Slavery and four years of war

by Joseph Warren Keifer

CHAPTER XIII Battle of Sailor's Creek, April 6th—Capitulation of General Robert E. Lee's Army at Appomattox Court-House, April 9, 1865—Surrender of Other Confederate Armies, and End of the War of the Rebellion

Richmond and Petersburg having been evacuated, the Army of the Potomac, at early dawn, April 3, 1865, under orders, marched westward. Its sole objective now was the Confederate Army. Grant directed some corps of his army to pursue on the line of Lee's retreat, and others to march westward on roads farther to the south to strike other roads necessary for Lee to pursue in gaining North Carolina where he might form a junction with General Joe Johnston who was then trying to stem the advance of Sherman.

It was soon known that Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet had reached
Danville, Virginia, and had proclaimed it the seat of the Confederate
Government.

To reach Danville Lee bent all his energy.

The sagacious and energetic movements of the several corps of the Union army from the morning of April 3d to the surrender of Lee will stand as a lasting testimonial to Grant's military genius, ranking him with the great strategists of the world. Lee's officers were familiar with the roads; the inhabitants were their friends; his retreat was upon the shorter line, and he had a night's start. Generals Meade, Sheridan, Ord, and the corps commanders also, won just fame for the successful handling of their several commands.

Meade kept his forces in hand and pushed them precipitously on the desired points. Sheridan was indomitable and remorseless in his pursuit with the cavalry. Grant accompanied the army, sometimes with one part of it and then with another, always knowing what was going on and the position of all the troops. His orders were implicitly obeyed. Rest or sleep was impossible for any length of time. Recent and continuing rains rendered the roads almost impassable for artillery trains. Teams were doubled and one half the artillery and wagons were left behind. Lee undertook to order supplies sent to Burkeville, where he expected to meet them. Sheridan's cavalry captured, April 4th, a messenger with dispatches in his boots which he was conveying to Burkeville to be wired to Danville and Lynchburg, directing 300,000 rations to be forwarded to Burkeville. Sheridan, by scouts disguised as rebels, had the dispatches taken to Burkeville and sent, with the expectation he would capture the rations on their arrival. They did not reach Burkeville, but several train loads were sent forward from Lynchburg. Sheridan's cavalry met them at Appomattox Station on the 8th, and received them in bulk, locomotives, trains, and all.( 1)

Late on the 5th, Lee leisurely moved his army from Amelia Court- House towards Burkeville. Sheridan's cavalry, with some infantry, had possession of Jetersville on a road Lee attempted to pursue. Sheridan assailed Lee's advance furiously and drove it back, forcing him to form his army for battle. This occupied so much time that when it was ready to attack, night was approaching, and the Fifth and Sixth Corps were arrived or were arriving. Lee's escape to Danville by the way of Burkeville was no longer possible. The day was too far spent to fight a battle. Grant was still pushing his corps upon different roads to intercept Lee's retreat. Lee's prime mistake was in not concentrating his army, on the 4th, at Burkeville, the junction of the two railroads, instead of at Amelia Court-House. It was supposed that a decisive battle would be fought at Jetersville, but Lee withdrew during the night.

General Lee claimed he lost one day at Amelia Court-House gathering subsistence, because his orders to collect them there in advance of his retreat had been disregarded.( 2)

Jefferson Davis reached Danville, Virginia, with members of his Cabinet, on the 3d of April, and, on the 5th, he issued a proclamation which he subsequently characterized thus:

"Viewed in the light of subsequent events, it may be fairly said it was over-sanguine." In it he used such expressions as:

"Let us but will it and we are free. I announce to you, fellow countrymen, that it is my purpose to maintain your cause with my whole heart and soul; that I will never consent to abandon to the enemy one foot of the soil of any of the States of the Confederacy; that Virginia—noble State, whose ancient renown has been eclipsed by her still more glorious recent history; whose bosom has been bared to receive the main shock of the war; whose sons and daughters have exhibited heroism so sublime as to render her illustrious through all time to come—that Virginia with the help of the people, and by the blessings of Providence, shall be held and defended, and no peace ever made with the infamous invaders of her territory.

"If by the stress of numbers, we should be compelled to a temporary withdrawal from her limits or those of any other border State, we will return until the baffled and exhausted enemy shall abandon in despair his endless and impossible task of making slaves of a free people."( 3)

In consequence of Hill's death, Lee divided his army into two wings, Ewell commanding one and Longstreet the other, his cavalry being under Fitzhugh Lee and his artillery under Pendleton.

The Confederate Army, on the night of April 5th, abandoned Amelia
Court-House, and by circuitous country roads endeavored to pass
around the Union left through Deatonville and Painesville to Prince
Edward's Court-House, hoping still to be able to escape to Danville.

At daylight of the 6th the Union forces at Jetersville advanced in battle array on Amelia Court-House, and some precious hours were lost in ascertaining the direction of Lee's retreat. Our army was, however, soon counter-marched to Jetersville, and thence, by different roads and regardless of them, by forced marches, it sought to intercept Lee. It must be remembered Lee's troops had one day or more rest since leaving Petersburg and Richmond, and Grant's army had none, and the latter had been moved by night as well as by day, and irregularly fed. The most appealing orders were issued by General Meade to his army to make the required sacrifices and efforts to overtake and overthrow Lee's army. I quote from Meade's order of the night of April 4th:

"The Major-General commanding feels he has but to recall to the Army of the Potomac the success of the oft repeated gallant contests with the Army of Northern Virginia, and when he assures the army that, in the opinion of so distinguished an officer as General Sheridan, it only requires these sacrifices to bring this long and desperate conflict to a triumphant issue, the men of this army will show that they are as willing to die of fatigue and starvation as they have ever shown themselves ready to fall by the bullets of the enemy."( 4)

This order, when read to the regiments, was loudly cheered. There was perfect harmony of action among Grant's generals; all putting forth their best efforts. On the 4th, Sheridan dispatched Grant, "If we press on we will no doubt get the whole army." And again on the 6th, "If the thing is pressed I think Lee will surrender." ( 5) On these dispatches being forwarded to President Lincoln, still at City Point, he is reported to have wired Grant, "Let the thing be pressed."( 6)

Grant, personally, gave more attention to the movements of his forces to important places than to fighting battles. He was especially anxious for Ord's command to be hastened forward on a line south of Lee. Grant was always in touch with Meade and Sheridan, but on the 5th and 6th he was with Ord. At night of the 5th he dispatched from Nottoway Court-House to Meade:

"Your movements are right. Lee's army is the objective point, and to capture that is all we want. Ord has marched fifteen miles to- day to reach here, and is going on. He will probably reach Burkeville to-night. My headquarters will be with the advance."( 7)

Sheridan, in command of the cavalry, was often, temporarily, also given command of a corps of infantry.

In the pursuit on the 6th from Jetersville, Wright's corps followed Merritt's cavalry, and about 3 P.M., after a forced march of eighteen miles, partly without roads and over a hilly country and under a hot sun, came up with a portion of it heavily engaged trying to seize a road at a point about two miles from Sailor's Creek on the left and about the same distance from Deatonville on the right, on which Ewell's wing of Lee's army was retreating. Ewell was heading towards Rice's Station to form a junction with Longstreet, both intending to move via Prince Edward's Court-House south. Ord, with the Army of the James, late on this day confronted Longstreet at Rice's Station. The Third Division of the Sixth was in advance, and my brigade went into line of battle and rapidly into action, with scarcely a halt for formation, and, together with the cavalry, charged and drove the enemy across the road, capturing many prisoners, wagons, and some pieces of artillery, including General Heth's headquarters wagons.

An incident occurred soon after we gained this road. Another road from the west intersected at this point the one we had just seized, and on which the enemy had a battery which opened on us furiously. I hastened to the intersecting road to direct some of my regiments to charge and capture the battery or drive it away. Generals Sheridan and Wright, with their staffs, soon galloped up. Sheridan was accompanied by a large mounted brass band that commenced playing Hail to the Chief, or some other then unwelcome music. This drew the fire from the battery with increased fury on the whole party. Both Sheridan and Wright were too proud spirited to retire in the presence of the troops or each other, though not needed at that place. The dry limbs of pine trees rattling down around us and the bursting of shells rendered the situation embarrassing in the extreme, and the lives of others were being sacrificed or imperilled by the presence of the distinguished party. Being in immediate charge of the forces there, I invited the Generals to get out of the way, but as they did not retire I ordered a charge upon the "noisy band," and thus caused the whole party to retire to a place of greater safety. Some of them were quite willing to go.

I gave Colonel Binkley such an imperative order to silence the battery, that he pursued it with a detachment to such a distance that he did not rejoin the brigade in time to participate in the principal battle of the day yet to be fought.

Ewell's wing of the Confederate Army had mainly passed on towards its destination. Pursuit was promptly ordered by Sheridan and conducted by Wright. Ewell's rear-guard fought stubbornly and fell back slowly through the timber until it reached Sailor's Creek. Wheaton's division arrived and joined the Third on the left in the attack and pursuit. Merritt's cavalry passed rapidly around Ewell's right to intercept the retreat. Merritt crossed Sailor's Creek with Custer and Devin's divisions south of the road on which the enemy retreated.

General R. S. Ewell crossed Sailor's Creek, and about 5 P.M. took up a strong position on heights on its west bank. These heights, save on their face, were covered with forest. There was a level, cultivated bottom about one half mile in width, wholly on the east bank of the stream. Sailor's Creek, then greatly swollen, washed the foot of the heights on which Ewell had posted his army. He hoped to be able to hold his position until night, when, under cover of darkness, he might escape towards Danville.

Our troops were temporarily halted on the hills at the eastern edge of the valley, in easy range of the enemy's guns, and the lines were hastily adjusted.( 8) Artillery went into position and at once opened a heavy fire. An effort was made to bring up Getty's division of the Sixth and the detachment of my brigade under Binkley, but the day was too far spent to await their arrival. It was plainly evident that Ewell outnumbered our forces in line, and our men had been on foot for twelve hours. Wright hesitated under the circumstances, but Sheridan, coming to the front, advised an assault.( 9) Wright then promptly ordered the infantry on the field to make one, under cover of the artillery. Colonel Stagg's cavalry brigade was ordered to attack the enemy's right flank, and Merritt and Crook's cavalry were to attack still farther around his right and on his rear.

Ewell covered his front with a strong line of infantry, and massed a large body in column, in rear of his centre, to be used as the exigencies of the battle might require. Ewell's cavalry covered his right and rear. General R. H. Anderson and J. B. Gordon, with their corps, had preceded Ewell in crossing Sailor's Creek, and Sheridan, who had now personally passed from the front around to Merritt, encountered them some distance to the rear of Ewell's position. The Confederate trains were on the road to Rice's Station, where Longstreet was confronting Ord, neither, however, willing to attack the other.

The plan was for Anderson and Gordon to attack and clear the rear, while Ewell stopped the infantry at the Creek.(10) The latter had three infantry divisions, with parts of others, under the command of Generals Kershaw, G. W. Custis Lee, Pickett, Barton, DuBose, Corse, Hunton, and others of the most distinguished officers of the Confederate Army. Commodore John Randolph Tucker, formerly of the United States navy, commanding the Marine Brigade, was posted on the face of the heights on Ewell's front. Colonel Crutchfield, who had been recently in charge of the artillery at Richmond, commanded a large brigade of artillerymen serving as infantry.

About 5 P.M. the two divisions of the Sixth descended from the hills, in a single line, and moved steadily across the valley in the face of a destructive fire, with muskets and ammunition boxes over the shoulder, the men waded the swollen stream. Though the water was from two to four feet deep, the creek was crossed without a halt. Many fell on the plain and in the water, and those who reached the west bank were in some disorder. The command, was, however, given by the officers accompanying the troops to storm the heights, and it was obeyed. Not until within a few yards of the enemy, while ascending the heights, did our men commence firing. The enemy's advance line gave way, and an easy victory seemed about to be achieved, but before the crest was reached, Ewell with his massed troops made an impetuous charge upon and through our line. Our centre was completely broken and a disastrous defeat for us seemed imminent. The large column of Confederate infantry now, however, became exposed to the renewed fire from Wright's massed artillery on the hills east of the valley.

The right and left of the charging line met with better success, driving back all in their front, and, wholly disregarding the defeat of the centre, persisted in advancing, each wheeling as on a pivot in the centre, until the enemy's troops were completely enveloped and subjected to a deadly fire on both flanks, as well as from the artillery in front. The flooded stream forbade an advance on our unguarded batteries. The cavalry, in a simultaneous attack, about this time overthrew all before them on the Confederate right and rear. Ewell's officers gallantly exerted themselves to avert disaster, and bravely tried to form lines to the right and left to repel the now furious flank attacks. This, however, proved impossible. Our men were pushed up firing to within a few feet of the massed Confederates, rendering any reformation or change of front by them out of the question, and speedily bringing hopeless disorder. A few were bayoneted on each side. The enemy fell rapidly, while doing little execution. Flight became impossible, and nothing remained to put an end to the bloody slaughter but for the Confederates to throw down their arms and become captives. As the gloom of approaching night settled over the field, now covered with dead and dying, the fire of artillery and musketry ceased, and General Ewell, together with eleven general officers and about all the survivors of his gallant army, were prisoners. Ewell, Kershaw, G. W. Custis Lee (son of General R. E. Lee), and others surrendered to the Sixth Corps. Barton, Corse, Hunton, DuBose, and others were taken by the cavalry. Crutchfield of the Artillery Brigade was killed near me, and his command captured or dispersed. Generals Anderson and Gordon got away with part of B. R. Johnson's division, and Pickett escaped with about six hundred men.(11) Tucker's Marine Brigade, numbering about two thousand, surrendered to me in a body a little later.(12) It had been passed by in the onset of the charge. About thirty-five of the officers of this brigade had served in the United States Navy before the war. The brigade was made up of naval troops who had recently served on gunboats and river batteries on the James below Richmond. As infantrymen they cut a sorry figure, but they were brave, and stood to their assigned position after all others of their army had been overthrown. They knew nothing about flight, and were taken as a body. By reason of their first position they suffered heavily. When disarmed there was found to be a wagon load or more of pistols of all patterns which had been collected from all the countries of the civilized world. Certain incidents relating to the surrender of this brigade may be of interest.(13)

Tucker's command was not at once engulfed in the general disaster. Tucker had, after making a gallant charge, withdrawn it from its exposed position into the dense timber in a depression in the bluffs. Near the close of the battle, just at dusk, it was reported to me that a force of Confederates was in this timber. I made two vain attempts to get into communication with it and to notify its commanding officer that he was in our power. At last, having some doubts of its presence where reported, and my staff and orderlies being engaged reforming troops and caring for prisoners, I rode alone to investigate. After proceeding in the woods a short distance, to my surprise I came upon Tucker's brigade in line of battle, partly concealed by underbrush. To avoid capture I resorted to a ruse. In a loud voice I gave the command, "Forward," and it was repeated by the Confederate officers all along the line. I turned to ride towards my own troops. The dense thicket prevented speed and the marines therefore kept at my horse's heels. As an open space was approached the nearest Confederate discovered that I was a Union officer, and cried "Shoot him." As I turned to surrender, some confusion arose and a few shots were fired, but Tucker and Captain John D. Semmes, being near me, knocked up the ends of the nearest rifles with their swords and saved my life. From this situation, lying close on my horse's neck, I escaped to my own command. With a detachment I at once returned to the timber, where I met Tucker and explained to him the situation of which he was ignorant, and forthwith received his surrender with his brigade. Later, when Tucker and Semmes were prisoners at Johnson's Island, near Sandusky, the appealed to me to intercede for their release, which I most gladly and successfully did. They had each been, at the beginning of the war, in the United States Navy, which caused them to be exceptionally detained as prisoners under President Johnson's order.(14)

The infantry, under Wright, engaged in the battle at Sailor's Creek at no time exceeded ten thousand men. The number participating in the charge across the plain and in storming the heights did not exceed seven thousand, being fewer in number than the enemy captured on the field. It has been claimed that Humphreys' Second Corps participated in the battle, and some Confederate officers assert that the attack was made with thirty thousand men under Wright. Humphreys did have a lively skirmish the evening of the 6th, and captured a considerable train, far off to the right of the battle- field, and in this the detachment under Colonel Binkley from my brigade participated.(15)

Getty's division of the Sixth did not reach the field in time to become engaged.(16) The results, being so great, naturally led interested parties to exaggerate the number of the attacking forces.(17)

Sheridan, in his report, May 16, 1865, speaking of the infantry attack, says: "It was splendid, but no more than I had reason to expect from the gallant Sixth Corps." And he speaks of the fighting of the cavalry and the captures thus:

"The cavalry in the rear of the enemy attacked simultaneously, and the enemy, after a gallant resistance, were completely surrounded, and nearly all threw down their arms and surrendered. General Ewell, commanding the enemy's forces, a number of other general officers, and about 10,000 other prisoners were taken by us. Most of them fell into the hands of the cavalry, but they are no more entitled to claim them than the Sixth Corps, to which equal credit is due for the result of this engagement."

Our loss in killed and wounded was comparatively small; that of the enemy was great, but not in proportion to his loss in prisoners. One week after the battle I visited the field, and could then have walked on Confederate dead for many successive rods along the face of the heights held by the enemy when the battle opened.

The capture of Ewell and his generals, with the larger part of the forces under them, and the dispersion of the remainder of Ewell's wing of Lee's army were irreparable disasters to the Confederacy. Lee could no longer hope to cope with the pursuing army. The Sixth Corps had the distinguished honor of striking the decisive blows at Petersburg on the 2d, and at Sailor's Creek on the 6th of April, 1865.

Sailor's Creek may fairly be called the last field battle of the war. A distinguished Confederate General, Wade Hampton, in a Century Magazine article, pronounced the battle of Bentonville, North Carolina, the "last important one of the war, . . . the last general battle of the Civil War." There may be room for controversy as to where and when the last "general battle" of the war was fought. Certain it is that it was not at Bentonville that the conflict ended on a large scale and blood ceased to flow in the great Rebellion. Bentonville was mainly fought March 19, 1865, and while it may properly be called a field engagement and of no insignificant proportions, it was not the last one. This is not the place to enter into any controversy about last battles, their character and significance, yet it may not be out of place to call attention to the most prominent battles, etc., fought after March 19, 1865.

Fort Stedman, in front of Petersburg, Virginia, was assaulted and temporarily taken by the Confederate General Gordon, March 25, 1865, and while the fighting which ensued in retaking the fort and in driving out the attacking forces may not be denominated a general battle, yet it was a bloody one. Other severe fighting took place in front of Petersburg the same day.

Five Forks, Virginia, fought by General Sheridan's cavalry and the Fifth Corps, Army of the Potomac, April 1, 1865, was fought outside of fortifications by cavalry, infantry, and artillery combined, and there were charges and counter-charges, lasting several hours, the losses being heavy in killed and wounded. Many prisoners were there taken by Sheridan's command. Five Forks was a general field engagement.

The assaults and conflicts on, over, and around the ramparts of the forts and fortifications (incomparably bloody) in front of Petersburg, Virginia, April 2, 1865, which tore open the strong lines of defence held by General Lee's army, forced it to flight, and lost Petersburg and Richmond to the Confederacy, may not be entitled to be classed as general field battles.

Sailor's Creek came next in order, fought April 6, 1865.

The assault and capture of Fort Blakely, near Mobile, Alabama, took place April 9, 1865. If Blakely can be called a general battle it was the last one of the war. It was, however, mainly an assault by the Union forces under General E. R. S. Canby on fortifications, though rich in results. The killed and wounded at Blakely in both armies aggregated about 2000 men. Canby's forces captured 3423 men, 40 pieces of artillery, 16 battle flags, etc. The prize fought for and won was Mobile, its surrounding forts and the Confederate Navy in the harbor of Mobile.

At Palmetto Ranche, Texas, on May 13, 1865, near the battle-field of General Zachary Taylor at Palo Alto (May 8, 1846), the first of the Mexican War, and about two thousand miles from Big Bethel, the scene, June 10, 1861, of the first considerable battle of the Rebellion, a lively engagement took place, hardly, however, rising above the dignity of a skirmish or an affair, though it was by no means bloodless. (The magnitude of the battles of the Rebellion dwarfed to affairs or skirmishes what were formerly in this and other countries called battles.)

