arrears to over five million dollars, beside diverting one and a half million dollars which was dedicated by the constitution to the public free schools.

In 1877 what is known as the Barbour bill was proposed and passed, not a few of the latter-day self-styled debt-payers being among its most zealous supporters. Although this did not repeal in terms the original funding bill, it was nevertheless vetoed by the governor.

even to a reduction of judicial salaries, that a Legislature was returned pledged to a resettlement of this debt.

Such was our condition at the succeeding election-schools reduced 50 per cent., length of sessions abridged, asylums susSir, there is not a fact upon which to tained by money borrowed from the banks base any one of the statements or argu--after exhausting every possible expedient ments of my colleague. Instead of the Mozart Hall convention being held to effect a repeal of an irrepealable contract, it was a body of people assembled on a call of members of the General Assembly opposed to what is known in Virginia as the brokers' bill." They assembled before that bill had passed either House of the General Assembly, and, coming fresh from the people, expressed their unqualified disapproval of that measure. It was apparent the measure was to pass, and organized opposition began. But, Mr. President, this is neither the beginning nor the end of this question. It was in 1871 that the first funding bill was enacted, and this we know in Virginia as the first contract.

That settlement came in the form of the brokers' bill, for which my colleague stands at home and here the champion, aided and abetted by distinguished gentlemen on this floor. I commend the virtuous democracy of this Chamber to read that bill, and then tell this Senate whether there ever was a more undemocratic measure than the bill propounded in Virginia by the party whose cause they espouse.

That settlement came in the form of the broker's bill, as I have said, and this was the last repeal of the original contract. Yet my colleague would say the readjusters I will not go into the details of this mea-of to-day disregard the court decisions. sure, as I shall ask the clerk to read a re- Surely he has not forgotten that he was view of all the Virginia funding acts before upon the hustings in Virginia advocating concluding my remarks. It is my purpose each of the successive measures repealing now only to notice the speeches of Senators, the "irrepealable" contract, while in every notably that of my colleague, in this Cham-instance the readjusters proper opposed the ber. It will be news to Senators to hear new measure.

posed the funding scheme of 1871-a measure which, I assert without the fear of contradiction, not only repudiated but forcibly repudiated what my colleague understands to be one-third of the debt of Virginia. I suggest to my fellow-Senators on the opposite side to take care of that contamination of which they have warned the country in respect to the readjusters of Virginia.

to-day that the readjusters never repealed But here again I am called upon to aneither of the funding contracts. That en-swer the charge of personal inconsistency. acted and only partially executed in 1866- My colleague cannot ascertain that I op'67 was in effect repealed by the Assembly which passed it, and the work of repeal was consummated by the Legislature that enacted the more obnoxious measure of 1871. This in turn was repealed by the Assembly of 1872, the propounder of the repeal measure being the present lieutenant-governor of the State, subsequently in full fellowship with the alleged debt-payers. Indeed this measure was so obnoxious that Governor Walker, who was con- My colleague adverted to the Richmond ceded to be its author, subsequently urged Whig, and proclaimed it as my mouththat the Federal Government should as-piece. Mr. President, nobody speaks for sume the debts of the Southern States. me; I speak for myself. Why not have Mr. President, I might pause to inquire ascertained from the same source how I if that is a part of the doctrine of my col-stood on the funding bill of 1871? Sena

tors will not find that I ever supported the | league, who so unkindly characterized the measure of 1871.

patron of that bill as a county court lawPassing over what appears in my col- yer, cites only Hartman vs. Greenhow as league's speech as extracts from newspa- the case which holds this bill unconstitupers, to whose misstatements he has con- tional. That case decided no principle tributed a full share, I come now to notice that this bill infringes. The Riddleberger his animadversions on the Riddleberger bill imposes no tax upon bonds held either bill. If his criticisms were based on fact in or out of the State. It simply does not and a proper understanding of that mea- exempt any. By what authority, I would sure, they would be unanswerable. He ask my colleague, can such a tax be made says that the 'Riddleberger bill' has been and collected? He must answer to the substantially pronounced unconstitutional party which he undertakes to represent by the Supreme Court of the United here for doing an unconstitutional act: to States." I ask him in what particular? tax bonds of the State of Virginia held by Is it in this that it does not recognize the a non-resident. The Riddleberger bill interest that accrued during the war? If does not tax them. Whenever the General so, will my learned colleague inform me Assembly, carrying out the Riddleberger upon what principle of right he last sum- bill, shall endeavor to tax bonds held out mer sustained a measure which repudiated of the State, it will be time for the Senator one-half of the interest that has accrued to renew the test in the Supreme Court of since the complete restoration of our State? the United States and cite the precedent Does he not know that that measure of of Hartman vs. Greenhow. forcible readjustment absolutely repudiated one-half of the accrued and unfunded interest, while the Riddleberger bill provides for paying it dollar for dollar? The difference is simply this: that since 1871 we have denied the right of the creditor to exact war interest and proposed to pay him all else in full. Our adversaries would and did fund that war interest and proposed to repudiate one-half of that which we are in honor and in law bound to pay. is called its force feature? If so it has Is it unconstitutional in that it pays but 3 per cent.? The only measure ever passed by the Virginia Assembly to pay as much as 4 per cent. and the only one under which one-third of our creditors have received a penny of interest, was introduced and patronized by Mr. Riddleberger. The first time that our Legislature ever voiced 3 per cent. was when they passed the brokers' job, the pet scheme of my colleague, so ably re-enforced in his advocacy of it on this floor by distinguished gentlemen on the other side, the Legislature then themselves admitting and declaring in the preamble of their bill that this is all the State can pay for ten years "without destroying its industries;" and last winter every legislator of their party voted to run the 3 per cent. for the whole time.

Is it the much-discussed fourteenth section which is unconstitutional? If so I would remind my legal colleague that it is a verbatim copy of a statute passed by the State of Tennessee, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States, and not only held by that high tribunal to be constitutional but proper legislation for the protection and maintenance of government. Is it unconstitutional in what

precedent in the bill of '71, which forbade the payment of any interest to a creditor who did not accept a reduction of onethird. It has precedent in the brokers' bill, which provided tax certificates to compete at a reduced price with the receivable coupon, and both of these measures found a hustings advocate in my colleague.

But he would imply that our debt was ascertained at a certain sum in pursuance of the State Constitution, which he says was $29,667,304.76.

Mr. President, if there is any man in the party which my colleague represents who agrees with another member of that party in Virginia as to what the debt of that State is, we have yet to find the concurrence; it is with one leader this figure, with another leader another figure; by one Is it unconstitutional in that it does not report of their officers one sum, and then exempt the bonds from taxation forever, by another report of other officers a differas the brokers' bill attempted to do, a ent sum. Grant that sum to be the true feature peculiar to that measure for pay-one; but let the Senator state that our ing the debt of Virginia which my col- constitution recognized no specific sum. league advocates here? If so, I would re- It says there shall first be a settlement spectfully refer my colleague to his State with West Virginia, which has not yet constitution, which says that all property been had, and commands payment of what shall be taxed equally and uniformly; that Virginia shall owe. That is the language, no one species of property shall be taxed that is the instruction of the constitution higher than another, and that only such of Virginia; that, after a settlement with property as is used for religious, educa- West Virginia, covering one-third of old tional, and charitable purposes may be Virginia's territory, shall have been exempt from taxation. My learned col-arrived at by an adjustment of their rela