At the invitation of the Republicans of Louisville, Ky., I went to that city. In the afternoon I made a short address at the laying of the corner stone of the new customhouse, and in the evening made a long political speech. It was my first visit there, and I was much gratified as well as surprised, at the great numbers which attended a Republican meeting and the enthusiasm with which I was greeted. I referred to the long and intimate association of Ohio and Kentucky since the days of the Indian wars, when Kentucky sent her best and bravest men to fight the battles of Ohio, under Harrison and Taylor at Fort Meigs and Sandusky. In a later time, when Henry Clay was their favorite, Ohio steadily and heartily supported him, and now that the war was over, there was no reason why Kentucky and Ohio might not stand side by side in maintaining the principles of the Republican party. I said:
"You might naturally inquire why I came to the city of Louisville to make a Republican speech, when I knew that the majority of your population belong to a different school of politics, and that I could scarcely hope to make any impression upon the Democratic vote of the city of Louisville or the State of Kentucky. Still, I have always thought it strange that your people, who through many long years followed the fortunes and believed in the doctrines of Henry Clay, should willingly belong to a party opposed to all his ideas, and I was curious to learn why the same great events that led the people of Ohio into the ranks of the Republican party should lead the people of Kentucky into the ranks of the Democratic party. It is to make this discovery that I come here to-night, and I will speak to you, not for the purpose of reviving past controversies, but to see whether, after all, the people of Ohio and Kentucky ought not now to stand side by side in their political action, as they did in the days of old.
"When approaching manhood I, in common with the people of Ohio, was in ardent sympathy with the political opinions of the people of Kentucky. I was reared in a school which regarded Henry Clay, John J. Crittenden, Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin as the brightest lights in the political firmament, chief of whom was Henry Clay. I need not remind a Kentucky audience with what pride and love your people followed him in his great career, and with rare intermissions supported and sustained him to the close of his life. And so, too, with John J. Crittenden, who represented the people of Kentucky in both Houses of Congress, in the cabinet of two administrations, and, to the close of his eventful life in the midst of the Civil war, retained the confidence and support of the people of Kentucky. It may be said, also, that Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin, the warm and lifelong friends of Clay and Crittenden, represented the people of Ohio in the highest official positions, and that these great men, united in counsel, in political opinions and in ardent friendship, were the common standards of political faith to the people of these neighboring states.
"I had the honor to cast my first vote for Henry Clay for President of the United States, and supported him with all the natural enthusiasm of youth, and remember yet my sorrow when it was at last known that he was defeated. I also knew Mr. Crittenden from 1846, when, as a young lawyer, I visited Washington, and saw much of him in the later years of his life. I also held close personal relations with Mr. Ewing and Mr. Corwin since my early boyhood, and shared, as much as youth can share, the benefits of their council and confidence. I am justified in saying that during the memorable period of thirty years of political conflict through which we have passed, I have steadily adhered to the lessons they have taught, by supporting the measures adopted from time to time by the Republican party, while the majority of the people of Kentucky, with equal sincerity, no doubt, pursuing their convictions, have landed in the Democratic party. What I would like to find out is whether it is you or I who have switched off from the councils of our political fathers, and whether the causes of the difference of opinion still exist."
I closed as follows:
"I freely confess that the great mass of the Democratic party are patriotic, law-abiding citizens, yet I believe the elements that control that party, especially in the northern states, are unworthy of the confidence and trust of a brave and free people, and that the Republican party, although it may not always have met the hopes and expectations of its friends, does contain within it the elements of order, safety, obedience to law and respect for the rights of others, with well-grounded principles of public policy, and can fairly be trusted again to manage our national affairs.
"My heartiest sympathies go with the gallant Republicans of Kentucky, who, in an unequal fight, have shown the courage of their race and the patriotism of their ancestors. Let them persevere in appealing to their neighbors for co-operation, and they can fairly hope that, as the passions of the war pass away, Kentucky will be, as of old, on the side of the Union, the constitution and the impartial enforcement of the laws.
"Is not this a good time to try the experiment of a Republican representative from the Louisville district? Our Democratic friends seem to be in a bad way about the choice of a candidate. If what the opposing factions say of their candidates is half true, you had better take shelter under a genuine and fearless Republican like Mr. Wilson, who will be impartial to the factions and true to the great interests of American labor and American production. Such a light shining from Louisville will be a star of hope, a beacon light of safety and prosperity to the extreme bounds of our country. Why not try the experiment? I hope that my visit among you will be a message of good will, and I thank you with all my heart for your kindly reception."
The "Courier Journal" was much more fair to me on this occasion than the Democratic papers in Ohio. In consequence of this I have always entertained a kindly feeling for its editor, Henry Watterson, who, notwithstanding his strong political opinions, is always bold, frank and courteous in his criticisms.
On my return from Kentucky I spoke to a large meeting at Wilmington, Ohio, on the 7th of October. I had frequently addressed meetings at that place and always received a very cordial and hearty welcome. It so happened that John Q. Smith, one of the leading citizens of Clinton county, who had been a Member of Congress, had changed his political relations and become a warm supporter of the administration of Cleveland. He had prepared a large number of questions, to be put to me, which were printed and scattered broadcast in handbill form. I was glad of the opportunity to answer his questions, as they gave me a text for a general review of a Democratic administration. I said that the handbill was issued by a gentleman whom I esteemed very highly, and for whom I had the greatest good will and friendship, one of their own citizens, who had served in the legislature and in Congress with credit, and had been a representative of our government abroad. I then read the questions one by one and answered them, and, as I think, clearly showed to the satisfaction of my hearers, that, although Mr. Smith was generally sound on other matters, he was a little cracked on the question of American protection. My answers were received with great applause by the audience, and I think my old friend made nothing by his questions.