Colonel Theodore H. Barrett commanded the Union forces at Palmetto
Ranche, and General J. E. Slaughter the Confederates.

The 62d United States Colored Infantry, in this fight, probably fired the last angry volley of the war, and Sergeant Crocket of that regiment (three days after Jefferson Davis' capture) received the last wound from a rebel hostile bullet, and hence shed the last fresh blood in the war resulting in the freedom of his race in the United States. The observation irresistibly comes, that on the scene of the first battle of the Mexican War—a war inaugurated for the acquisition of slave territory—and of the first battle participated in by Lieutenant-General (then Second Lieutenant) U. S. Grant, almost exactly nineteen years later, the last conflict took place in the war for the preservation of the Union, and in which slavery was totally overthrown in our Republic.

But to return from the digression and to conclude the story of Sailor's Creek, or the "Forgotten Battle." It may truthfully be said that it was not only the last general field battle of the war, but the one wherein more officers and men were captured in the struggle of actual conflict than in any battle of modern times.

There was some fighting between the cavalry of the two armies and many minor affairs between the advance- and rear-guards, but the four years' heavy fighting between the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac ended at Sailor's Creek.

During the battle Lee was with Longstreet at Rice's Station, two miles distant, impatiently awaiting news from Lieutenant-Generals Ewell and Anderson. General Mahone states what transpired when Colonel Venable of Lee's staff reported to his chief something of the disaster at Sailor's Creek:

"General Lee exclaimed, 'Where is Anderson? Where is Ewell? It is strange I can't hear from them." Then turning to me, he said, 'General Mahone, I have no other troops, will you take your division to Sailor's Creek?' and I promptly gave the order by the left flank, and off we were for Sailor's Creek, where the disaster had occurred. General Lee rode with me, Colonel Venable a little in the rear. On reaching the south crest of the high ground at the crossing of the river road overlooking Sailor's Creek, the disaster which had overtaken our army was in full view, and the scene beggars description, —hurrying teamsters with their teams and dangling traces (no wagons), retreating infantry without guns, many without hats, a harmless mob, with the massive columns of the enemy moving orderly on. At this spectacle General Lee straightened himself in his saddle, and, looking more the soldier than ever, exclaimed, as if talking to himself, 'My God! has the army dissolved?' As quickly as I could control my own voice I replied, 'No, General, here are troops ready to do their duty'; when, in a mellowed voice, he replied: 'Yes, General, there are some true men left. Will you please keep those people back?' As I was placing my division in position to 'keep those people back,' the retiring herd just referred to had crowded around General Lee while he sat on his horse with a Confederate battle-flag in his hand. I rode up and requested him to give me the flag, which he did.

"It was near dusk, and he wanted to know of me how to get away. I replied: 'Let General Longstreet move by the river road to Farmville, and cross the river there, and I will go through the woods to the High Bridge (railroad bridge) and cross there.' To this he assented."

Longstreet retired at nightfall to Farmville and there crossed the Appomattox the morning of the 7th, and Mahone and broken detachments, with such trains and artillery as Lee still possessed, crossed at the High Bridge. All bridges were wholly or partially destroyed by the enemy on being passed.

The result of the operations of April 6th forced Lee off of all roads leading to Danville, and Lynchburg became his objective.

Grant's plans did not justify a halt on the field of Sailor's Creek long enough to bury the dead, or even long enough to care for our wounded, and, though night had come, the battle-stained soldiers, hungry and exhausted, were marched on. The Sixth Corps encamped at 10 P.M. near Rice's Station, about three miles from the battle- field. Other corps on different lines were kept to their work, and their operations also contributed towards baffling Lee's plans for escape.

A single serious disaster occurred on the 6th to a detachment of our army. Ord, whose orders were to obstruct all lines of retreat, detached Colonel Francis Washburn with the 123d Ohio and portions of the 54th Pennsylvania and 4th Massachusetts Cavalry, about eight hundred in all, to destroy High Bridge over the Appomattox below Farmville. Later in the day, Colonel Thomas Reed of Ord's staff with eighty cavalrymen was sent to recall Washburn. The detachments met, and having penetrated to within about two miles of the bridge, encountered Lee's advance cavalry and infantry. Washburn and Read put up one of the most gallant fights of the war, but were soon surrounded. They led repeated charges until both fell, mortally wounded. Not until most of the command had fallen did it surrender. The Confederate loss was severe, especially in officers. This affair caused Lee to lose precious time, he being led to believe from the obstinacy of the fight that a large Union force was in his front.

The Sixth Corps, after Sailor's Creek, was ordered to pursue Lee's army directly. Its flanking work was done; its mission was to assail Lee's rear, delay him, and if possible bring him to battle.

Sheridan, with Merritt's cavalry division, followed by Ord and the Fifth Corps, continued westward, with orders not to stop for bad roads, nor wait for subsistence or for daylight. They were not to halt until planted across Lee's front.

Humphreys, who also had orders to press Lee's rear, succeeded with his corps and a cavalry division under Crook in crossing the Appomattox close on Mahone's rear. Wright, the morning of the 7th, followed Longstreet to Farmville, where the latter had passed to the north of the river.

Grant and his staff, with a small escort, rode by us about noon. The roads were muddy from recent rains and much cut up by the Confederate Army. Grant was dressed, to all appearance, in a tarpaulin suit, and he was, even to his whiskers, so bespattered with mud, fresh and dried, as to almost prevent recognition. He then, as always, was quiet, modest, and undemonstrative. A close look showed an expression of deep anxiety on his countenance.

Farmville is in a narrow, short valley on the south bank of the Appomattox, surrounded on the south by high bluffs. As the Sixth arrived on the heights above the town I was riding with General Wright. All were anxious to ascertain the exact whereabouts of the enemy, when, to our amazement, apparently the whole Confederate Army came into view on the high plain north of the river. It was drawn up in battle array and seemingly about to envelop and destroy Crook's cavalry, that was furiously assailing it to delay it. From the heights it seemed to us Crook's command would speedily be annihilated. Wright was an unimpassioned man, little given to excitement, but this scene threw him into a vehement state. His corps was too far off the render assistance; the Appomattox, deep through narrow, lay between, and pontoons were not up. He ordered his corps hastened forward, and plunged down the bluffs into Farmville, looking for a crossing. He soon came in front of a Virginia tavern with the usual "stoops" or low porches in front, above, and below. Grant was seated on the upper "stoop," resting his chin on his folded arms, which were on the rail of a baluster. He was smoking a cigar, and doubtless casting his eyes on the situation across the river. He then looked happy, contented, and unconcerned. He did not change when Wright exhibited, by word and act, great solicitude for the fate of the cavalry. When Wright had finished, Grant withdrew his cigar from his lips, raised his head only a little, and pleasantly said: "The cavalry are doing well, and I hope General Lee will continue to fight them, as the delay will lessen his chances of escape." Grant also, pointing in the direction of the river, added: "General Wright, you will find the débris of a railroad bridge down there, on which you can construct a passage for your infantry and get them over the river during the night." Grant resumed smoking and we went about our business.

A crossing was soon made on the iron and timbers of a broken-down bridge, over which foot soldiers could pass in single file. As the structure was liable to get out of order, each officer, from division to company commander, was required to stand at its end and see that the soldiers of his command marched on it at proper intervals and with steady step. It was 3 A.M. of the 8th before the last of the corps had crossed and bivouacked. Mounted officers and escorts swam the stream at a swollen ford near-by.

Crook lost heavily in his unequal combat, one of his brigades especially, its commanding officer, General J. Irwin Gregg, being captured, but the purpose of the attack was accomplished. Crook withdrew his recently imperilled cavalry to the south of the river about 9 P.M. of the 7th, and reached Prospect Station the same night, under orders to rejoin Sheridan.

Lee, late on the evening of the 7th, seems to have been personally seized with a panic on hearing some threatening reports of being cut off or flanked, and he caused his trains to retreat in a wild rush and the infantry under Longstreet to march at double-quick to Cumberland Church, where he formed for battle.(18)

General Ewell, at supper with Wright the night after his capture on the 6th, made some remarks about the hopeless condition of the Confederate Army, and suggested that Lee might be willing to surrender. This and other like talk of Ewell, being communicated by a Dr. Smith to Grant, suggested the idea to him of demanding the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia.(19) A note to this effect was accordingly sent to Lee, under a flag of truce, at 5 P.M. of the 7th. Lee immediately answered, saying he did not entertain the opinion that further resistance was hopeless on the part of his army, yet asked Grant to name the terms he would offer on condition of surrender. Grant, on the 8th, replied that there was but one condition he would insist on, viz.:

"That the men and officers surrendered shall be disqualified for taking up arms against the government of the United States until properly exchanged."

Lee, the same day, responded, saying that in his note of the day before, he "did not intend to propose the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia," but only to ask the terms of Grant's proposition, adding that he could not meet Grant with the view of surrendering that army, but as far as Grant's proposal might affect the Confederate States forces under his command and tend to the restoration of peace, he would be pleased to meet Grant the next day at 10 A.M. Very early on the 9th Grant sent Lee a note saying: "I have no authority to treat on the subject of peace; the meeting proposed for 10 A.M. to-day could lead to no good."

At the earliest dawn of the 8th, the Sixth Corps pushed after Lee, compelling him to abandon some of his heaviest artillery and a further part of his trains. Longstreet covered Lee's rear, and his troops had not been seriously engaged on the retreat. Ord and the Fifth Corps struggled westward, cutting off all chance of Lee turning southward and of thus extricating himself. The 8th was not a day of battles but of the utmost activity in both armies.

I note an incident. While halted, about noon on the 8th, in some low pines to drink a cup of coffee and eat a cracker, Colonel Horace Kellogg, of the 123d Ohio, who had been captured with Washburn's command on the 6th, near High Bridge, came to us through the bushes from a hiding-place to which he escaped soon after his capture. He looked cadaverous, was wild-eyed, and in a crazed condition, caused by starvation and want of water for two days. We had to restrain him, and give him water, coffee, and food in small quantities at first, to prevent his killing himself from over-indulgence.

Sheridan, who had concentrated his cavalry at Prospect Station under Crook, Merritt, and Custer, at daybreak of the 8th hastened westward, south of Lee, to Appomattox Station. Sergeant White, of the scouts, in advance, in disguise, west of the Station, met four trains from Lynchburg with supplies sent in obedience to the Burkeville dispatch already mentioned. The trains were feeling their way eastward, in ignorance of Lee's whereabouts. The Sergeant had the original dispatch with him, and exhibited it, and, by dwelling on the starving condition of Lee's army, easily persuaded the officers in charge to run the trains east of Appomattox Station, he having, meantime, sent word to Sheridan where they could be found. Custer hastened forward, sending two regiments by a détour, in a gallop, to seize and break the railroad behind the trains. The trains were captured. One was burned, and the other three sent eastward towards Farmville. This capture took place just as the head of Lee's column came in sight.(20) Custer attacked Lee's advance, and was soon joined by Devin's division and a brigade from Crook. Together they drove it back, capturing twenty-five pieces of artillery, a hospital train, and a large park of wagons which were being sent ahead of Lee's main army. Sheridan's headquarters, at night, were at a farm-house, just south of Appomattox Station, and about three miles southwest of the Court-House of that name. Neither he nor his command slept that night. Sheridan was now across Lee's front, and if he could hold on, Lee must surrender. Ord, with the Fifth Corps following, was hastening to Sheridan. The supreme hour was at hand. Ord was no laggard, and it was known that he would put forth all human effort, yet Sheridan dispatched through the night officer after staff officer to apprise Ord of the immediate danger the cavalry was in, if unsupported, and to assure him that his presence with his column would end the Rebellion. Before day-dawn the cavalry was in the saddle, in battle array, bearing down on the Confederate advance, then at the Court-House. Ord arrived in person before sun-up of the 9th, and hastily consulted Sheridan where to put in his troops on their arrival. Ord then returned to hurry on his weary, hungry, foot-sore men, who had marched all the night, having little sleep for many days. Sheridan turned from the consultation with Ord to take charge of the battle already raging near the Court-House.

Let us look within the lines of the Confederate Army and see what was transpiring there. That army had, since Sailor's Creek and Farmville, been directed, of necessity, along the north of the river on Appomattox Court-House and Lynchburg. It had been assailed, night and day, flank and rear, from the time it left Petersburg. Provisions were scarce, and many of its best officers had, in the last week, fallen or been captured. It, however, had held out bravely and with more spirit than would be expected. It was an old and once splendidly organized and equipped army, and its discipline had been good. Pendleton and others of Lee's generals (not including Longstreet) secretly, on the 7th, held a council, and with a view of lightening Lee's responsibilities, decided to inform him that they thought the time had come to surrender his army. The next day Longstreet was requested to bear the report of this council to Lee. He declined, and Pendleton made to report to Lee himself. The latter, if correctly reported, said: "I trust it has not come to that," adding, among other things, "If I were to say a word to the Federal commander, he would regard it as such a confession of weakness as to make it the condition of demanding an unconditional surrender."(21)

Gordon, with Fitz Lee at the head of the cavalry, commanded the advance, and Longstreet the rear. The night of the 8th found Lee's advance at Appomattox Court-House forced well back, and Longstreet's rear pressed close on his main body. General Lee called in council, at a late hour that night, Lieutenant-General James Longstreet, Major-Generals John B. Gordon, Fitzhugh Lee, and Wm. N. Pendleton.(22) This was the last council of war of the Army of Northern Virginia, if it could be called one. The meeting was in a secluded spot, in a gloomy pine woods, without shelter. The night was damp and chilly, and there was a small, smoky, green-pine fire, affording little light. The whole surrounding was calculated to dispirit the five officers, to say nothing of the occasion. Little was said or done. Lee made some inquiry as to the position of the troops. At the end of an hour the council broke up, Lee directing Gordon to mass his command, including all the cavalry under Fitz Lee and General Long's batteries of thirty guns, and move through Appomattox Court-House, where the advance rested, and to commence the movement at 1 A.M. The trains were to follow closely, covered by Longstreet's corps, which was still Lee's rear-guard. Sheridan's cavalry was to be overwhelmed, and, with this done, the retreat was to continue on to Lynchburg. At 3 in the morning General Lee rode slowly forward apparently to join his van-guard in the effort to break through our lines. Not, however, until 5 A.M. of the 9th did Gordon and Fitz Lee get in motion against Sheridan's cavalry, which they then found spread over a wide front near Appomattox Court-House. The battle commenced, the Union cavalry sullenly falling back. This inspired new hope in the Confederate Army. General Mumford, with a portion of his Confederate cavalry division, found a break in Sheridan's line, and charging through, escaped. This gave rise to a report that the road had been opened.(23)

Gordon pushed on with renewed confidence, infantry, cavalry, and artillery, first striking Crook and McKenzie on the Union left, then Merritt in the centre, the latter two yielding as though defeated. Crook, however, held firmly on the extreme left, while Merritt drew from the centre to the right, there to unite Custer and Devin's cavalry divisions, leaving the centre apparently abandoned. Gordon hastily dispatched word of his success, and, inspired with a hope of complete victory, hurled his hosts into the great gap thus made, capturing two pieces of artillery, and moved forward to the crest of a ridge. But, alas! From this crest Gordon and his officers saw a new scene. They beheld through the mists and the morning gray, on the plain before them, Ord's column, formed and forming, in full array, ready for strong battle. Hope vanished from the minds of the Confederate generals. The Fifth Corps, under General Charles Griffin, was also then arriving on Ord's extreme right in support of the cavalry already there. The cavalry in the centre had been but a curtain. Gordon halted and sent word of the situation to his chief, notifying him that further effort was hopeless, and would cause a useless sacrifice; that he had "fought his troops to a frazzle."(24)

Ord was Sheridan's superior in rank, but both decided to end matters at once, so, with battle flags and guidons bent to the front, the combined forces advanced to their work. Some artillery shots passed through their lines, but did not arrest them. The Confederates retired to another ridge immediately fronting the Court-House. Gordon there displayed a white flag, indicating a willingness to negotiate. Custer first saw it. He notified Sheridan, who notified Ord, and the attack was suspended. Sheridan galloped to the front, though fired on by soldiers of a South Carolina brigade,(25) and soon joined Gordon. A truce looking to a surrender was made. Colonel J. W. Forsyth of Sheridan's staff passed through the Confederate Army to Meade, and notified him of the truce, and thus stopped the Second and Sixth Corps then attacking Longstreet. Colonel Newhall, Sheridan's Adjutant-General, rode to meet Grant and advise him that Lee desired a meeting with a view to surrendering his army.

Little has been said of the great soldier, Meade, in this campaign. Much credit is due him. He aided in organizing a victory at Five Forks (26) and in planning the assault on Petersburg. Though ill at Jetersville, and much of the time thereafter to the end of the campaign, he was always up with one or the other of his corps, doing all it was possible for him to do to accomplish the great result finally attained.

Let us again return to Grant—the silent soldier. On the 5th of April Grant and his staff with a small escort became separated from his headquarters camp equipage and wagons. He was even without his sword. He and his staff thereafter slept on porches of farm- houses or bivouacked in the woods or fields without cover. They picked up scant fare at any camp they could find it, and often went hungry, as did many other officers. As a result of exposure to frequent rains, poor food, fatigue, loss of sleep, and, doubtless, extreme prolonged anxiety, Grant, on the afternoon of the 8th, had a violent attack of sick-headache. At a farm-house that night he was induced to bathe his feet in hot water and mustard and to have mustard plasters applied to his wrists and the back of his neck, but all this brought him no relief. He lay down to sleep in vain. He, however, during the night, received and sent dispatches relating to the next day's operations. At 4 o'clock his staff found him in a yard in front of the house, pacing up and down with both hands to his head and suffering great pain. He wrote a note in the early morning answering Lee's note of the previous day. He rode early to Meade's camp (then in the immediate rear of the two pursuing corps), and there drank some coffee, with little relief. His staff tried to induce him to ride that day in an ambulance, but, sick as he was, he mounted his favorite horse—Cincinnati—and in consequence of dispatches from Sheridan giving an account of the situation at the front, started by a circuitous route to join him. Some five miles from the Court-House a dispatch from Meade was handed Grant, advising him of a two-hours' truce and of the place General Lee would meet him; also this note from Lee:

"April 9, 1865. "General,—I received your note of this morning on the picket line, whither I had come to meet you, and ascertain definitely what terms were embraced in your proposal of yesterday with reference to the surrender of this army. I now ask an interview, in accordance with the offer contained in your letter of yesterday, for that purpose.

"R. E. Lee, General.
"Lieutenant-General U. S. Grant."

Grant wrote to Lee (11.50 A.M.), saying he would meet him as requested. General Porter asked Grant, as they rode on, about the pain in his head. Grant answered: "The pain in my head seemed to leave me as soon as I got Lee's letter."(27) He reached the Court- House about 1 P.M., where he was met by Ord and Sheridan. Lee had already arrived, and was awaiting Grant at the McLean house. The two Generals met face to face. Lee wore a new Confederate uniform and a handsome sword. He was tall, straight, and soldierly in appearance. He wore a full gray beard. Grant, much below Lee in stature, wore only a soldier's blouse and soiled suit, and was without a sword, having only some dingy shoulder-straps denoting the rank of Lieutenant-General.

Lee, on his arrival, dismounted, and was seated for a short time at the roadside, beneath an apple tree. This circumstance alone gave rise to the widely circulated report that the surrender took place under an apple tree.(28)

Some civilities passed between the Generals at the McLean house. There was substantially no negotiation as to the terms of surrender. Lee asked Grant to write them. Grant said: "Very well, I will write them out." He took a manifold order-book, and without consultation with anybody, in the presence of Lee and others, wrote:

"General,—In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th inst. I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate. One copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the government of the United States until properly [exchanged], and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.

"Very respectfully,
"U. S. Grant, Lt.-Gen."

This was immediately handed to General Lee, who, after reading it, observed the word "exchanged" had been inadvertently omitted after the words "until properly." The word was inserted. Lee inquired of Grant whether the terms proposed permitted cavalrymen and artillerists who, in his army, owned their horses, to retain them. Grant answered that the terms, as written, would not, but added, that as many of the men were small farmers and might need their animals to raise a crop in the coming season, he would instruct his paroling officers to let every man who claimed to own a horse or mule keep it. Lee remarked that this would have a good effect.

Grant's draft was handed to be copied to an Indian, Colonel Ely S. Parker (Chief of the Six Nations) of Grant's staff, he being the best scribe of Grant's officers present. Lee mistook Parker for a negro, and seemed to be struck with astonishment to find one on Grant's staff.

Lee then wrote this note:

"Headquarters Army of Northern Virginia, April 9, 1865. "General,—I received your letter of this date containing the terms of surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia as proposed by you. As they are substantially the same as those expressed in your letter of the 8th inst. they are accepted. I will proceed to designate the proper officers to carry the stipulations into effect.

"R. E. Lee, General.
"Lieut.-General U. S. Grant."

Generals Gibbon, Griffin, and Merritt were designated by Grant, and Generals Longstreet, Gordon, and Pendleton by Lee, to carry into effect the terms of surrender.

Before separating, Lee stated to Grant that his army was badly in want of food and forage; that his men had lived for some days on parched corn, and that he would have to ask for subsistence. Grant promised it at once, and asked how many men there were to supply. Lee replied, "About twenty-five thousand." Grant authorized him to send to Appomattox Station and get a supply out of the recently captured trains. At that time our army had few rations, and only such forage as the poor country afforded.

Some detachments and small bands of Lee's army escaped, but there were paroled 2781 officers and 25,450 men, aggregate 28,231.(29)

Lee's army was not required to march out, stack arms, and surrender according to the general custom of war, but the men, quietly, under their officers, stacked their guns and remained in camp until paroled. They soon dispersed, never to reassemble. The Army of Northern Virginia then ceased to exist.

The Union Army, on learning of the surrender, commenced firing a salute of one hundred guns. Grant ordered the firing stopped, not desiring to exult over his captured countrymen. General Meade and others protested in vain that it was due to the Army of the Potomac for its sacrifices and gallantry in the years of war that it should have the honor of a formal surrender and a day of military demonstrations.

The wildest scenes of rejoicing, however, took place in the Union Army on learning of the surrender. It did not take on the form of boasting over the captured. It was a genuine exultation over the prospect of the end of the war, the overthrow of the Confederacy, the restoration of the Union, and the destruction of slavery in the Republic. Officers, however high of rank, were not safe from the frenzied rush of the excited soldiers. Some eloquent, joyous speeches were made.

The little wild-cherry tree under which myself and staff were seated, drinking a cup of coffee and chewing "hard tack" when word of the surrender came, was torn down for mementoes. Meade and Wright did not escape, being almost dragged from their horses in the mad rejoicing.

The enlisted men of the two armies met on the guard lines, where many of the Union soldiers gave their last cracker to hungry Confederates. The gentlest and kindest feeling was exhibited on both sides. Not an ungenerous word was heard.

Grant at 4.30 P.M. telegraphed the Secretary of War: "General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia this afternoon on terms proposed by myself."

President Lincoln had the news of Lee's surrender to cheer his great soul for five days before the assassin's bullet laid him low.

Grant retired to an improvised camp, and immediately announced his intention to leave the army in the field and start for Washington the next day. He rode within the Confederate lines at 9 A.M. on the 10th, and held a half hour's talk with Lee about the possibility of other Confederate armies surrendering and the speedy ending of the war, but Lee, though expressing himself satisfied further effort was vain, would take no responsibility, even to advising other armies to surrender, without consulting Jefferson Davis.(30) Grant left for Washington at noon.

General Lee retired to his home at Richmond.

The Union Army counter-marched to Burkeville. While there the death of Abraham Lincoln was announced to it. The army loved him, and his assassination excited the bitterest feeling. A memorial meeting was held at my headquarters at Burkeville, and like meetings were held in some other commands, at which speeches were made by officers.

The casualties in the Union Army in all the operations from March 29 to April 9, 1865 (Dinwiddie Court-House to Appomattox inclusive) were, in killed and wounded:(31)

Army of the Potomac . . . . . . 6,609
Army of the James . . . . . . . 1,289
Cavalry (Sheridan) . . . . . . 1,168
——-
Grand total . . . . . . . . . 9,066

The killed and wounded in the Sixth Corps were 1500, and in my brigade 379 (above one fourth in the corps), and in the campaign, including March 25th at Petersburg, 480.

The brigade in the campaign, besides taking sixteen pieces of artillery and many prisoners in battle, captured six battle-flags, including General Heth's division headquarters flag.(32)

Sheridan with the cavalry and Wright with the Sixth Corps were ordered from Burkeville to North Carolina, to co-operate with Sherman against J. E. Johnston's army. The Sixth left Burkeville the 23d of April, 1865, and arrived, via Halifax Court-House, at Danville, a hundred miles or more distant, on the 27th, where, on learning that Johnston had capitulated, it was halted.

I obtained leave to continue south without my command (with two staff officers and a few orderlies), to visit old friends in Sherman's army with whom I had served in the West in 1861 and 1862. I travelled through bodies of paroled Confederates for fifty miles, to Greensboro, North Carolina, and there came into the lines of the Twenty-Third Corps, commanded by my old and distinguished friend, General J. D. Cox. After a few days' sojourn as his guest, and having seen the surrendered army of Joe Johnston, I returned to Danville and my proper command, feeling the war was about over.

The Army of the Potomac marched to Washington, and there (Sixth Corps excepted), uniting with Sherman's army, held the Grand Review of May 23, 1865. The Sixth Corps, with many detachments, numbering about 30,000 in all, arrived later, and was reviewed by President Johnson and his Cabinet and Generals Grant, Sherman, and Meade, June 8, 1865. The Army of the Potomac was disbanded June 28, 1865. All the armies of the Union were soon broken up and the volunteers composing them mustered out and sent to their homes to take up the pursuits of peace.(33) The prisons of the South had given up their starving victims.

On the recommendations of Wright, Meade, and Grant I was appointed a Brevet Major-General of Volunteers, the commission of the President reciting that it was "for gallant and distinguished services during the campaign ending in the surrender of the insurgent army under General R. E. Lee."

I was mustered out at Washington June 27, 1865, having served continuously as an officer precisely four years and two months, and fought in about the first (Rich Mountain) and the last (Sailor's Creek) battles of the war, and campaigned in six of the eleven seceding States, and in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Maryland.(34)

The regiments of my brigade (110th, 122d and 126th Ohio, 67th and 138th Pennsylvania, 6th Maryland, and 9th New York Heavy Artillery) lost, killed on the field, 54 officers and 812 enlisted men, wounded 101 officers and 2410 enlisted men, aggregate 3377, only six less than the killed and wounded under Scott and Taylor in their conquest of Mexico, 1846-1848,(35) and more than the like casualties under the direct command of Washington in the Revolutionary War—Lexington to Yorktown.

The terms of capitulation accorded to Lee's army were granted to other armies.

With Lee's surrender came the capture of Fort Blakely, Alabama,
April 9th, followed by the surrender of Mobile, April 12th; Joe
Johnston's army in North Carolina, April 26th; Dick Taylor's in
Mississippi; May 4th; and Kirby Smith's in Texas, May 26th.
Jefferson Davis, with members of his Cabinet, was captured at
Irwinville, Georgia, May 10, 1865.

As the curtain fell before the awful drama of war, 174,233 Confederates surrendered, who, with 98,802 others held as prisoners of war (in all 273,035), were paroled and sent to their homes, and 1686 cannon and over 200,000 small arms were the spoils of victory.

The war was over; it was not in vain.

State-rights and secession—twin heresies, as promulgated by Calhoun and his followers and maintained by Jefferson Davis and the civil and military powers of the would-be Confederacy, and human slavery, a growth of the ages, fostered by avarice, and a blot on our civilization for two hundred and fifty years—were likewise overthrown or destroyed; and the integrity of the Union of the States and the majesty of the Constitution as a charter of organized liberty were vindicated, and the American Republic, full-orbed, was perpetuated, under one flag, and with one destiny.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, declaring that: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction"; submitted, February 1, 1865, by Congress to the States for ratification, and proclaimed ratified December 18, 1865, is but the inevitable decree of war, in the form of organic law, resulting from the triumph of the Union arms, accomplished through the bloody sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of devoted men, together with the concurrent sufferings of yet other hundreds of thousands of wounded and sick and the sorrows of disconsolate and desolate millions more, superadded by billions in value of property laid waste and other billions of treasure expended. Such, indeed, was the penalty paid to eradicate the crime of the centuries— SLAVERY.

Freedom was triumphant, and civilization moved higher.

( 1) Memoirs of Sheridan, vol. ii., pp. 175, 189.

( 2) This statement is taken from Lee's official report, though Jefferson Davis, in his work, takes pains to viciously deny its truth. War Records, vol. xlvi., Part I., p. 1265; Battles and Leaders, etc., vol. iv., p. 724; Rise and Fall of the Confederacy, vol. ii., pp. 668-76.

( 3) Rise and Fall of the Confederacy, Davis, vol. ii., p. 677. I picked up at Danville a copy of this document at the press where it had recently been printed.

( 4) War Records, vol. xlvi., Part III., p. 549.

( 5) Ibid., pp. 556, 610.

( 6) Memoirs of Sheridan, vol. ii., p. 187.

( 7) War Records., vol. xlvi., Part III., p. 576.

( 8) While riding along the face of the hills with Colonel Andrew J. Smith of the division staff, to get a good view of the enemy's position, I dispatched the Colonel to bring up and put a battery in a designated position. He met and sent Major O. V. Tracey of the same staff on his errand, and soon rejoined me. Some movements displayed large numbers of the enemy, whereupon Smith characteristically exclaimed: "Get as many boys as ever you can; get as many shingles as ever you can; get around the corner as fast as ever you can,— a whole hogshead of molasses all over the walk!" Before this outburst ceased a bullet whistled past by bridle reins and struck Smith in the right leg. While yet repeating his lingo, he threw his arms around his horse's neck and swung to the ground.

( 9) Grant wrote Sheridan informing him the Sixth Corps was following him, saying: "The Sixth Corps will go in with a vim any place you may dicate."—Memoirs of Sheridan, vol. ii., p. 182.

(10) War Records, vol. xlvi., Part I., pp. 1284, 1298.

(11) Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, p. 614.

(12) War Records, vol. xlvi., Part I., p. 980.

(13) Captains John F. Hazleton and T. J. Hoskinson, serving respectively as my Quartermaster and Commissary of Subsistence, reported to me at a critical juncture in the battle of Sailor's Creek and volunteered for field duty, and for their exceptional gallantry each was, on my recommendation, brevetted a Major by the President.

(14) Tucker after the war expatriated himself from the country for a time, and became an Admiral in the Peruvian navy, but as our naval officers refused to salute his flag on the sea, Peru was forced to dismiss him.

(15) War Records, vol. xlvi., Part I., pp. 683, 980.

(16) Ibid., p. 906.

(17) As to numbers engaged, see correspondence, Appendix C.

(18) Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, p. 616.

(19) Memoirs of Grant, vol. ii., pp. 477-8.

(20) Memoirs of Sheridan, vol. ii., pp. 191, 199.

(21) Manassas to Appomattox, pp. 618, 620; Memoirs of Lee (Long), p. 416.

(22) Letter of General Gordon to the writer, of October 1, 1894.

(23) Longstreet relates that information came to him from Gordon that a break had been found through which the Confederate Army "could force passage," and that he dispatched a Colonel Haskell "on a blooded mare" after Lee, who had gone to the rear expecting to meet Grant, as requested by Lee by note previously sent, Longstreet telling the Colonel "to kill his mare, but bring Lee back."— Manassas to Appomattox, pp. 623, 626.

(24) Memoirs of Lee (Long), p. 421.

(25) Memoirs of Sheridan, vol. ii., pp. 194-8.

(26) Memoirs of Sheridan, vol. ii., p. 154.

(27) Battles and Leaders, etc., vol. iv., p. 740; Memoirs of Grant, vol. ii., p. 483.

(28) Memoirs of Grant., vol. ii., p. 488.

(29) War Records, vol. xlvi., Part I., p. 1279.

(30) Memoirs of Grant, vol. ii., p. 497.

(31) War Records, vol. xlvi., Part I., p. 597.

(32) The individual captors of flags were F. M. McMillen, Co. C, and Isaac James, Co. A, 110th Ohio; Milton Blickensderfer, Co. E, 126th Ohio; George Loyd, Co. A, 122d Ohio (Heth's battle flag); John Keough, Co. E, 67th Pennsylvania; and Trustrim Connell, Co. I, 138th Pennsylvania. Each was awarded a Medal of Honor.—War Records, vol. xlvi., Part I., pp. 909, 981.

(33) An incident will illustrate how Secretary Stanton sometimes did business. The first order to muster out volunteers excepted those whose term of enlistment expired after October 1, 1865. This would have left in service some men of each company of my Ohio regiments and caused dissatisfaction. Through a written application I obtained authority to muster out all the men of these regiments. Later, complaints came from regiments of other States similarly affected, and an application was made by me for like authority as to them, which was refused. This was invidious. In company with General Meade I called on the Secretary of War to ask a reconsideration. On the bare mention of our mission Mr. Stanton flew into a rage and denounced Meade for making the request, saying no such order had been or would be issued. Meade was deeply hurt and started to withdraw, and the wrath of the Secretary was turned on me. I interrupted him and, displaying the order relating to the Ohio regiments, told him his statement was not true. Stanton thereupon became still more violent and abusive and declared the order I had was issued by mistake or through fraud and would be revoked. I replied that it had been executed; that the men were discharged, paid off, and on their way home. He then became calm, relented, apologized for his intemperate language, and kindly issued the desired order.

(34) I was, in 1866, on the joint request of Generals Grant and Meade, appointed Lieutenant-Colonel in the 26th Infantry, U. S. A. I declined the commission.

(35) There were 26,690 regulars and 56,926 volunteers—83,616, employed in the invasion of Mexico, not mentioning the navy.— History of Mexican War (Wilcox), p. 561. For the author's farewell order to the brigade, and table of casualties in it by regiments, see Appendix C.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A GENERAL KEIFER IN CIVIL LIFE

I ANCESTRY AND LIFE BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR

I was born, January 30, 1836, on a farm on Mad River, north side, six miles west of Springfield, Bethel Township, Clark County, Ohio, a short distance west of Tecumseh Hill, the site of the original Piqua, Shawnee Indian village, destroyed by General George Rogers Clark August 8, 1780.

My ancestors, though not especially distinguished for great deeds, either in peace or war, were of the sturdy kind, mentally, physically, and morally.

My grandfather, George Keifer, was born (1728) in one of the German States, from whence he emigrated to America and settled in the Province of Maryland about the year 1750. Nothing is certainly known of his life or family in Germany. He was a Protestant, and was probably led to quit German-Europe to escape the religious intolerance, if not persecutions, there at the time so common.

He availed himself of the Act of Parliament made in the thirteenth year of the reign of King George the Second, which provided for the naturalization of "Foreign Protestants," settled or who should settle in his Majesty's colonies in America, and was naturalized and became a subject of King George the Third of England, an allegiance he did not long faithfully maintain, as he became a Revolutionary patriot in 1776.( 1) He participated in the Revolution, though there is no known record of his being a regular soldier in the war. He gave some attention to farming, but was by trade a shoemaker. He resided in Sharpsburg, Washington County, Maryland, on Antietam Creek, and there died, April 11, 1809. His wife, Margaret (Schisler) was likewise German, probably born in Germany (1745), but married in Maryland. Her family history is unknown, but she was a woman of a high order of intelligence, and possessed of much spirit and energy. After her husband's death she removed (1812) with her two sons to Ohio (walking, from choice, the entire distance), and died there, February 9, 1827, in my father's family, at eighty-two years of age. George and Margaret Keifer had two sons, George (born October 27, 1769, and died August 31, 1845), and Joseph (my father), born February 28, 1784, at Sharpsburg, Maryland. They followed, when young, the occupation and trade of their father. The facilities and opportunities for acquiring an education for persons in limited circumstances were then small, yet Joseph Keifer early determined to secure an education, and by his own persevering efforts, with little, if any, instruction, he became especially proficient in geography and mathematics, and acquired a thorough practical knowledge of navigation and civil engineering. He could speak and read German. He was a general reader, and throughout his life was a constant student of both sacred and profane history, and devoted much attention to a study of the Bible. In September, 1811, he left Sharpsburg, on horseback, on a prospecting tour over the mountains to the West, destination Ohio. He kept a journal (now before me) of his travels, showing each day's journey, the places visited, the topography of the country, the kinds of timber growing, the lay of the land and kinds of soil, the water supply and its quality, etc., and something of the settlers. This journey occupied seven weeks, during which he rode 1140 miles, much of it over trails and bridle paths, his total cash "travelling expenses being $36.30." He travelled through Jefferson, Tuscarawas, Stark, Muskingum, Fairfield, Pickaway, Ross, Fayette, Champaign (including what is now Clark), Montgomery, Warren, Butler, Hamilton, Guernsey, and Belmont Counties, Ohio. In April, 1812, he started on another like journey over much the same country, returning May 15th.

On his first journey he visited Springfield, Ohio, and vicinity, and bargained for and made an advance payment of $500 in silver for about seven hundred acres of land, located near (west of) New Boston, from John Enoch, for himself and his brother George Keifer, agreeing to take possession and make further payment in one year. He removed with his brother George (who then had a wife and family of several children), his mother accompanying, by wagon and on horseback to this land, in the fall of 1812, where both brothers made their homes during life, each following the general occupation of farming. The land was chosen with reference to its superior quality, excellent growth of popular, oak, walnut, hickory, and other valuable timber for building purposes, and likewise with reference to its fine, healthful, perennial springs of pure limestone water. The tract fronted on Mad River, extending northward into the higher lands so as to include bottom-lands and uplands in combination.

Joseph Keifer, before leaving Maryland, procured to be made at Frederick, Maryland, a surveyor's compass and chain (still in my possession), and when in Ohio, in addition to clearing lands and farming, he surveyed many extensive tracts of land for the early settlers. Later in life he gave up surveying, save for his neighbors when called on. He had some inclination to music. He served for a short time in the War of 1812, joining an expedition for the relief of General Harrison and Fort Meigs on the Maumee when besieged by the British and Indians in 1813. He, however, lived in his Ohio home a quiet, sober, peaceful, contented, studious, moral life, much esteemed for his straightforward, honest, plain character by all who knew him, but always taking a deep interest in public affairs, state and national, his sympathies being with the poor, oppressed, and unfortunate. His detestation of slavery led him to emigrate from a slave State to one where slavery not only did not and could not exist, but where free labor was well requited and was regarded as highly honorable. Though among the early settlers of the then wild West, he did not care much, if at all, for hunting and fishing, then common among his neighbors and associates. He preferred to devote his leisure hours to reading and intellectual pursuits and to the society of those of kindred tastes, especially interesting himself in the education of his large family of children. He was, in theory and practice, a moral and religious man, a church attendant, though never a member of any church, yet one year before his death (1849), at his own request, he was baptized in Mad River, by Rev. John Gano Reeder, of the Christian Church.

He was one of the founders and first directors of the Clark County
Bible Society, organized September 2, 1822.

Throughout his life he took a deep interest in politics, but he never sought or held any important office. He was an Adams-Clay Whig.

He died on his farm, April 13, 1850, and his remains, likewise his mother's and his brother's, are now buried in Ferncliff Cemetery, Springfield, Ohio.

He was married, November 9, 1815, to Mary Smith, daughter of Rev. Peter Smith, a Baptist minister (then resident on a farm near what is now Donnelsville, Clark County, Ohio), who had some celebrity also as a physician in the "Miami Country." He was a son of Dr. Hezekiah Smith of the "Jerseys," and was born in Wales, February 6, 1753, from whence this branch of the Smith family came. He was some relation to Hezekiah Smith, D.D., of Haverhill, Massachusetts, but in what way connected is not known. Peter Smith was educated at Princeton, and married in New Jersey to Catherine Stout (December 23, 1776), and he seems to have early, under his father, given some attention to medicine, and became familiar with the works of Dr. Rush, Dr. Brown, and other writers of his day on "physic." He also, during his life, acquired much from physicians whom he met in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio. He called himself an "Indian Doctor" (because he sometimes used in his practice herbs, roots, etc., and other remedies known to the Indians), though he was in no proper sense such a doctor. He was an early advocate, much against public prejudice, of inoculations for smallpox; this before Dr. Jenner had completed his investigations and had introduced vaccination as a preventive for smallpox.( 2)

Dr. Peter Smith, in his little volume (printed by Brown & Looker, Cincinnati, 1813), speaks of inoculating 130 persons, in New Jersey, for smallpox in 1777, using, to prevent dangerous results, with some of them, calomel, and dispensing with it with others, but reaching the conclusion that calomel was not necessary for the patient's safety.

In this book, entitled The Indian Doctor's Dispensatory, etc., ( 3) on the title-page he says: "Men seldom have wit enough to prize and take care of their health until they lose it—And doctors often know not how to get their bread deservedly, until they have no teeth to chew it." He seems to have been an original character and investigator, availing himself of all the opportunities for acquiring knowledge within his reach, especially acquainting himself with domestic, German, and tried Indian remedies, roots, herbs, etc. In the Introduction to his book he says: "The elements by Brown seem to me plain, reasonable, and practicable. But I have to say of his prescriptions, as David did of Saul's armour, when it was put upon him, 'I cannot go with this, for I have not proved it.' He thus chose his sling, his staff, shepherd's bag and stones, because he was used to them, and could recollect what he had heretofore done with them." The modern germ or bacilli theory of disease, now generally accepted by learned physicians, was not unknown or even new in his time. He speaks of it as an "insect" theory, based on the belief that diseases were produced by an invisible insect, floating in the air, taken in with the breath, where it either poisons or propagates its kind, so as to produce disease.( 4)

Besides much in general, Peter Smith's book contains about ninety prescriptions for the cure of as many diseases or forms of disease, to be compounded generally from now well-known medicine, roots, herbs, etc., some of them heroic, others quaint, etc. He did not recommend dispensing wholly with the then universal practice of bleeding patients, but he generally condemned it.

About the year 1780, from New Jersey, he commenced his wandering, emigrating life, with his wife and some small children. He lingered a little in Virginia, in the Carolinas, and settled for a time in Georgia, and all along he sought out people from whom he could gather knowledge, especially of the theory and practice of medicine. And he preached, possibly in an irregular way, the Gospel, as a devout Baptist of the Old School, a denomination to which he was early attached. Not satisfied with his Georgia home, "with its many scorpions and slaves," he took his family on horseback, some little children (twin babies among them) carried in baskets suitable for the purpose, hung to the horns of the saddle ridden by his wife, and thus they crossed mountains, rivers, and creeks, without roads, and not free from danger from Indians, traversing the woods from Georgia through Tennessee to Kentucky, intending there to abide. But finding Kentucky had also become a slave State, he and his family, bidding good-by to Kentucky "headticks and slavery," in like manner emigrated to Ohio, settling on Duck Creek, near Columbia (Old Baptist Church), now within the limits of Cincinnati, reaching there about 1794. He became, with his family, a member of this church, and frequently preached there and at other frontier places, but still pursuing the occupation of farming, and, though perhaps not for much remuneration, the practice of medicine. In 1804 he again took to the wilderness with his entire family, then grown to the number of twelve children, born in the "Jerseys" or on the line of his march through the coast or wilderness States or territories. He settled on a small and poor farm on Donnels Creek, in the midst of rich ones, where he died, December 31, 1816. It seems from his book (page 14) (published while he resided at his last home), that he did not personally cease his wanderings and search for medical knowledge, as he says he was in Philadelphia, July 4, 1811, where he made some observations as to the effect of hot and cool air upon the human system, through the respiration. But it is certain he taught to the end, in the pulpit, and ministered as a physician to his neighbors and friends, often going long distances from home for the purpose. He concluded, near the end of his long and varied experiences, that: "Men have contrived to break all God's appointments. But this: 'It is appointed for all men once to die' has never been abrogated or defeated by any man. And as to medicine we are about to take: If the Lord will, we shall do this or that with success; if the Lord will, I shall get well by this means or some other." He concluded his "Introduction" by commending the "iron doctrine" for consumptives, and assenting to Dr. Brown's opinion that "an old man ought never to marry a young woman."

He is buried in a neglected graveyard near Donnelsville, Clark
County, Ohio.

Men of the type and character described impressed for good Western life and character while they lived, and through their example and posterity also the indefinite future.

Peter Smith had four sons, Samuel, Ira, Hezekiah, and Abram, who each lived beyond eighty years, dying the order of their birth, each leaving a large family of sons and daughters, whose children, grandchildren, etc., are found now in nearly, if not all, the States of the Union, many of them also becoming pioneers to the frontiers, long ago reaching the Rocky Mountains, the Pacific slope and coast.( 5)

His sons Ira and Hezekiah, much after the fashion of their father, preached the Gospel (Baptist) in Ohio and Indiana, but not neglecting, as did their father, to amass each a considerable fortune. Ira resided and died at Lafayette, Indiana, and Rev. Hezekiah Smith at Smithland, Indiana. Samuel, the eldest (Clark County, Ohio), was always a plain, creditable farmer, but his sons and grandchildren became noted as educators, physicians, surgeons, and divines.

Samuel's son, Peter Smith, besides acquiring a good general education, studied surveying, my father assisting him, and he taught school in Clark and other counties in Ohio, and became celebrated for his success. He was the first in Ohio to advocate higher-graded, or union schools, and through his efforts a first law was passed in Ohio to establish them. He adopted a merit-ticket system for scholars in schools which, for a time, was highly successful and became popular. He removed, about 1830, to Illinois, then became a surveyor and locator of public lands, farmer, etc., and was killed by a railroad train at Sumner, Illinois, when about eighty years of age, leaving a large number of grown children.

Rev. Milton J. Miller (now of Geneseo, Illinois), grandson of Samuel Smith, though a farmer boy, early resolved to acquire an education and enter the ministry. His resolution was carried out. He graduated at Antioch College; attended a theological school at Cambridge, Mass., became a minister of the Christian Church, later of the Unitarian, and was for about one year a chaplain in the volunteer army (110th Ohio), and distinguished himself in all relations of life.

Dr. Hezekiah Smith, also son of Samuel, became somewhat eminent as a physician, and died at Smithland, Shelby County, Indiana, in 1897.

Abram, though once in prosperous circumstances, through irregular habits and the inherited disposition to rove over the world, became poor, and sometimes, when remote from his family and friends, in real want, yet he, the youngest of the four, lived past the traditional family fourscore years, dying poor (near Lawrenceville, Illinois), but leaving children and grandchildren in many States of the West, who had become, at his death, or since became, distinguished as soldiers and eminent citizens. He was a man of most cheerful disposition, and whatever his circumstances or lot were he seemed content and happy.

Five of Dr. Peter Smith's daughters (besides my mother) lived to be married. Sarah married Henry Jennings; Elizabeth, Hezekiah Ferris; Nancy, John Johns; Margaret, Hugh Wallace, and Rhoda, Dr. Wm. Lindsay, but each died comparatively young. They also each left children; and their grandchildren, etc., are now numerous and many of them highly esteemed citizens, also scattered widely over the country.

Two others of Dr. Smith's children (Catherine and Jacob Stout) lived only to the ages of fifteen and seventeen years respectively.

But Peter Smith was not the sole head of this remarkable and long wandering family, nor the repository or source of all its brains or good qualities of head and heart.

He was married, as stated, to Catherine Stout, in New Jersey, whose family was theretofore, then, and since both numerous and widely dispersed, and many of them more than usually prominent or celebrated in public or private life.

Her ancestry may be traced briefly. Richard Stout, who seems to have been first of his name in America, was the son of John Stout, of Nottinghamshire, England. When a young man he came to New Amsterdam (New York City), where he met Penelope Van Princess, a young woman from Holland. She, with her first husband, had been on a ship from Amsterdam, Holland, bound for New Amsterdam. The ship was wrecked in the lower bay and driven on the New Jersey coast below Staten Island. The passengers and crew escaped to the shore, but were there attacked by Indians, and all left for dead; Penelope alone was alive, but severely wounded. She had strength enough to get to a hollow tree, where she is said to have lived unaided for seven days, during which time she was obliged to keep her bowels in place with her hand, on account of a cut across her abdomen. At the end of this time a merciful but avaricious Indian discovered and took pity on her. He took her to his wigwam, cared for her, and thence took her to New Amsterdam by canoe and sold her to the Dutch. This woman Richard Stout married about the year 1650. The couple settled in New Jersey, and raised a family of seven sons and three daughters. The third son, Jonathon, married a Bullen, settled at Hopewell, New Jersey, and had six sons and three daughters. The fifth son, Samuel, married Catherine Simpson, by whom he had one son, Samuel, born in 1732. This Samuel served in the New Jersey Legislature, and was a Justice of the Peace. He married Anne Van Dyke, and had seven sons and three daughters. His daughter Catherine, great-great-granddaughter of Richard and Penelope (born November 25, 1758), married, December 25, 1776, Peter Smith, whose history we have traced. She was the companion of all his journeyings, caring for and directing affairs and the family in his frequent absence and itinerarys from home "preaching the Gospel and disbursing physic for the salvation of souls and the healing of the body." She, too, was a devout Christian (Baptist), and ministered to the exposed and often needy pioneers in the wilderness. She survived him fifteen years, dying March 3, 1831. She is buried beside her husband.

Mary (my mother), a daughter of Peter and Catherine Smith, born January 31, 1799, on Duck Creek near Columbia Church, within the present limits of Cincinnati, married (as stated) Joseph Keifer, when not yet seventeen years of age, and became the mother of fourteen children, eight of whom lived to mature years—two sons and six daughters. She died at Yellow Springs, Ohio, March 23, 1879, passing her eightieth birthday, like her brothers named, having survived all her brothers and sisters. She was next to the youngest of them. She inherited, cultivated, and practised the essential virtues necessary in a successful, useful, pure, happy, and contented life. She had a most cheerful disposition, and was a confident and buoyant spirit, in sorrow and adversity. She was devoted to all her children, and all owe her much for their fundamental preparation, education, etc., together with the habits of industry and perseverance, essential to whatever of success they have attained in life. And, above all, she early became a member of church (Baptist and Christian), and maintained her church relations for above sixty years, to her death, never doubting in her Christian belief, yet never bigoted or intolerant of the religious views of others.

She was a devoted companion to her husband, and with him ever took a deep interest in their family and neighbors, never neglecting a duty to them. She, born in the Ohio territory, lived within its borders above eighty years, witnessed its transformation from savagery to the highest civilization, and its growth in wealth, power, and population from little to the third of the great States of the Union. She witnessed the coming, through science and inventions, of railroads, telegraphs, steam, and electric power, telephones, etc. She saw the soldiers of the War of 1812, the Mexican war, and the War of the Rebellion, and something of the Indian wars in Ohio. In her childhood she lived in proximity to savages. With her husband she had ministered to escaped slaves, and saw slavery (always detested by both) abolished. She witnessed with becoming pride a degree of success in the efforts of her children and grandchildren, and she held on her knees her great- grandchildren. She is buried beside her husband in Ferncliff Cemetery, Springfield, Ohio.

The children who grew to maturity were: Margaret, born September 22, 1816, who married Joseph Gaines, and died March 10, 1896, leaving two sons and a daughter; Sarah (still living) born September 29, 1819, who married Lewis James, and, after his decease, Richard T. Youngman, having one son, J. Warren James (Captain 45th Ohio, War of the Rebellion), and five children by her last husband; Benjamin Franklin (still living), born April 22, 1821, who married Amelia Henkle, and has three sons and three daughters living; Elizabeth Mary, born February 20, 1823, unmarried, still living; Lucretia, born January 20, 1828, died August 5, 1892, surviving her husband, Eli M. Henkle, and her only son, John E. Henkle; Joseph Warren Keifer, born January 20, 1836, who married, March 22, 1860, Eliza Stout, of Springfield, Ohio. [They have three sons living, Joseph Warren, born May 13, 1861; William White, born May 24, 1866, and Horace Charles, born November 14, 1867. Their only other child, a daughter, Margaret Eliza, was born June 2, 1873, and died August 16, 1890.] Minerva, born July 15, 1839 (died July 22, 1899), married to Charles B. Palmer, and they have two sons and a daughter; and Cordelia Ellen, born July 17, 1842, not married.

From the ancestry described and from the widely diversified strains of blood—German, English, Welsh, Dutch, and others not traced or traceable—meeting, to make, in composite, a full-blooded American —came the author of this sketch. He also sprang from a farmer, shoemaker, civil engineer, clergyman, physician, etc., ancestry, no lawyer or soldier of mark appearing in the long line, so far as known.

Born with a vigorous constitution, of strong ( 6) and remarkably healthy parents, I, early as strength permitted, became useful, in the varied ways a boy can be, on a farm where the soil is not only tilled, but trees first have to be felled, rails split, hauled, and fences built. Timber had to be cut and hauled to saw-mills, to make lumber for buildings, etc. In the 40's clearing was still done by deadening, felling, and by burning, the greater part of the timber not being necessary or suitable for sawed lumber or rails. In all this work, as I grew in years and strength, I participated. At or before the age of seven years, and long thereafter, I performed hard farm work, hauling, ploughing, sowing, planting, cultivating corn and vegetables, harvesting, etc., and was never idle. I mowed grass with a scythe, and reaped grains with a sickle (the rough marks of the teeth of the latter are seen still on the fingers of my left hand as I write this.) Later, the cradle to cut small grain was introduced, though at first it was not popular, because it reduced the usual number of harvest hands required to "sickle the crop." Raking and binding wheat, rye, and oats were part of the hard work of the harvest field. Husking corn was a fall and sometimes winter occupation. Stock had to be cared for and fed. Flax for home-made garments was raised, pulled up by hand, spread, rotted, broken, skutched, hackled, etc. All this work of the farm I pursued with regularity and assiduity. My father dying when I was fourteen years of age, and my only living brother (Benjamin F.) being married and on his own farm, much more of the duties and management of a farm of above two hundred acres devolved on me for the more than six succeeding years while my mother continued to reside on the homestead.

My education was commenced at home and at the log district schoolhouse, located on my father's farm. The beginning of a child's schooling, by law and custom, was then at four years of age. Thus early I went to school, but not regularly. It was then rare that a summer school was kept up, and the winter term was usually only three or four months, at the outside. The farmer boy was needed to work almost the year round, and even while attending school, he arose early to attend to the feeding of stock, chopping fire-wood, doing chores, etc., and when school closed in the evening he was often, until after darkness set in, similarly engaged. The school hours were from 8 A.M. to 12 M. and from 1 to 5 P.M. Saturdays were days of hard work. The school months were busy ones to the farmer boys and girls. Spelling matches at night were common.

The schools were, however, good, though the teachers were not always efficient or capable of instructing in the higher branches of learning now commonly taught in public schools in Ohio. But in reading, spelling, writing, English grammar, geography within certain limits, and arithmetic, the instruction was quite thorough, and scholars inclined to acquire an education early became proficient in the branches taught.

At school I made progress, though attending usually only about three—sometimes four—months in the year. But I had the exceptional advantage of aid at home from my father and mother; also older sisters, who had all of them become fitted for teachers. My natural inclination was to mathematics and physical geography rather than to English grammar or other branches taught. While engaged in the study of geography my father arranged to make a globe to illustrate the zones, etc., and grand divisions of the world. Though then but twelve years of age I aided him in chopping down a native linden tree, from which a block was cut and taken to a man (Crain) who made spinning-wheels, which was by him turned, globe-shaped, about a foot in diameter, and hung in a frame. My father marked on it the lines of latitude and longitude and laid off the grand divisions, islands, oceans, seas, etc., and with appropriate shadings to indicate lines or boundaries, it was varnished and became a veritable globe, fit for an early student of geography, and far from crude. It now stands before me as perfect as when made fifty years since. In mathematics I soon, out of school, passed to the study of algebra, geometry, natural philosophy, etc. My common school and home advantages were excellent, and while my father lived, even when at work in the field, problems were being stated and solved, and interesting matters were discussed and considered. The country boy has an inestimable advantage over the town or city boy in the fact that he is more alone and on his own resources, which gives him an opportunity for independent thought, and forces him to become a thinker, without which no amount of scholastic advantages will make him, in any proper sense, learned.

I had the misfortune, before ten years of age, of injuring, by accident, my left foot, and in consequence went on crutches about two years of my boyhood life. This apprehension of again becoming lame early turned my thought to an occupation other than farming. When sixteen years of age I decided to try to become a lawyer, and in this decision my mother seconded me heartily. Though continuing to labor on the farm without intermission, I pursued, as I had long before, a regular study of history, and procured and read some elementary law books, including a copy of Blackstone's Commentaries, which I systematically and constantly read and re-read, and availed myself, without an instructor, of all possible means of acquiring legal knowledge. In my eighteenth year I was regularly entered as a student at law with Anthony & Goode, attorneys, at Springfield, Ohio, though my reading was still continued on the farm, noons, nights, and between intervals of hard work.( 7)

Lyceums or debating societies which met at the villages or schoolhouses were then common. They were usually well conducted, and they were excellent incentives to study, affording good opportunity for acquiring habits of debate and public speaking. They are, unfortunately, no longer common. These lyceums I frequented, and participated in the discussions. I taught public school "a quarter," the winter of 1852-53, at the Black-Horse tavern schoolhouse, on Donnels Creek, for sixty dollars pay.

I attended Antioch College (1854-55) in Horace Mann's time, for less than a year, reciting in classes in geometry, higher algebra, English grammar, rhetoric, etc., pursuing no regular course, and part of the time taking special lessons, and while there actively participated in a small debating club, to which some men still living and of high eminence belonged. One member only of the club has, so far, died upon the gallows. This was Edwin Coppoc, who was hanged with John Brown in December, 1859.

In the exciting Presidential campaign of 1856 (though not old enough to vote) I made, in Clark and Greene Counties, Ohio, above fifty campaign speeches for Fremont, the excitement being so high that mobbing or egging was not uncommon. The pro-slavery people called Fremont's supporters abolitionists—the most opprobrious name they conceived they could use. Colonel Wm. S. Furay (now of Columbus, Ohio), of about my age, also made many speeches in the same campaign, and we were joint recipients of at least one egging, at Clifton, Ohio.

In the midst of my farm work and duties, by employing room hours, evenings, rainy days, etc., I could make much progress in studies, and besides this I did a little fishing in the season, and some hunting with a rifle, in the use of which I was skillful in killing game. Hunting became almost a passion, hence had to be wholly given up.

At the close of the 1856 Presidential campaign, my mother having, in consequence of my purpose to practise law, removed from the farm to Yellow Springs, Ohio, I became a resident of Springfield, and there pursued, regularly, in Anthony & Goode's office, the study of law.

Before this I had ventured to try a few law cases before justices of the peace, both in the country, in villages, and in the city, and I had some professional triumphs, occasionally over a regular attorney, but more commonly meeting the "pettifogger," who was of a class once common, and not to be despised as "rough and tumble," ad captandum, advocates in justices' courts. They often knew some crude law, and they never knew enough to concede a point or that they were wrong.

My studies went on in much the usual way until I was admitted to the bar, January 12, 1858, by the Supreme Court of Ohio, at Columbus. I recognize now more than I did then that my preparation for the profession of the law, which demands knowledge of almost all things, ancient, modern, scientific, literary, historical, etc., was wholly defective. All knowledge is called into requisition by a general and successful legal practitioner. My early deficiency in learning, and the many interruptions in the course of about forty years, have imposed the necessity of close and constant application. On being admitted to the bar, I determined to visit other parts and places before locating. I visited Toledo; it was then muddy, ragged, unhealthful, and unpromising. Chicago was then next looked over. It was likewise apparently without promise. The streets were almost impassable with mire. The sidewalks were seldom continuously level for a square. The first floors of some buildings were six to ten feet above those of others beside them. So walking on the sidewalks was an almost constant going up and down steps. There was then no promise of its almost magic future. At Springfield, Illinois, I saw and heard, in February, 1858, before the Supreme Court, an ungainly appearing man, called Abe Lincoln. He was arguing the application of a statute of limitations to a defective tax title to land. He talked very much in a conversational way to the judges, and they gave attention, and in a Socratic way the discussion went on. I did not see anything to specially attract attention to Mr. Lincoln, save that he was awkward, ungainly in build, more than plain in features and dress, his clothes not fitting him, his trousers being several inches too short, exposing a long, large, unshapely foot, roughly clad. But he was even then, by those who knew him best, regarded as intellectually and professionally a great man. When I next saw him (March 25, 1865, twenty days before his martyrdom) he looked much the same, except better dressed, though he was then President of the United States and Commander-in- Chief of its Army and Navy. He appeared on both occasions a sad man, thoughtful and serious. The last time I saw him he was watching the result of an assault on the enemy's outer line of works from Fort Fisher in front of Petersburg, the day Fort Stedman was carried and held for a time by the Confederates.

I also visited St. Louis, and took a look at its narrow (in old part) French streets; thence I went to Cairo, the worst, in fact and appearance, of all. In going alone on foot along the track of the Illinois Central Railroad from Cairo to Burkeville Junction, in crossing the Cash bottoms, or slashes, I was assailed by two of a numerous band of highwaymen who then inhabited those parts, and was in danger of losing my life. In a struggle on the embankment one of the two fell from the railroad bed to the swamp at its side, and on being disengaged from the other I proceeded without being further molested to my destination.

By March 1, 1858, I was again at home, resolved to practise law in my native county, at Springfield, where I opened an office for that purpose. To locate to practise a profession among early neighbors and friends has its disadvantages. The jealous and envious will not desire or aid you to succeed; others, friendly enough, still will want you to establish a reputation before they employ you.

All will readily, however, espouse your friendship, and proudly claim you as their school-mate, neighbor, and dearest friend when you have demonstrated you do not need their patronage.

I did succeed, in a way, from the beginning, and was not without a good clientage, and some good employments. I was prompt, faithful, and persistently loyal to my clients' interests, trying never to neglect them even when they were small. Then litigations were sharper generally than at present, and often, as now understood, unnecessary. The court-term was once looked forward to as a time for a lawyer to earn fees; now it is, happily, otherwise with the more successful and better lawyers. Commercial business is too tender to be ruthlessly shocked by bitter litigations. Disputes between successful business men can be settled usually now in good lawyers' offices on fair terms, saving bitterness, loss of time, and expensive or prolonged trials. A just, candid, and good attorney should make more and better fees by his advice and counsel and in adjusting his client's affairs in his office than by contentions in a trial court-room.

I was an active member of the Independent Rover Fire Company in Springfield, and with it ran to fires and worked on the brakes of a hand-engine, etc.

I gave little attention to matters outside of the law, though a little to a volunteer militia company of which I was a member; for a time a lieutenant, then in 1860 brigade-major on a militia brigadier's staff. We staff officers wore good clothes, much tinsel, gaudy crimson scarfs, golden epaulets, bright swords with glistening scabbards, rose horses in a gallop on parade occasions and muster days, yet knew nothing really military—certainly but little useful in war. We knew a little of company drill and of the handling of the old-fashioned muster.

My wife (Eliza Stout) was of the same Stout family of New Jersey from whence came my maternal grandmother. She was born at Springfield, Ohio, July 11, 1834, and died there March 12, 1899.

Her father, Charles Stout, and mother, Margaret (McCord) Stout, emigrated from New Jersey, on horseback, in 1818, to Ohio, first settling at Cadiz, then at Urbana, and about 1820 in Clark County. The McCords were Scotch-Irish, from County Tyrone. Thus in our children runs the Scotch-Irish blood, with the German, Dutch, Welsh, English, and what not—all, however, Aryan in tongue, through the barbaric, Teutonic tribes of northern Europe.

Thus situated and occupied, I was, after Sumter was fired on, and although wholly unprepared by previous inclination, education, or training, quickly metamorphosed into a soldier in actual war.

Five days after President Lincoln's first call for volunteers I was in Camp Jackson, Columbus, Ohio (now Goodale Park), a private soldier, and April 27, 1861, I was commissioned and mustered as Major of the 3d Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and with the regiment went forthwith to Camp Dennison, near Cincinnati, for drill and equipment. Here real preparations for war, its duties, responsibilities, and hardships, began. Without the hiatus of a day I was in the volunteer service four years and two months, being mustered out, at Washington, D. C., June 27, 1865, on which date I settled all my ordnance and other accounts with the departments of the government, though they covered several hundred thousand dollars.

I served and fought in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, and Maryland, and campaigned in other States. I was thrice slightly wounded, twice in different years, near Winchester, Virginia, and severely wounded in the left forearm at the battle of the Wilderness, May 5, 1864. I was off duty on account of wounds for a short time only, though I carried my arm in a sling, unhealed, until after the close of the war.

The story of my service in the Civil War is told elsewhere.

II PUBLIC SERVICES SINCE THE CIVIL WAR

On my return from the war I resumed, in Springfield, Ohio, the practice of law, and have since pursued it, broken a little by some official life.( 8) I took a deep interest in the political questions growing out of the reconstruction of the States lately in rebellion, and especially in the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first of these abolished slavery in the United States; the second (1) secured to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, citizenship therein and in the State wherein they resided; prohibited a State from making any law that would abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, and from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws; (2) required Representatives to be apportioned among the States according to number, excluding Indians not taxed, but provided that when the right of male citizens over twenty-one years to vote for electors and Federal and State executive, judicial or legislative officers, was denied or abridged by any State, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein should be reduced proportionately; (3) excluded any person who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or of a State Legislature, or as an officer of the United States or of a State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged or aided in rebellion, from holding any office under the United States or any State, leaving Congress the right by a two-thirds vote of each House to remove such disability, and (4) prohibited the validity of the public debt, including debts incurred for the payment of pensions and bounties, from being questioned, and prevented the United States or any State from paying any obligation incurred in aid of the Rebellion, or any claim for the emancipation of any slave, and the third provided that citizens shall not be denied the right to vote "By any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."( 9) Those amendments completed the cycle of fundamental changes of the Constitution, and were necessary results of the war.

Ohio ratified each of them through her Legislature, but, in January, 1868, rescinded her previous ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. I voted and spoke in the Ohio Senate against this recession.

The Constitution of Ohio gave the elective franchise only to "white" persons. In 1867 the people of the State voted against striking the word "white" from the Constitution. In that year I was elected to the Ohio Senate, and participated in the political discussion of those times, both on the stump and in the General Assembly, and favored universal suffrage and the political equality of all persons. The wisdom of such suffrage will hardly be settled so long as there exists a great disparity of learning and moral, public and private, among the people, race not regarded.

I originated some laws, still on the statute books of Ohio, one or two of which have been copied in other States. An amendment to the replevin laws, so as to prevent the plaintiff from acquiring, regardless of right, heirlooms, keepsakes, etc., is an example of this. I served on the Judiciary and other committees of the Ohio Senate in the sessions of 1868-69.

I supported my old war chief for President in 1868 and 1872. I was Commander of the Department of the Ohio, Grand Army of the Republic, for the years 1868, 1869, and 1870, during which time, under its auspices, the Ohio Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home was established at Xenia, through a board of trustees appointed by me. The G. A. R. secured the land, erected some cottages and other buildings thereon, and carried on the institution, paying the expense for nearly two years before the State accepted the property as a donation and assumed the management of the Home. I was Junior Vice- Commander-in-Chief of the G. A. R., 1871-72; was trustee of the Orphans' Home from April, 1871, date when the State took charge of it, to March, 1878; have been a trustee of Antioch College since June, 1873; was the first President of the Lagonda National Bank, Springfield, Ohio, (April, 1873), a position I still hold; was a delegate-at-large from Ohio to the National Republican Convention in Cincinnati, in June, 1876, when General Hayes was nominated for President; was thereafter, serving in the Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, Forty-seventh, and Forty-eighth Congresses, ending March 4, 1885, covering the administrations of Presidents Hayes, Garfield, and Arthur. I served in the Forty-fifth on the Committee on War Claims, and in the Forty-sixth on Elections, and on other less important committees.

I opposed the repeal of the act providing for the resumption of specie payments, January 1, 1879. In a somewhat careful speech (November 16, 1877), I insisted that the act "to strengthen the public credit" (March 18, 1869), and the resumption act of January 14, 1875, reaffirmed the original promise and renewed the pledges of the nation to redeem, when presented, its notes issued during and on account of the Rebellion, thus making them the equivalent of coin. I then, also against the prophecy of many in and out of Congress, demonstrated the honesty, necessity, and ability of the government to resume specie payment.

The act was not repealed, and resumption came under it without a financial shock, and the nation's credit, strength, honor, and good faith were maintained inviolate with its own people.

I advocated the payment of claims of loyal citizens of the insurrectionary States for supplies furnished or seized by the Union Army, necessary for its use for subsistence, but opposed payment, to even loyal citizens, of claims based on the loss or destruction of property incident to the general devastation of the war. Claims for destruction of property were the most numerous, and the most energetically pressed, and, in some instances, appropriations were made to pay them, but the great majority of them failed. The loyalty of claimants from the South was often more than doubtful. For want of a well defined rule, which it is impossible to establish in Congress, very many just claims against the United States never are paid, or, if paid, it is after honest claimants have been subjected to the most vexatious delays, and, in many instances, forced to be victimized by professional lobbyists. Many claimants have spent all they and their friends possessed waiting in Washington, trying to secure an appropriation or to pay blackmailing claim-agents or lobbyists. It is doubtful whether the latter class of persons ever really aided, by influence or otherwise, in securing an honest appropriation, though they, to the scandal of the members, often had credit for doing so. It is doubtful whether there is any case where members of either House were bribed with money to support a pending bill, yet many claimants have believed they paid members for their influence and votes.

An illustrative incident occurred when Wm. P. Frye of Maine was serving on the War Claims Committee of the House. A lobbyist in some way ascertained that Mr. Frye was instructed by his committee to report a bill favorably by which a considerable claim would be paid. The rascal found the claimant, and told him that for five hundred dollars Mr. Frye would make a favorable report, otherwise his report would be adverse. The claimant paid the sum. But for an accident Mr. Frye never would have known of the fraud, and the claimant would have believed he bribed an honest member.

I opposed the payment of a large class of claims presented for institutions of learning or church buildings destroyed by one or the other army, not so much on account of their disloyal owners, but because their destruction belonged to the general ravages of war, never compensated for, as of right, according to the laws and usages of nations.

Besides making reports on various war claims, I spoke (December 13, 1878) at some length against a bill to reimburse William and Mary College, Virginia, for property destroyed during the war, in which I collated the precedents and reviewed the law of nations in the matter of payment of claims for property destroyed in the ravages of war by either the friendly or opposing army. I also frequently participated in the debates on the floor of the House involving war claims and other important matters.

The necessity for presenting claims for the judgment of Congress results in the most grievous wrong to honest claimants, and often results in the payment of fraudulent claims through the persistency of claimants and the lack of time and adequate means for investigation. In the absence of judicial investigation according to the usual forms of procedure it quite frequently happens that fraudulent claims are made to appear honest, and hence paid. Want of time causes other, however just, to fail of consideration, thus doing incalculable injustice. The government of the United States suffers in its reputation from its innumerable failures to pay, at least promptly, its honest creditors. Thousands of bills to pay claims are annually introduced which go to committees and to the calendar, never to be disposed of for want of time. To remedy this, on April 16, 1878, I proposed in the House an amendment to the Constitution in these words:

"Article ——

"Section 1. Congress shall have no power to appropriate money for the payment of any claims against the United States, not created in pursuance of or previously authorized by law, international treaty, or award, except in payment of a final judgment rendered thereon by a court or tribunal having competent jurisdiction.

"Section 2. Congress shall establish a court of claims to consist of five justices, one of whom shall be chief-justice, with such original jurisdiction as may be provided by law in cases involving claims against the United States, and with such other original jurisdiction as may be provided by law, and Congress may also confer on any other of the courts of the United States inferior to the Supreme Court, original jurisdiction in like cases.

"Section 3. All legislation other than such as refers exclusively to the appropriation of money in any appropriation act of Congress shall be void, except such as may prescribe the terms or conditions upon which the money thereby appropriated shall be paid or received." —Con. Record, Vol. vii., Part III., p. 2576.

The adoption of this amendment would have relieved Congress of much work; have given claimants at all times a speedy and certain remedy for the disposition of their claims and at the same time secured protection to the government against unfounded claims. A statute of limitations could have put a rest old and often trumped-up claims, still constantly being brought before Congress. It is impossible for Congress to make a statute of limitations for its own guidance.(10) It never will obey a law against its own action.

In the Forty-sixth Congress there were many contested election cases, growing out of frauds and crimes at elections, especially in the South. The purpose of the dominant race South to overthrow the rule of the blacks or their friends was then manifest in the conduct of elections. The colored voter was soon, by coercion and fraud, practically deprived of his franchise. The plan of stuffing ballot-boxes with tissue ballots (printed often on tissue paper about an inch long and less in width) was in vogue in some districts. The judge or clerk of the election would, when the ballot-box was opened, shake from his sleeve into the box hundreds of these tickets. In these districts voters were encouraged to vote, but the tissue ballot was mainly counted to the number of the actual voters; those remaining were burned. The party in the majority in the House, however, generally voted in its men, regardless of the facts.

As early as June 7, 1878, I proposed to amend the postal laws so as to extend the free-delivery letter-carrier system to post offices having a gross revenue of $20,000. This amendment subsequently became a law, and gave many cities the carrier system. Prior to this, population alone was the test for establishing such offices.

I opposed the indiscriminate distribution of the remaining $10,000,000 of the $15,500,000 paid by Great Britain, as adjudged by the Geneva Arbitration, for indemnity for losses occasioned by Confederate cruisers which went to sea during the Rebellion from English ports with the connivance or through the negligence of the British Government. I insisted in a speech (December 17, 1878) that the fund should be distributed in payment of claims allowed by the arbitrators in making the award, or retained by the government as general indemnity. Many of the losers whose claims were taken into account in making the award could not be proper claimants to the fund, as they had been fully paid by marine insurance companies. It was insisted by some members that the companies had no equitable right to be subrogated to the rights of the claimants who were thus paid, because the companies had charged war-premiums, and hence did not deserve reimbursement.(11)

The Forty-sixth Congress will long be memorable in the history of our country. It was Democratic in both branches, for the first time since the war.

The previous Congress (House Democratic) adjourned March 4, 1879, without having performed its constitutional duty of appropriating the money necessary to carry on,. for the coming fiscal year, the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the government, and for the pay of the army. The avowed purpose of this failure was to coerce a Republican President to withhold his veto and approve bills prohibiting the use of troops "to keep the peace at the polls on election days"; taking from the President his power to enforce all laws, even to the suppression of rebellion, except on the motion first taken by State authorities; repealing all election laws which secured the right, through supervisors of elections and special deputy marshals, to have free, fair elections for electors and members of Congress; and also that made it a crime for an officer of the army to suppress riots or disorder or to preserve the peace at elections.

The President called the Forty-sixth Congress in extra session, March 18, 1879, to make the necessary appropriations. The effort was at once made, through riders to appropriation bills and by separate bills, to enact the laws mentioned. Excitement ran high. For the first time in the history of the United States (perhaps in the history of any government) it was announced by a party in control of its law-making power, and consequently responsible for the proper conduct and support of the government, that unless the Executive would consent to legislation not by him deemed wise or just, there should not be provided means for maintaining the several departments of the government—that the government should be "starved to death." In vain were precedents sought for in the history of England for such suicidal policy. The debate in both branches of Congress ran high, and there was much apprehension felt by the people. Mr. Blackburn of Kentucky, speaking for his party, said:

"For the first time in eighteen years past the Democracy are back in power in both branches of this Legislature, and she proposes to signallize her return to power; she proposes to celebrate her recovery of her long-lost heritage by tearing off these degrading badges of servitude and destroying the machinery of a corrupt and partisan legislation. We do not intend to stop until we have stricken the last vestige of your war measures from the statute- book, which, like these, were born of the passions incident to civil strife and looked to the abridgment of the liberty of the citizen."

Others threatened to refuse to vote appropriations until the "Capitol crumbled into dust" unless the legislation demanded was passed. President Hayes' veto alone prevented the legislation. It is not here proposed to give a history of the struggle, fraught with so much danger to the Republic, but only to call attention to it. The contest lasted for months.

Senators Edmunds, Conkling, Blaine, Chandler of Michigan, and other Republicans, and Thurman, Voorhees, Beck, Morgan, Lamar, and other Democrats participated in the debates. In the House Mr. Garfield, Mr. Frye, Mr. Reed, and other Republicans, and Mr. Cox, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Carlisle, and other Democrats took a more or less prominent part in the discussion. I spoke against the repeal of the election laws on April 25, 1879, and against the prohibition of the use of troops at the polls to keep the peace on election days, on June 11, 1879. The necessity for the pay of members for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, had the effect, finally, after many vetoes of the President, to cause the Democratic members to recede, for a time, from the false position taken. The whole question was, however, renewed in the first regular session of the same Congress. Precisely similar riders to appropriation bills and new bills relating to the use of troops at the polls, to repeal laws authorizing the appointment of supervisors and special deputy marshals for elections, and to make it a crime for an officer of the army to aid in keeping the peace at the polls on election days were brought forward and their enactment into laws demanded. I spoke on the 8th and on the 10th of April, 1880, against inhibiting the use of the army at the polls and restricting the President's power to keep the peace at elections when riots and disorder prevailed, and on March 18th, and again on the 11th of June, 1880, in opposition to a bill intended to repeal existing laws relating to the use of deputy marshals at elections. In these debates I sought to make clear the power of the government to protect the voter in Federal elections; to demonstrate the necessity for doing so; to show that it was as important to have peace on election day at the polls as on the other days of the year and at other places; that it was not intended, and had never been the purpose, to use troops or supervisors or deputy marshals to prevent a voter from voting for officers of his choice, but only to secure him in that right; and that the right to a peaceful election had always been sacredly maintained, and for this purpose the army had been used in England and in all countries where free elections had been held. I maintained that the citizen was as much entitled to be protected in his right peacefully and freely to exercise the elective franchise, as to be protected in any other right, and that it was as much the duty and as clearly within the power of the Federal Government to use, when necessary, the army as a police force on an election day as to use it on other days of the year to suppress riots and breaches of the peace; and I further insisted that it was the duty of the United States to protect its citizens at home as well as abroad in all their constitutional rights.(12) I also showed that the coercive policy of forcing legislation under threats of destroying the government was not only indefensible, treasonable, and unpatriotic, but wholly new. The precedents alleged to be found in the history of the British Parliament were shown not to exist in fact; that the farthest the English Parliament had ever gone was to refuse subsidies to the Crown, the princes, or to maintain royalty, or to vote supplies to carry on a foreign war not approved by the House of Commons; that in no case had the life of the nation been threatened as the penalty for the Crown's not approving laws passed by the House of Commons, and that the English statutes provided for preserving peace and order by the army, especially at elections.

In some cases during this memorable contest in the Forty-sixth Congress I took issue in the House with the majority of my party colleagues when they, through timidity, or for other causes, yielded their opposition to proposed legislation touching the use of the army and special deputy marshals and supervisors of elections to secure peaceable and fair elections. In one notable instance (June 11, 1879), Mr. Garfield of Ohio, Mr. Hale of Maine, and the other Republican members of the appropriation committee so far surrendered their previously expressed views as to concur in the adoption of a section in the army appropriation bill which prohibited any of the money appropriated by it from being "paid for the subsistence, equipment, transportation, or compensation of any portion of the army of the United States to be used as a police force to keep the peace at any election held within any State."

The application of the previous question cut off general debate, and I was only able to get five minutes to state my objections to the proposed measure.

Though the section was plainly intended to deprive the President of his constitutional power as Commander-in-Chief of the army, eleven Republicans only of the House joined me in voting against it. The Republican Senators, however, generally opposed the section when the bill reached the Senate. Later in the same Congress the Republicans of the House unitedly supported the position taken by me. This and other like incidents led, however, to a charge being made later by some weak, jealous, and vain Republicans that I was not friendly to Mr. Garfield as a leader and not always loyal to my party.

In the last army appropriation bill of the same Congress, after full discussion, a similar provision was omitted, and no such limitation on the use of the army has since been or is ever again likely to be attempted to be enacted into law.

The political heresies of the Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth Congresses have apparently passed away, and a more patriotic sentiment generally exists in all parties, and, fortunately, the necessity for troops, supervisors of elections, and special deputy marshals at the polls no longer exists in so marked a degree.

I spoke, December 7, 1880, and again, February 9, 1881, at length, against the adoption of a joint rule of Congress relating to counting the electoral vote, which rule, among other things, undertook to give Congress the right to settle questions that might arise on objection of a member as to the vote of the electors of a State. I maintained that, under the Constitution, Congress neither in joint session nor in separate sessions had the right to decide that the vote of a State should or should not be counted, or that there was any power anywhere to reject the vote of any State after it had been cast and properly certified and returned; that the two Houses only met, as provided in the Constitution, to witness the purely ministerial work of the Vice-President in opening and counting the electoral vote as returned to him. I cited the precedents from the beginning of the government under the Constitution in support of my position, excepting only the dangerous one of 1877, growing out of the Electoral Commission.

I spoke on many other important subjects, especially on the true rule of apportionment of representation in the House; on election cases, and parliamentary questions. I was not always in harmony with my party leaders. I denied the policy of surrendering principle in any case, even though apparent harmony was, for the time being, attainable thereby.

At the November election of 1880, James A. Garfield was elected President, and the Republicans had a bare majority in the House at the opening of the Forty-seventh Congress over the Democrats and Greenbackers, but not a majority over all. There were three Mahone re-Adjusters elected from Virginia. I formed no purpose to become a candidate for Speaker of the House, until the close of the Forty- sixth, and then only on the solicitation of leading members of that Congress who had been elected to the next one.

Shortly after Mr. Garfield was inaugurated President of the United States, a violent controversy arose over appointments to important offices in New York, which led to the resignation of Senators Conkling and Platt. This was followed by President Garfield being shot (July 2, 1881) by a crazy crank (Guiteau) who, in some way, conceived that he, through the controversy, was deprived of an office. In company with General Sherman I saw and had an interview with Mr. Garfield in his room at the White House the afternoon of the day he was shot. His appearance then was that of a man fatally wounded. He lingered eighty days, dying September 19, 1881. (He is buried at Cleveland, Ohio.) Garfield was a man of great intellect, and attracted people to him by his generous nature. I have spoken of him in an oration delivered, May 12, 1887, at the unveiling of a statue of him at the foot of Capitol Hill, Washington, D. C., erected by the Society of the Army of the Cumberland.(13)

Over such competitors as Mr. Reed, of Maine, Mr. Burrows of Michigan, Mr. Hiscock of New York, and others, I was chosen Speaker of the Forty-seventh Congress, December 5, 1881. The contest was sharp before the caucus met, but when my nomination became reasonably apparent, Mr. Hiscock, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Burrows, my three leading competitors, generously voted and had their friends vote for my nomination.

Chester A. Arthur, as Vice-President, succeeded to the Presidency on the death of Mr. Garfield. There came, later, an acute division in the Republican party, Blaine and Conkling (both then out of office by a singular coincidence), being the assumed heads of the opposing factions. President Arthur tried, faithfully, to bring the elements together by recognizing both, but in this, as is usually the case, he was not successful and had not the active support of either faction. Mr. Blaine was too inordinately ambitious and jealous of power to patiently bide his time, and Mr. Conkling was too imperious and vengeful to tolerate, through his political friends, fair treatment of his supposed enemies. Mr. Conkling was a man of honesty and sincerity, true to his friends to a degree, of overtowering intellect, with marvellous industry. Notwithstanding his many unfortunate traits of character, Mr. Conkling was a great man.

Mr. Blaine was essentially a politician, and possessed of a vaulting and consuming ambition, and was jealous of even his would-be personal and political friends. Mr. Conkling advised some of his friends in Congress to support me for Speaker, as did also his former senatorial colleague, Mr. Platt of New York. The members from New York state, however, though many of them were followers of Mr. Conkling, unitedly supported Mr. Hiscock until the latter decided, during the caucus, himself to vote for me. Mr. Blaine, though to me personally professing warm friendship, held secret meetings at the State Department and at his house to devise methods of preventing my election.(14) He had been a member, for many terms, of the House, and thrice its Speaker, had been a Senator, and for a few months Secretary of State under Presidents Garfield and Arthur. He had an extended acquaintance and many enthusiastic friends. He lacked breadth and strength of learning, as well as sincerity of character. He, however, came near being a great man, especially in public, popular estimation.

The Forty-seventh Congress met December 5, 1881, and being elected its Speaker over Mr. Randall, the candidate of the Democrats, I made this inaugural address:

"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,—I thank you with a heart filled with gratitude for the distinguished honor conferred on me by an election as your Speaker. I will assume the powers and duties of this high office with, I trust, a due share of diffidence and distrust of my own ability to meet them acceptably to you and the country. I believe that you, as a body and individually, will give me hearty support in the discharge of all my duties. I invoke your and the country's charitable judgment upon all my official acts. I will strive to be just to all, regardless of party or section. Where party principle is involved, I will be found to be a Republican, but in all other respects I hope to be able to act free from party bias.

"It is a singular fact that at this most prosperous time in our nation's history no party in either branch of Congress has an absolute majority over all other parties, and it is therefore peculiarly fortunate that at no other time since and for many years prior to the accession of Abraham Lincoln to the Executive chair have there been so few unsettled vital questions of a national character in relation to which party lines have been closely drawn.

"The material prosperity of the people is in advance of any other period in the history of our government. The violence of party spirit has materially subsided, and in great measure because many of the reasons for its existence are gone.

"While the universal tendency of the people is to sustain and continue to build up an unparalleled prosperity, it should be our highest aim to so legislate as to permanently promote and not cripple it. This Congress should be, and I profoundly hope it will be, marked peculiarly as a business Congress.

"It may be true that additional laws are yet necessary to give to every citizen complete protection in the exercise of all political rights. With evenly balanced party power, with few grounds for party strife and bitterness, and with no impending Presidential election to distract us from purely legislative duties, I venture to suggest that the present is an auspicious time to enact laws to guard against the recurrence of dangers to our institutions and to insure tranquillity at perilous times in the future.

"Again thanking you for the honor conferred, and again invoking your aid and generous judgment, I am ready to take the oath prescribed by law and the Constitution and forthwith proceed, with my best ability, guided by a sincere and honest purpose, to discharge the duties belonging to the office with which you have clothed me."

The duties of Speaker were arduous, varied, and delicate. Under the law, rules, and practice of the House he had control of the Hall of the House, and of the assignment of committee rooms; signed orders for the monthly pay of each member, and the pay of employees; approved bonds of officers; appointed and removed stenographers; examined and approved the daily journal of the proceedings of the House before being read; received and submitted messages from the President and heads of departments; appointed three regents to the Smithsonian Institution, and three members annually as visitors to the Military Academy, and a like number to the Naval Academy, and performed many other duties cast upon him, besides appointing all the committees of the House. The Speaker is naturally the person to whom members, employees, and others having business with the House flock for advice, assistance, and with their real or imaginary grievances. An extensive correspondence and social duties demand much of the Speaker's time. All this, independent of his real duties as presiding officer of the House, in performing what is expected, without time for deliberation, to decide correctly all parliamentary questions and inquiries. And he is obliged, in addition, to discharge the ordinary duties of a member for his district and constituents. The members from all parts of the Union have diverse and often conflicting interests to press upon the attention of the House, and the jealousy of members in matters of precedence or recognition by the Speaker renders his duties severely trying. It constantly occurred that several members with equal rights, urging matters of equal merit, were dependent on the recognition of the Speaker in a "morning hour," when not more than one or two of them at most could, for want of time, be recognized. The Speaker has to be invidious, relying on the future to even matters up. The recognition of a member by the Speaker is final, and from which there is no appeal. Members and often personal friends not infrequently feel aggrieved at the Speaker, for a time at least. All this regardless of political party lines. It is the Speaker's duty to equally divide recognition on party sides, and this duty, from the member's standpoint, is often a ground of complaint.

The first duty of the Speaker, ordinarily, after the House is organized and before it can proceed regularly to business, is to appoint the standing committees.

Chairmanships of committees and appointments on leading ones are much sought after, and members appeal to the Speaker on all kinds of grounds to give them the coveted places. Personal and party friendship is pressed upon him to induce favorable action. The same place is often sought by a number of members. Experience in congressional service, regardless of the member's prior duties, pursuit, or occupation, is generally urged as a reason for making a desired appointment. Some construct a geographical reason for a particular selection. Out of all this and more, the Speaker, with little or no acquaintance with a large number of the members, does the best he can. A few always are disappointed, and, necessarily under the circumstances, some mistakes are made, but generally those who make the loudest complaint are the weak, vain, and inefficient members who hope to be made great in the eyes of their constituents by being named on one or more important committees by the Speaker.

Some who seek and obtain committee appointments of their own choice soon find they are not what they had expected, and they also join the clamor against the Speaker. There are, however, only a small number out of the whole who are unreasonable or dissatisfied. This small number, by their wailing, give the appearance of a general discontent. Complaint was made by the disappointed that I gave preference on committees to personal and party friends who supported me for Speaker. I always believed in rewarding my friends.

I, however, appointed Hon. Thomas B. Reed (since Speaker), Hon. Frank Hiscock, Hon. J. C. Burrows (all competitors for Speaker), Chairmen, respectively, of the Committees on the Judiciary, Appropriations, and Territories. Hon. William D. Kelley was made Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. He was the acknowledged leading advocate of a high protective tariff to which the Republican party was then pledged, though the party was then honeycombed with free-traders, some of whom edited leading newspapers. Some of the latter in New York, Chicago, and Cincinnati, took occasion to assail me for appointing Mr. Kelley, and to give weight to their unjust attacks made many false statements as to the organization of other committees.(15) In this they were inspired by Mr. Blaine, and a very few others outside of Congress, who imagined their dictations should have been regarded, or who were otherwise disappointed in not being able to say who should be Speaker. The Speaker could not go into the newspapers and contradict these and like malicious stories, and hence some of them are still ignorantly repeated.(16)

After fuller acquaintance with the members, it became obvious that in assigning them to committee work I had overrated some and underrated others, but a better working Congress never met. Its work abundantly proves this, not only in amount of work done, but in the importance and character of the legislation, and its freedom from all that was corrupt or vicious. I cannot recall that even the weak and vicious slanderers or disappointed lobbyists ever risked charging me while I was Speaker or during my eight years in Congress with favoring any corrupt measure pending in Congress. Polygamy, notwithstanding it had maintained itself in the United States for fifty years, and was then more firmly established in Utah than at any time before, was given a blow, under which it has since about disappeared. The first three-per-cent. funding bill was passed by this Congress. Pauper immigration was prohibited, and immigrants were required to be protected on their way across the sea; national bank charters were extended, letter postage was reduced to two cents, and many public acts wisely regulating the Indian and land policy of the government were passed. Liberal pension laws were enacted; internal-revenue taxes were largely reduced, and there was a general revision (March 3, 1883) of the tariff laws. The Civil Service Act was also passed in this Congress.

More bills were introduced for consideration in the Forty-seventh than came before Congress in the first fifty years of its existence.

In discharging the duties of Speaker I had no strong parliamentary leader of my party on the floor to aid me, and I had had but little experience as a presiding officer. Of the opposite party were Mr. Randall, who had been Speaker of the three preceding Congresses; Mr. Cox of New York, the pugnacious, who had acted as Speaker for a time in the Forty-third; Mr. Carlisle (my successor as Speaker), and Mr. Knott of Kentucky, and others who laid just claim to much parliamentary learning. The House was hardly Republican; and in my own party were disappointed aspirants who often thought they saw opportunities to gain a little cheap applause.(17) Notwithstanding this situation, no parliamentary decision of mine was overruled by the House, though many appeals were taken, and more than the usual number of important questions were raised by members and decided by me. The most memorable of the decisions was the one which put an end to dilatory motions to prevent the House from making or amending its rules of procedure. The occasion of this holding arose on the consideration of a report of the Committee on Rules whereby it was proposed to so amend the rules as to prevent filibustering and dilatory motions in the consideration of contested election cases. It may be observed that for the first time in the history of Congress, dilatory methods were resorted to, to prevent the consideration of election cases. I was then ready to hold (and so stated) that dilatory motions were not in order to prevent the consideration of such cases, as their disposition affected the organization of the House for business; and I was also prepared to count a quorum when a quorum of members was present not voting, but these questions did not arise, and it was then understood that leading Republicans (Mr. Reed of Maine among the number (18)) did not agree with my views on these two points. A point of order was made against a dilatory motion, which was debated at much length, and with some heat, by the ablest parliamentarians of all parties in the House. My opinion on the question made is quoted from the Record of May 29, 1882.

"Mr. Reed, as a privileged question, called up the report of the Committee on Rules made on Saturday last; when Mr. Randall raised the question of consideration; pending which, Mr. Kenna moved that the House adjourn; pending which Mr. Blackburn moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next; and the question being put thereon, it was decided in the negative.

* * * * *

"The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Kenna that the House adjourn; pending which Mr. Randall moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thursday nest;

"Mr. Reed made the point of order that the said motion was not in order at this time, on the ground that pending a proposition to change the rules of the House, dilatory motions cannot be entertained by the Chair.

"After debate on said point of order,

"The Speaker. The question for the Chair to decide is briefly this: The gentleman from Maine (Reed) has called up for present consideration the report of the Committee on Rules made on the 27th inst., and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) raised, as he might under the practice and the rules of the House, the question of consideration. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Kenna) then moved that the House adjourn, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Blackburn) moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next, which last motion was voted down; and thereupon the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Thursday next. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) then raised the point of order that such motions are mere dilatory motions, and therefore, as against the right of the House to consider a proposition to amend the rules, not in order.

"It cannot be disputed that the Committee on Rules have the right to report at any time such changes in the rules as it may decide to be wise. The right of that committee to report at any time may be, under the practice, a question of privilege; but if it is not, resolutions of this House, adopted December 19, 1881, expressly give that right.

"The Clerk will read the resolutions.

"The Clerk read as follows:

'Resolved, That the rules of the House of Representatives of the Forty-sixth Congress shall be the rules of the present House until otherwise ordered; and,

'Resolved further, That the Committee on Rules when appointed shall have the right to report at any time all such amendments or revisions of said rules as they may deem proper.'

"The Speaker. It will be seen that these resolutions not only give the right to that committee to report at any time, but the committee is authorized to report any change, etc., in the rules. The right given to report at any time carries with it the right to have the proposition reported considered without laying over. The resolutions are the ones adopting the present standing rules of the House for its government; and it will be observed that they were only conditionally adopted; and the right was expressly reserved to the House to order them set aside. Paragraph 1 of Rule xxviii provides that.—

'No standing rule of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice of the motion therefor.'

"This clause of the rule, if applicable at all, may fairly be construed to make it in order under the standing rules of the House to consider any motion to rescind or change the rules after one day's notice.

"But the question for the Chair to decide is this: Are the rules of this House to be so construed as to give to the minority of the House the absolute right to prevent the majority or a quorum of the House from making any new rules for its government; or in the absence of anything in the rules providing for any mode of proceeding in the matter of consideration, when the question of changing the rules is before the House, shall the rules be so construed as to virtually prevent their change should one-fifth of the House oppose it? It may be well to keep in mind that paragraph 2 of section 5 of article 1 of the Constitution says that—

'Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.'

"The same section of the Constitution provides that—

'A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business.'

"The right given to the House to determine the rules of its proceedings is never exhausted, but is at all times a continuing right, and in the opinion of the Chair gives a right to make or alter rules independent of any rules it may adopt. Dilatory motions to prevent the consideration of business are comparatively recent expedients, and should not be favored in any case save where absolutely required by some clear rule of established practice.

"In any case it is a severe strain upon common sense to construe the rules so as to prevent a quorum of the House from taking any proceedings at all required by the Constitution; and it is still more difficult to find any justification for holding that the special resolutions of this House adopted December 19th last, or the standing rules even of the House, were intended to prevent the House, if a majority so desired, from altering or abrogating the present rules of the House.

"There seems to be abundant precedent for the view the Chair takes.
The Clerk will read from the Record of the Forty-third Congress,
volume ix, page 806, an opinion expressed by the distinguished
Speaker, Mr. Blaine, which has been repeatedly alluded to to-day.

"The Clerk read as follows:

'The Chair has repeatedly ruled that pending a proposition to change the rules dilatory motions could not be entertained, and for this reason he has several times ruled that the right of each House to determine what shall be its rules is an organic right expressly given by the Constitution of the United States. The rules are the creature of that power, and, of course, they cannot be used to destroy that power. The House is incapable by any form of rules of divesting itself of its inherent constitutional power to exercise its functions to determine its own rules. Therefore the Chair has always announced upon a proposition to change the rules of the House he never would entertain a dilatory motion.'

"The Speaker. It will be observed that the then Speaker says he has frequently held that pending a proposition to change the rules dilatory motions could not be entertained. The precedents for ruling out dilatory motions where an amendment of the rules is under consideration are many.

"During the electoral count my immediate predecessor (Mr. Randall) decided, in principle, the point involved here. On February 24, 1877, after an obstructive motion had been made, the following language was used, as found in the Record of the Forty-fourth Congress, page 1906.

'The Speaker. The Chair is unable to recognize this in any other light than as a dilatory motion.

'The mover then denied that he made the motion as such.

'The Speaker. The Chair is unable to classify it in any other way. Therefore he rules that when the Constitution of the United States directs anything to be done, or when the law under the Constitution of the United States enacted in obedience thereto directs an act of this House, it is not in order to make any motion to obstruct or impede the execution of that injunction of the Constitution and laws.'

"While this decision is not on the precise point, it clearly covers the principle involved in the case with which we are now dealing.

"The Chair thinks the Constitution and the laws are higher than any rules, and when they conflict with the rules the latter must give way. There is not one word in the present rules, however, which prescribes the mode of proceeding in changing the standing rules except as to the reference of propositions to change the rules, with the further exception that—

'No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice.'

"But it will be observed that there is an entire absence from all these standing rules of anything that looks to giving directions as to the procedure when the rule is under consideration by the House. This only refers to the time of considering motions to rescind or change a standing rule to the reference of propositions submitted by members, and to the time and manner of bringing them before the House for consideration, and not to the method of considering them when brought before the House.

"It seems to purposely avoid saying one word as to the forms of proceedings while considering such motions. This is highly significant.

"There is nothing revolutionary in holding that purely dilatory motions cannot be entertained to prevent consideration or action on a proposition to amend the rules of the House, as this right to make or amend the rules is an organic one essential to be exercised preliminary to the orderly transaction of business by the House. It would be more than absurd to hold otherwise.

"Rule XLV undertakes to fasten our present standing rules on the present and all succeeding Congresses. It reads as follows:

'These rules shall be the rules of the House of Representatives of the present and succeeding Congresses, unless otherwise ordered.'

"If this rule is of binding force on succeeding Congresses, and the rules apply and can be invoked to give power to a minority in the House to prevent their abrogation or alteration, they would be made perpetual if only one-fifth of the members of the House so decreed.

"The fallacy of holding that the standing rules can be held to apply to proceedings to amend, etc., the rules will more sharply appear when we look to the case in hand. The proposition is to so amend the rules in contested-election cases as to take away the right to make and repeat dilatory motions, to prevent consideration, etc. And the same obstructive right is appealed to to prevent its consideration. To allow this would be to hold the rules superior not only to the House that made them but to the Constitution of the United States.

"The wise remarks quoted in debate, made long since by the distinguished speaker, Mr. Onslow of the House of Commons, about the wisdom of adhering to fixed rules in legislative proceedings, were made with no reference to the application of rules which it was claimed were made to prevent any proceedings at all by the body acting under them.

"The present occupant of the chair has tried, and will try, to give full effect to all rules wherever applicable, and especially to protect the rights of the minority to the utmost extent the rules will justify.

"The Chair is not called upon to hold that any of the standing rules of the House are in conflict with the Constitution, as it is not necessary to do so. It only holds that there is nothing in the rules which gives them application pending proceedings to amend and rescind them. It also holds that under the first of the resolutions adopted by the House on December 19, 1881, the right was reserved to order the standing rules set aside at any time this House so decided, and without regard to dilatory forms of proceedings provided for in them. The Chair does not hold that pending the question of consideration no motion shall be in order. It is disposed to treat one motion to adjourn as proper at this time, as it is a well-known parliamentary motion, and that such motion may be liable at some stage of the proceedings to be repeated if made for a proper and not a dilatory purpose.

"The Chair feels better satisfied with its ruling in this case, because the rule proposed to be adopted is one which looks to an orderly proceeding in the matter of taking up and disposing of contested-election cases, a duty cast directly on the House by the Constitution of the United States, and an essential one to be performed before it is completely organized.

"The Chair is unable to find in the whole history of the government that any dilatory motions have ever been made or entertained to prevent the consideration or disposition of a contested-election case until this Congress. The point of order has not yet been made against obstructive motions to prevent the consideration of a contested-election case, and the Chair is not now called on to decide whether such motions are in order or not where they would prevent a complete organization of the House. The principle here involved will suffice to indicate the opinion of the Chair on that question.

"The question here decided the Chair understands to be an important one, because it comprehends the complete organization of the House to do business, but it feels that on principle and sound precedents the point of order made by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) must be sustained to the extent of holding that the motion made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall), which is in effect a dilatory motion, is not at this time in order.

"It has been, in debate, claimed that on January 11, 1882, the present occupant of the chair made a different holding. The question then made and decided arose on a matter of reference of a proposition to amend the rules to an appropriate committee as provided for under the rules, and not on the consideration of a report when properly brought before the House for its action. The two things are so plainly distinguishable as to require nothing further to be said about them.

"Mr. Randall. From your decision, Mr. Speaker, just announced, I appeal to the House, whose officer you are.

"Mr. Reed. I move to lay the appeal on the table.

"The Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) appeals from the decision of the Chair, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Reed) moves that the appeal be laid upon the table.

"The question was taken; and there were—yeas 150, nays 0, not voting 141.

"So the appeal was laid on the table."(19)

There was much clamor and undue excitement over this decision of the Speaker cutting off the, always to me, foolish and unjustifiable, though time-honored, practice of allowing a turbulent minority to stop business indefinitely, by purely dilatory, though in form, privileged motions. This holding, however, received the commendation of sober, learned men of this country, and in Europe it was quoted approvingly by Gladstone in the House of Commons of England, and was followed, in principle, by its Speaker in upholding the rule of clôture against violent filibustering of the Irish party. Such dilatory methods have been little resorted to since.

At the end of this Congress a resolution was adopted, on the motion of Mr. Randall, thanking "the Speaker for the ability and courtesy with which he has presided over the deliberations of the House during the Forty-seventh Congress."

My valedictory as Speaker was as follows:

"Gentlemen, the time has come when our official relations as Representatives in the Forty-seventh Congress are to be dissolved. In a moment more this House of Representatives will be known only in history. Its acts will stand, many of them, it is believed, through the future history of the Republic.

"On the opening day of this Congress, I ventured the suggestion and the expression of a hope that it would be marked 'as peculiarly a business Congress.'

"It has successfully grappled with more of the vital, material, and moral questions of the country than its predecessors. Many of these have been settled wisely and well by appropriate legislation. It would be quite impossible at this time to enumerate the many important laws which have been enacted to foster and promote the substantial interests of the whole country.

"This Congress enacted into a law the first 3 per cent. funding bill known to this country, and under it a considerable portion of the government debt has been refunded at lower rates than ever before.

"It did not hesitate to take hold of the question of polygamy, and it is believed it has struck the first effective blow in the direction of destroying that greatest remaining public crime of the age.

"Laws have been passed to protect the immigrant on his way across the sea and upon his arrival in the ports of this country.

"Laws have also been passed to extend the charters of the banking institutions so that financial disorder cannot take place, which would otherwise have come at the expiration of the old bank charters.

"Many public acts will be found relating to the Indian policy and the land policy of this country which will prove to be wise.

"The post-office laws have been so changed as to reduce letter postage from three to two cents, the lowest rate ever known in the United States.

"No legislation of this Congress will be found upon the statute books, revolutionary in character or which will oppress any section or individual in the land. All legislation has been in the direction of relief.

"Pension laws have been enacted which are deemed wise, and liberal appropriations have been made to pay the deserving and unfortunate pensioner.

"Internal-revenue taxes have been taken off, and the tariff laws have been revised.

"Sectionalism has been unknown in the enactment of laws.

"In the main a fraternal spirit has prevailed among the members from all portions of the Union. What has been said in the heat of debate and under excitement and sometimes with provocation is not to be regarded in determining the genuine feeling of concord existing between members. The high office I have filled through the session of this Congress has enabled me to judge better of the true spirit of the members that compose it than I could otherwise have done.

"It is common to say that the House of Representatives is a very turbulent and disorderly body of men. This is true more in appearance than in reality. Those who look on and do not participate see more apparent confusion than exists in reality. The disorder that often appears on the floor of the House grows out of an earnest, active spirit possessed by members coming from all sections of the United States, and indicates in high degree their strong individuality and their great zeal in trying to secure recognition in the prompt discharge of their duty. No more conscientious body of men than compose this House of Representatives, in my opinion, ever met. Partisan zeal has in some instances led to fierce word-contests on the floor, but when the occasion which gave rise to it passed by, party spirit went with it.

"I am very thankful for the considerate manner in which I have been treated by the House in its collective capacity. I am also very thankful to each individual member of this body for his personal treatment of me. I shall lay down the gavel and the high office you clothed me with filled with good feeling towards each member of this House. I have been at times impatient and sometimes severe with members, but I have never purposely harshly treated any member. I have become warmly attached to and possessed of a high admiration, not only for the high character of this House as a parliamentary body, but for all its individual members. I heartily thank the House for its vote of thanks.

"The duties of a Speaker are of the most delicate and critical kind. His decisions are in the main made without time for deliberation and are often very far-reaching and controlling in the legislation of the country on important matters, and they call out the severest criticism.

"The rules of this House, which leave to the Speaker the onerous duty and delicate task of recognizing individuals to present their matters for legislation, render the office in that respect as exceedingly unpleasant one. No member should have the legislation he desires depend upon the individual recognition of the Speaker, and no Speaker should be compelled to decide between members having matters of possibly equal importance or of equal right to his recognition.

"I suggest here that the time will soon come when another mode will have to be adopted which will relieve both the Speaker and individual members from this exceedingly embarrassing if not dangerous power.

"During my administration in the chair very many important questions have been decided by me, and I do not flatter myself that I have, in the hurry of these decisions, made no mistakes. But I do take great pride in being able to say that no parliamentary decision of mine has been overruled by the judgment of this almost evenly politically balanced House, although many appeals have been taken.

"I congratulate each member of this House upon what has been accomplished by him in the discharge of the important duties of a Representative, and with the sincerest hope that all may return safely to their homes, and wishing each a successful and happy future during life, I now exercise my last official duty as presiding officer of this House by declaring the term of this House under the Constitution of the United States at an end, and that it shall stand adjourned sine die. (Hearty and continued applause.)"— Con. Record, Vol. xiv., Part IV., p. 3776.

I was the caucus nominee and voted for by my party friends for Speaker of the Forty-eighth Congress, but Mr. Carlisle was elected, the Democrats being in the majority. I served on the Committees on Appropriations and Rules of the Forty-eighth Congress, and performed much hard work. I participated actively in much of the general business of this House, and in the debates. On January 24, 1884, I made an extended speech against a bill for the relief of Fitz-John Porter, by which it was proposed to make him "Colonel in the Army," and thus to exonerate him from the odium of his conduct while under General Pope, August 29, 1862, at the Second Bull Run, as found by a general court-martial. I advocated (January 5, 1885) pensioning Mexican soldiers. I spoke on various other subjects, and especially advocated (February 20, 1885) the increase of the naval strength of the government so that it might protect our commerce on the high seas in peace, guard our boundary coast line (in length, excluding Alaska, one and two thirds times the distance around the earth at the equator), and successfully cope, should war come, with any naval power of the world.

My principal work in this Congress was in the rooms of the Committee on Appropriations in the preparation of bills. Hon. Samuel J. Randall (Democrat) of Pennsylvania was Chairman of this committee. He was conscientious, industrious, and honest, absolutely without favorites, personal and political, in the making of appropriations. This committee, chiefly, too, by the labor of a very few of its members, each annual session prepared bills for the appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars, which (with the rarest exception) passed the House without question (and ultimately became laws), the members generally knowing little or nothing as to the honesty or special necessity, if even the purpose, of the appropriations made. In the preparation of these bills the expenditures and estimates in detail of all the departments of the government including all branches of the public service and all special matters of expense, liability, and obligation, were examined and scrutinized, to avoid errors, injustice to the government or individuals, extravagance, or fraud. I have, covering as many as five of the last days of a session, remained with Mr. Randall in the committee rooms at the Capitol, working, almost uninterruptedly, night and day, to complete the bills necessary to be passed before adjournment. This committee work brought no immunity from attendance in the House.

My service in Congress ended March 4, 1885, since which time I have participated in public and political affairs as a private citizen, and assiduously pursued the practice of the law and attended to my personal affairs; writing this volume, mainly, in the winter nights of 1896 and 1897, incident to an otherwise busy life.

III SERVICE IN SPANISH WAR

After the foregoing was written, a war arose between the United
States and Spain, growing out of the latter's bad government of
Cuba, which Spain had held (except for a brief time) since its
discovery in 1492.

Spain was only partially successful in putting down the ten years' (1868-1877) struggle of the Cubans for independence, and was forced to agree (1876) to give the inhabitants of Cuba all the rights, representation in the Cortes included, of Spanish citizens. This agreement was not kept, and in February, 1895, a new insurrection broke out, supported by the mass of the Cuban population, especially by those residing outside of the principal coast cities. Notwithstanding Spain employed in Cuba her best regular troops as well as volunteers, she failed to put down this insurrection. Governor-General Weyler inaugurated fire and slaughter wherever the Spanish armies could not penetrate, not sparing non-combatants, and, February 16, 1896, he adopted the inhuman policy of forcing the rural inhabitants from their homes into closely circumscribed so-called military zones, where they were left unprovided with food, and hence to die. Under Weyler's cruel methods and policy about one third (600,000) of the non-combatant inhabitants of the island were killed or died of starvation and incident disease before the end of the Spanish-American War. Yet a war was maintained by the insurgents under the leadership of able men, inspired with a patriotic desire for freedom and independence. The barbarity of the reconcentrado policy excited, throughout the civilized world, deep sympathy for the Cubans, and, April 6, 1896, a resolution passed Congress, expressing the opinion that a "state of war existed in Cuba," and declaring that the United States should maintain a strict neutrality, but accord to each of the contending powers "the rights of belligerents in the ports and territory of the United States," and proposing that the friendly offices of the United States "be offered by the President to the Spanish government for the recognition of the independence of Cuba." This resolution and the proffered friendly offices bore no fruit. To meet a possible attack upon our citizens in Havana, the battle-ship Maine, commanded by Captain C. D. Sigsbee, was sent there in January, 1898. It was peacefully anchored in the harbor, where, February 15th, it was destroyed by what was generally believed to have been a sub-marine mine, designedly exploded by unauthorized Spaniards. Of its officers and crew 266 perished, and the splendid war-ship was totally destroyed.

Preparations for war commenced at once in our country. Congress appropriated $50,000,000 "for the national defence."

It also, April 18, 1898, passed joint resolutions, declaring:

"That the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent"; demanding of Spain that it "at once relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba, and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters"; authorizing the President "to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States . . . and the militia of the several States, to such an extent as may be necessary to carry these resolutions into effect," but disclaiming that the United States had "any intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof," and asserting its determination that when that was completed to "leave the government and control of the island to its people." The resolutions were approved by the President April 20th, and in themselves had the effect of a declaration of war. The Spanish Minister at once demanded his passports and departed from Washington. The American Minister at Madrid was handed his passports on the morning of April 21, 1898, without being permitted to present the resolutions to the Spanish authorities. Congress, April 25th, by law, declared that war existed between the United States and Spain since and including April 21, 1898.

Thus, after a long peace of thirty-three years, our country was again to engage in war, and with and old and once powerful and war- like nation, which must be waged both by sea and land.

I do not intend to write a history of the one hundred and fourteen days' war that ensued. I merely summarize the conditions which caused me to turn from civil pursuits and a quiet home to again take up the activities of a military life in war.

The President called for volunteers (125,000 April 23d, and 75,000 May 25th), and, June 9th, I was, by him, appointed, and, June 14th, 1898, unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, a Major- General of Volunteers. I was the only person in civil life from a northern State, or who had served in the Union Army in the Civil War but never in the regular Army, on whom was originally conferred that high rank in the Spanish-American War.

This rank was conferred on Fitzhugh Lee of Virginia, Joseph Wheeler of Alabama, and Matthew C. Butler of South Carolina, each of whom had served as a general officer in the Confederate Army; and on James H. Wilson of Delaware, who had served as a Major-General in the Union Army in the Civil War. These four were from civil life, but, save Butler, each was a graduate of West Point and had served in the United States Army.

Hon. William J. Sewell of New Jersey declined an appointment to that rank, and Francis V. Greene of New York was appointed after the protocol was signed. He was a graduate of West Point, and had served in the United States Army. No other Major-General was appointed from civil life before the treaty of peace.

A feature of the Spanish War was the alacrity with which ex- Confederates and Southern men tendered their services to sustain it. It was worth the cost of the war, to demonstrate the patriotism of the whole people, and their readiness to unite under one flag and fight in a common cause.

I was assigned to the Seventh Army Corps, then being organized, with headquarters at Jacksonville, Florida. I reported there to Major-General Fitzhugh Lee, its commander, and was assigned to the First Division, then located at Miami, 366 miles farther south, on the east coast of Florida, at the terminus of railroad transportation. I assumed command of the Division, July 7th, with headquarters at Miami. It then numbered about 7500 officers and enlisted men. My tents were pitched in a cocoanut grove on the shore of the Biscayne Bay. The corps had been designated to lead an early attack on Havana. I had exercised no military command for a third of a century, and had misgivings of my ability to discharge, properly, the important duties. This feeling was not decreased by the fact that the division was composed of southern troops—1st and 2d Louisiana; 1st and 2d Alabama; and 1st and 2d Texas Volunteer Infantry regiments. Some of these regiments and many of the companies were commanded by ex-Confederate officers, and one brigade —the Second—was commanded by Brigadier-General W. W. Gordon, an ex-Confederate officer from Georgia. He commanded this brigade until the protocol, when he was made one of the evacuation commissioners for Porto Rico. Several of the staff were sons of Confederate officers. The only officer, other than staff-officers, who was not southern, was Brigadier-General Loyd Wheaton, who commanded the First Brigade. He had served in the Union Army in the Civil War from Illinois, and became, after the war, an officer in the United States Army, from which he was appointed a general officer of Volunteers in the Spanish War. Wheaton remained in my command until after our army occupied Havana, and commanded a division that entered that city, January 1, 1899, then shortly thereafter was ordered to the Philippines, where he has, in several battles with the Filipinos, distinguished himself, and deservedly acquired fame.

I soon, however, became familiar with my duties, and the command was a most agreeable and pleasant one. I became warmly attached to and proud of it; and it was, throughout, loyal to me. No better volunteer soldiers were ever mustered, and if occasion had arisen they would have proved their skill and valor by heroic deeds and willing sacrifices.

The camp at Miami was the farthest south of any in the United States, consequently the hottest, and by reason of the situation near the Everglades and the Miami River (their principal outlet to the sea) the water proved bad, and only obtainable for the troops through pipes laid on the rocky surface of the earth from the Everglades at the head of the river. It thus came warm, and sometimes offensive by reason of vegetable matter contained in it. The reefs—an extension of the Florida Reefs—which lay four miles from the west shore of the bay, cut off easterly sea breezes; and the mosquitoes were at times so numerous as to make life almost unbearable. All possible was done for the health and comfort of the command. Notwithstanding the location, hotness of the season, and bad general conditions, the health of the soldiers was better, numbers considered, than in any other camp in the United States. A good military hospital was established under capable medical officers, and, through some patriotic ladies—the wife and daughter of General W. W. Gordon and others—a convalescent hospital was established where the greatest care was taken of the sick, and wholesome delicacies were provided for them. A feeling of unrest amounting to dissatisfaction, however, arose, which caused the War Department to order my command to Camp Cuba Libre, Jacksonville, Florida. It was accordingly transported there by rail early in August, my headquarters having been at Miami just one month. My division was then camped in proximity to the St. John's River at Fairfield, immediately east of Jacksonville. My headquarters tents were pitched in a pine forest. Here the general conditions were much better than at Miami, though much sickness, chiefly typhoid and malarial fevers, prevailed in the corps, my own division having a far less per centum of cases than either of the other two. The water was artesian and good, but the absence of anything like a clay soil rendered it impossible to keep the camps well policed and the drainage was difficult. Florida sand is not a disinfectant; clay is. This camp, however, had a smaller list of sick in proportion to numbers than was reported in other camps farther north.

There was added to my division at Jacksonville, before any were mustered out, the 1st Ohio (Colonel C. B. Hunt) and the 4th U. S. Volunteer Infantry (Colonel James S. Pettit), the two constituting a third brigade, commanded by Colonel Hunt. My division then numbered about 11,000; the corps something over 32,000.

I commanded the corps, in the absence of General Lee, from the 14th to the 22d of August, 1898. Again, September 27th, I assumed command of the corps and retained it until October 6th, when I took a leave of absence home, returning via Washington for consultation with the authorities. I resumed command of the corps (then removed to Camp Onward, Savannah, Georgia), October 25th, and retained it until November 11th, 1898.

General Lee being about to depart for Havana, Cuba, I assumed, December 8th, command of all the United States forces at Savannah, consisting of regulars and volunteers.

The President, William McKinley, the Secretary of War, R. A. Alger, and others of the President's cabinet, visited Savannah, December 17th and 18th, and reviewed (17th), under my command, all the troops then there; about 16,000 of all arms, some of whom had seen service at Santiago, Cuba, and in Porto Rico.

The Springfield rifles with which the volunteers had been armed, were exchanged at Savannah for Krag-Jorgensen magazine (calibre .30) rifles.

The troops while at Savannah were generally in good health, although a few cases of cerebro or spinal meningitis occurred, owing to frequent changes of temperature.

The secret of preserving the health of soldiers is in regular drill and exercise, ventilation of clothing, bedding, and tents, and in cleanliness of person and camps. Exposure to sun and air purifies and disinfects better than lime or chemicals.

I superintended the final equipment and shipment to Cuba of about 16,000 troops; about one half were volunteers of the Seventh Corps, who went to Havana.

While at Jacksonville, the war with Spain having ended, a number of volunteer regiments were mustered out, and the Seventh Corps was reorganized into two divisions. The 1st Texas, Colonel W. H. Mabry (who died near Havana, January 4, 1899), and 2d Louisiana, Colonel Elmer E. Wood, only, were left of my original First Division, to which was added the 3d Nebraska, Colonel William Jennings Bryan (who resigned at Savannah December 10, 1898); the 4th Illinois, Colonel Eben Swift; the 9th Illinois, Colonel James R. Campbell, and the 2d South Carolina, Colonel Wilie Jones. The first three regiments constituted the First Brigade, commanded by General Loyd Wheaton, and the last three, the Second Brigade, commanded by Brigadier-General Henry T. Douglas, who had served in the Confederate Army in the Civil War. He was an excellent officer.

I embarked for Havana on the 26th of December, 1898, with my headquarters, including my staff, provost-guard, etc., on the Panama, a ship captured from the Spanish early in the war. I arrived in Havana Harbor the evening of the 28th, and the next day reached Camp Columbia, southwest of Havana about eight miles, at Buena Vista, near Marianao, where my last military headquarters were established, in tents, as always before. The troops were prepared to take possession of Havana on its surrender by the Spaniards, January 1, 1899. Major-Generals Brooke, Lee, Ludlow, and some other officers attended to the ceremonial part in the surrender of the city, and it became my duty to march the Seventh Corps and other troops in the vicinity of Havana into it for the purpose of taking public and actual possession. I, accordingly, early New Year morning, moved my command, numbering, infantry, cavalry, and artillery, about 9000, to and along the sea-shore, crossing the Almendares River on pontoons, near its mouth, thence through Vedado to the foot of the Prado, opposite Morro Castle, located east of the neck of the harbor. The formal ceremonies being over (12 M.), the troops were moved up the Prado, passing Major-General Brooke and others on the reviewing-stand at the Inglaterra Hotel, then through principal streets to camp, having made a march of about eighteen miles, under a tropical sun, the day being excessively hot for even that climate. The soldiers endured the march well. The day was a memorable one. A city which had been under monarchical rule for four hundred years witnessed the power of freedom, represented by the host of American soldiers, under the flag of a Republic, move triumphantly through its streets, with the avowed purpose of securing freedom to all the people. The Spanish residents did not partake of the joyous feeling or participate in the wild demonstrations of the Cuban inhabitants. The latter exhibited a frantic hilarity at times; then a dazed feeling seemed to come over them, in which condition they stood and stared, as in meditation. The natural longing to be free had possessed these people, but when they were confronted with the fact of personal freedom it was too much for them to fully realize, or to estimate what the absence of absolute tyranny meant for them. They appeared in the fronts and on the roofs of the houses, and along the sides of the streets, displaying all the tokens and symbols of happiness they possessed. Flowers were thrown in great profusion, and wild shouts went up from men, women, and children; especially from children, as, in some way, they seemed to know that a severance of their country from Spain meant more for them that it did for the older people. The Cubans are of mixed races, though they are not to be despised. Some have pure Castilian blood, some are from other European countries, and some are of pure African descent, many of the latter having once been in slavery; but many of the Cubans proper are of a mixed blood, including the Spanish, African, some Indian, and a general admixture of the people who early settled in the American tropics. There do not seem to be any race distinctions where Cubans alone are concerned. The African and those of mixed blood mingle freely together; and in the insurgent army officers of all ranks were chosen from the pure or mixed-blood African as freely as from others. The Cuban colored people seem to be exceptionally intelligent and energetic, and have a high reputation as brave soldiers. The typical Cuban does not belong to the coast cities, the inhabitants of which are more distinctly Spanish, especially the dominant class. These cities did little towards the insurrections, and their inhabitants, as a mass, can claim little of the glory in making Cuba free or independent. Many of the principal officers of the Cuban army were educated men, and some were of a high order, capable of deeds, on the theatre of war, worthy of the best soldiers of any age. When our war with Spain broke out, the latter had over 200,000 regular soldiers, besides volunteers, on the island, and the insurgent bands were few in number, without good arms, with little ammunition and no quartermaster, commissary, or pay department. Cuba had no permanently located civil government, and the insurgents owned no ship on the seas, nor did they possess a single coast city, or a harbor where supplies could come to them from abroad. They having held the Spanish army at bay for years, and often confined large parts of it, almost in a state of siege, within cities and fortified lines, all circumstances considered, forces us to conclude that talent, skill, endurance, and bravery were possessed by the Cuban officers, and that the ranks were filled with devoted soldiers. The insurrections were of long duration (ten and four years), yet Spain, in 1898, had made no substantial progress in suppressing the last one, though the most barbarous methods were adopted. We exploit the partisan heroes of our Revolution, such as Francis Marion and others, yet they only acted with and against small bands, leaving our armies to meet the large organized forces of the British. What is to be said of the Cuban patriot officer who, year by year, maintained, unsupported, a war for independence against a relentless foe, equipped with the best arms the world has yet known?

My work in Cuba was confined to a military command, principally outside of the cities. My men were in carefully selected camps, which were constantly throughly policed and supplied with wholesome water, piped form the Vento (Havana) Water-works. Thanks to a thorough enforcement of a good sanitary system, the general health of my command was good throughout, only a few cases of typhoid or malarial fever appeared, and there were less than half a dozen cases of yellow fever among my soldiers. There was no epidemic of any disease in the camp. The yellow fever cases developed among men who, out of curiosity, exposed themselves in foul places about old forts and wharves, or in the unused dungeons of Morro and other castles. Yellow fever is a place disease, not generally contagious by contact with the sick.

My time was taken up in Cuba in keeping the peace and preserving order, and with the care of the camps and field-hospitals, and, as throughout my military service, with the drill and discipline of my command, often turning the corps out for review by superior officers. I made incursions to the interior of the island, and observed the devastation of that magnificently beautiful country, with its stately royal palms, etc., and noted the depopulation, under Weyler's reconcentrado plan, of the richest and once most populous rural parts of the island. I saw the Cuban soldiers in their camps or bivouacs, and made the acquaintance of many of their officers, and formed a high regard for them; but it was no part of my duty to try to solve the great, yet unsettled, Cuban problem, and I must be silent here.(20)

The muster out of the volunteers commenced again in March, 1899, and progressed rapidly. The Secretary of War visited Cuba, and with Major-Generals Brooke, Ludlow, Wilson, and other officers, reviewed what troops remained of the Seventh Corps, with others, near Marianao, March 29, 1899. On this occasion, my riding horses having been shipped away preparatory to my leaving Cuba, I rode a strange horse, which at a critical time in the review ran away, carrying me, in much danger, some distance from the reviewing officers. I recovered control of the horse, but dismounted him and mounted another, which proved equally untamed, and he likewise, a little later, attempted to run afield or cast me off. Fortunately these exceptional accidents terminated without injury; and with that review ended my public military service—forever.

The fatal illness of my beloved and devoted wife and her death
(March 12, 1899) caused me (with my son) to go to my Ohio home.
I returned to Cuba with Captain Horace C. Keifer, who was on my
staff continuously during my service in the Spanish War.

All arrangements having been completed for the early muster out of the volunteers of the Seventh Corps not already gone, and my mission in the army being practically at an end, and my command proper disbanded, I took ship (the Yarmouth), in Havana Harbor, March 30th, and proceeded via Port Tampa, home, where I was mustered out of the military service May 12, 1899, having been in the army as a Major-General eleven months and three days. During my service in the field in the Spanish War I was not off duty on account of illness, injury, or accident.

I had an attack of typhoid fever, at my home in April, from which
I soon recovered, doubtless contracted while travelling to or from
Cuba.

I had now lived about five years in a tent, or without shelter, in war times, through all seasons, and being in my sixty-fourth year, gave up all inclination to continue in military life, knowing the field is for younger men. My duties in the army, though always arduous, were pleasant, hence gratifying. I had no serious trouble with any officer or soldier, though I tried to do my duty in the discipline of my command. My personal attachment to superior and inferior officers, especially members of my military staff, was and is of no ordinary kind. I congratulate myself on being able to attach to me, loyally, some of the most accomplished, hard- working, conscientious, and highly educated officers of the United States Army, as well as others of the volunteers, the service has known. A list of officers (nine of whom were sons of former Confederate officers) who served, at some time, on my division staff in the field, is given in Appendix F.

Here this narrative must end with only a parting word as to the
Spanish War.

Dewey destroyed the entire Spanish fleet, with much loss of life, in Manila Bay, May 1, 1898; seven Americans were wounded, none killed. Admiral Cervera, with the pride of the Spanish battle- ships, cruisers, and torpedo-boats, reached Cuban waters from Cape Verde Islands, and, May 19th, sailed into Santiago Harbor, where he was blockaded—"bottled up"—by Admirals Sampson and Schley's fleets. Cervera's fleet, in an attempt to escape, was totally destroyed, with a loss of above six hundred killed or drowned, and about two thousand captured, himself included, in two hours, by our navy under Sampson, on Sunday morning, July 3, 1899, with a loss of one American killed and one wounded. Other minor naval affairs occurred, all disastrous to the Spanish. Cervera's entry into Santiago Harbor caused previous plans for the movement of the army to be changed.

The bulk of the regular army, under Major-General Wm. R. Shafter, was assembled at Port Tampa, from whence they were transported to and landed (June 24th) at Guantanamo Bay, near Santiago. They were then joined by a body of Cuban troops under General Garcia. Fighting commenced at once and continued irregularly at Siboney, El Caney, San Juan Hill, etc., the principal battles being fought on the 1st and 2d of July. The next day a demand was made on the Spanish commander (Toral) for the surrender of his army and Santiago. This was acceded to, after much negotiation, July 17, 1898, including the province of Santiago and 22,000 troops, in number exceeding Shafter's entire available force. The display of skill and bravery by officers and men of our small army (principally regulars) at Santiago never was excelled. Our loss in the series of battles there was, killed, 22 officers and 208 men; wounded, 81 officers and 1203 men. A Porto Rico campaign was then organized. General Miles wired the War Department, about July 18th, to send me with my division (then in camp at Miami) to make up his Porto Rico expedition. His request was not carried out, and it thus happened that no soldier of a Southern State volunteer organization fired a hostile shot during the Spanish War. Ponce was taken July 25th, followed by an invasion of the island from the south. An affair took place, August 10th, and operations here, as elsewhere, were terminated by the protocol. Manila was surrendered August 13th, the day after the protocol was signed. This was the last offensive land operation of the Spanish War. The invasion of Porto Rico cost us 3 killed and 40 wounded.

Through the intervention of Cambon, the French Ambassador at Washington, negotiations were opened which resulted in a protocol which bound Spain to relinquish all sovereignty over Cuba, to cede Porto Rico and other West India island possessions to the United States, and it provided for a Commission to agree upon a treaty of peace, to meet in Paris, not later than October 1, 1898; also provided for Commissions to regulate the evacuation of Cuba and Porto Rico.

The treaty was signed in Paris December 10, 1898; was submitted by the President to the Senate January 11, 1899, and ratified by it, and its ratification approved by him, February 6, 1899. The Queen of Spain ratified the treaty March 19, 1899, and its ratifications were exchanged and proclaimed at Washington April 11, 1899. It provided for the cession, also, to the United States of the Philippine Islands and the payment of $20,000,000 therefor.

The total casualties in battle, during the war, in our navy, were 17 killed and 67 wounded (no naval officer injured); and, in our army, 23 officers and 257 men killed, and 113 officers and 1464 men wounded; grand total, 297 killed and 1644 wounded, of all arms of the service.

The deaths from disease and causes other than battle, in camps and at sea, were, 80 officers and 2485 enlisted men. Many died at their homes of disease; some of wounds.

An insurrection broke out in the Philippines in February, 1899, which is not yet suppressed.

The war was not bloody, and the end attained in the cause of humanity and liberty is a justification of it; but whether the acquisition of extensive tropical and distant island possessions was wise, or will tend to perpetuate our Republic and spread constitutional liberty, remains to be shown by the infallible test of time. Our sovereignty over Cuba, thus far, appears to be a friendly usurpation, without right, professedly in the interest of humanity, civilization, and good government. Our acquisition of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands, all in the tropics, is a new national departure which may prove wise or not, according as we deal justly and mercifully with the people who inhabit them. It may be in the Divine plan that these countries should pass under a more beneficent, enduring, newer, and higher civilization, to be guided and dominated by a people speaking the English tongue.

( 1) The certificate of his naturalization reads:

"Maryland ss.

"These are to certify all persons whom it may concern: That George Keifer of Frederick County, within the Province aforesaid, born out of the Allegiance of his most Sacred Majesty King George the Third, etc., did, on the 3d day of September Anno Domini 1765, Personally appear before the Justices of his Lordship's Provincial Court, and then and there, in Term Time, between the hours of nine and twelve in the forenoon of the same day, produced and delivered a certificate in writing of his having received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in a Protestant or Reformed Congregation in the said Province of Maryland, within three months next before the exhibiting of such certificate, signed by the person administering such Sacrament, and attested by two credible witnesses, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament made in the thirteenth year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Second, entitled, An Act for naturalizing such foreign Protestants, and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of his Majesty's Colonies in America; and then and there made appear, that he had been an inhabitant in some of his Majesty's Plantations seven years, and had not been absent out of some of the said Colonies for a longer space than two months at any one time during the said seven years; and also then and there took the oaths of Allegiance, Abhorrency, and Abjuration, repeated the Test, and subscribed the same, and oath of Abjuration. In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand, and affixed the seal of the said court, this 3d day of September in the year of our Lord God, one thousand seven hundred and Sixty-five.

"Test. Reverdy Ghiselm, Clk."

( 2) Dr. Jenner's primary investigation of the principles of vaccination began in 1775, but was not satisfactorily completed in England until five years later. Lady Montagu had, however, introduced from Turkey into England, as early as 1717, inoculation for smallpox, but from the beginning it met the fiercest opposition of physicians, the clergy, and the superstitious public, which was never entirely overcome in England or America.

( 3) John Uri Lloyd, Ph.M., Ph.D. (Cin.), the distinguished author and scientist and collector of medical, etc., books, in an article printed in the Am. Jour. of Pharmacy, January, 1898, on "Dr. Peter Smith and His Dispensatory," says his book was the "first Materia Medica 'Dispensatory' published in the West."

( 4) Owing to its remarkable character we quote from his book:

"In South Carolina I was once in company with old Dr. Dilahoo, who was noted for great skill and experience, having traveled into many parts of the world. In the course of our conversation I asked him what he conceived the plague to be, which had been so much talked of in the world. He readily told me that it was his opinion that the plague is occasioned by an invisible insect. This insect floating in the air, is taken with the breath into the lungs, and there it either poisons or propagates its kind, so as to produce that dreadful disease. This, he was confirmed, was likely to be the truth from the experiments frequently made at Gibraltar. For there, said he, they of the garrison, when they fear the plague, have a way to elevate a piece of fresh meat pretty high in the air; they put it up at night, and if it comes down sound and sweet in the morning, they conclude there is no danger of the plague. But if the plague is in the air, the meat will be tainted and spoiled, and sometimes almost rotten. He was further confirmed in his opinion of the insect, because in and about tobacco warehouses the plague has never been known. I will remark: Now it is well known that tobacco will prevent moth from eating our woolen clothes, if we pack but little of it with them, that is the moth cannot breed or exist, where there is a sufficient scent of the tobacco. This scent may be death to the invisible insects even after they are drawn in with the breath and fastened upon the lungs. This may account for tobacco being burned (as I have heard it), in many old countries, on a chaffing dish in a room, that the people of the house may take in the smoke plentifully with their breath, to preserve their health and prevent pestilential disorders.

"Agreeable to this view, we may conclude that all tainted air may bring disease and death to us. And the plague has never been (properly speaking) in America as we know of. Yet other effluvia taken in with the breath may have occasioned other fearful diseases, such as the yellow fever and other bilious and contagious complaints." —P. 14.

( 5) His grandson, James Johns, in the 30's, wandered, as a trapper, to the Pacific coast, thence north to the mouth of the Willamette River on the Columbia (Oregon), and there lived a bachelor and alone until his death, about 1890. He was neither a fighting man nor a hunter. He travelled, often alone, wholly unarmed, among wild, savage Indians, his peaceable disposition and defenceless condition being respected. He, it is said, would not sell his lands at the mouth of the river, and thus forced the city of Portland to be located twelve miles from the Columbia.

( 6) My father was not a large man, his weight being only about one hundred and sixty pounds and height five feet, ten inches, but my mother, while only of medium height for a woman, was of large frame and weighed about one hundred and eighty pounds.

( 7) Solitary reading law, with time for thought and reflection, has its advantages, more than compensating for the opportunity to consult reports, etc., usually enjoyed by a law student in an office.

The present Chief-Justice (Hon. David Martin) of Kansas, though nominally a law student of mine, yet read and mastered the elementary and principal law-books while tending, as a miller, a dry-water country grist-mill, remote from my office.

( 8) On the recommendations of Generals Grant and Meade I was appointed (1866) by President Johnson a Lieutenant-Colonel in the 26th Infantry, U. S. A., one of the new regular regiments provided for after the close of the war. I declined the appointment because I was of too restless a disposition and not educated for a soldier in time of peace.

( 9) The Thirteenth Amendment was proclaimed ratified Dec. 18, 1865; the Fourteenth, July 28, 1868, and the Fifteenth, March 30, 1870.

(10) In the Florida Indian War of 1812 some depredations were committed on Fisher's corn fields. For this he made a claim originally for $8000. Congress has since paid on it $66,803, and there was still a claim in the Forty-Third Congress for $66,848, on which a committee of the House reported in favor of paying $16,848, leaving $50,000 of the claim to bother future Congresses. —Rep. (No. 134) on Law of Claims, H. of R., Forty-Third Cong., p. 18.

(11) Later the Forty-Seventh Congress passed an act authorizing the distribution of about two-thirds of the whole fund to persons whose claims were rejected by the Geneva Arbitrators in making up the award.

(12) For an authoritative decision on the right of the National Government to use physical force to compel obedience to its laws, etc., see Ex parte Seibold, 100 U. S. Rep., 371.

(13) Proceedings Society of the Army of the Cumberland, 1887, pp. 115-40.

(14) Mr. Blaine was nominated for President in 1884, but was defeated by Mr. Cleveland. Notwithstanding his duplicity towards me, I supported him. He was disloyal to Mr. Reed, of his own State, though he then also professed to support him.

(15) An unwary, but doubtless well-meaning person (M. P. Follet) of Quincy, Mass., in 1896 published a small volume on the Speaker of the House, in which she gathered up these stories. She says Keifer appointed on the elections Committee "eleven Republicans and two Democrats"; that he appointed one nephew "Clerk to the Speaker," another "Clerk to the Speaker's table." These and other like falsehoods appear to have been inspired by a member who, notwithstanding his free-trade proclivities and other objectionable qualities and incapacities, sought to be appointed Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The Committee on Elections was composed of nine Republicans, five Democrats, and one re-Adjuster from Virginia. The Clerk to the Speaker's table was, throughout the Congress, a poor young man who had been a page on the floor of the House and a resident of the State of New York, and no relative of mine. A nephew of mine, a resident of Washington, was, for a short time, my clerk, a purely personal position, as was also that of private secretary.

The statement of Miss Follet that Keifer's "partisan rulings soon won him the contempt of Republicans as well as of Democrats," is shown to be basely untrue by the significant fact that no parliamentary or other decision of mine was ever overruled by the House, although my party can hardly be said to have been in the majority of the House over all other parties.

What "partisan ruling" of mine was not heartily approved by my party, or did not command at least the respect of the Democrats? Miss Follet was imposed on.

(16) An incident occurred near the close of the last session of the Forty-seventh Congress which should be mentioned. The reporters of newspapers, through the courtesy of the House, had been assigned a separate gallery for their convenience. This gallery, as well as others for the convenience of visitors, was under the general control of the Speaker, subject to the order of the House. There were but few occupants in the reporters' gallery the last night of the session, and there were many ladies who could not be accommodated with seats in other galleries.

I declined, however, though repeatedly requested, to order the reporters' gallery opened even to ladies, and I also refused to entertain a motion by a member of the House to order it thrown open to them; but appeals became so urgent that I, as Speaker, submitted to the House the request of James W. McKenzie, a member from Kentucky, for unanimous consent to open the gallery.

Here is an extract from the Record, showing the action taken:

"Mr. McKenzie.—I ask unanimous consent that the reporters' gallery be thrown open to the occupation of the wives and friends of Congressmen, who are unable to obtain seats in other galleries.

"The Speaker.—The gentleman from Kentucky asks consent that the rules be so suspended as to permit the reporters' gallery to be occupied by the wives and friends of members of Congress.

"There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly."—Con.
Record, vol. xiv., Part IV., p. 3747.

I was, under the circumstances, the only member who could not have prevented the gallery being opened.

Notwithstanding the fact that no reporter was seriously inconvenienced by the presence of ladies, the incident was viciously seized on by certain reporters (and, through them, the metropolitan press) to assail me as the enemy of the press. The truth was suppressed at the time, and I was personally charged with wilfully opening up the press gallery as an insult to the dignity of newspaper men, and, with this, other false statements were published, which could not be answered through the same medium, by me or my friends, which made an unfavorable impression, scarcely yet removed from the public mind.

(17) It is comparatively easy for a Speaker to preside with a large political and friendly majority to support him, as was the case when Colfax, Blaine, and other Speakers were in the Chair.

(18) See Con. Record, vol. xiii., Part V., p. 4313.

(19) Con., etc., Rules, etc., H. of R.; Second Sess. Forty- seventh, Con., 358.

(20) My views of the situation in Cuba were expressed in a letter to General Corbin, dated January 28, 1899. Appendix E.