ELAINE, JAMES G. 



87 



the Governor of Maine appointed him United 

 States Senator, to fill the vacancy caused by 

 the resignation of Hon. Lot M. Morrill. Sub- 

 sequently he was elected by the Legislature, 

 and re-elected for the term ending in 1883. 

 From 1869 till 1875 he was Speaker of the 

 House of Representatives. In Congress he dis- 

 tinguished himself by his intimate knowledge 

 of parliamentary law, his readiness in debate, 

 his advocacy of American as opposed to for- 

 eign interests, and his loyalty to the national 

 Government. Oftener than almost any other 

 member he was pitted in debate against those 

 who had taken part in the secession movement. 



In the Thirty-eighth Congress he was a mem- 

 ber of the Committee on Post-Offices, and was 

 instrumental in establishing postal-cars ; in the 

 Thirty-ninth he was chairman of the Committee 

 on War-Debts of Loyal States, and a member of 

 that on Military Affairs ; in the Fortieth he 

 served on the Committee on Appropriations. 

 Among Mr. Elaine's more notable speeches in 

 Congress, were those on the ability of the 

 American people to suppress the rebellion; 

 against paying the national debt in green- 

 backs; in favor of resuming specie payment ; 

 against placing the Southern States under mili- 

 tary rule with suspension of habeas corpus ; on 

 removing the political disabilities of Jefferson 

 Davis ; in advocacy of the revival of American 

 commerce ; favoring a bimetallic currency, with 

 a silver dollar of full intrinsic value with the 

 gold dollar ; upon the wrong of suppressing the 

 colored vote in the South, and thus increasing 

 the power of a Southern white voter over a 

 Northern white voter ; in favor of restricting 

 Chinese immigration, because it was injurious 

 to the free laborers of the United States. 



In the Republican National Convention of 

 1876, held in Cincinnati, Mr. Elaine was a can- 

 didate for the presidential nomination. On 

 the first six ballots he had the highest number 

 of votes, but on the seventh Mr. Hayes obtained 

 a majority and was nominated. Mr. Elaine 

 was again a candidate for the nomination in 

 1880. In the convention he had 284 votes on 

 the first ballot, against 304 for Gen. Grant and 

 93 for Senator Sherman ; and this number did 

 not greatly decrease till the thirty-sixth bal- 

 lot, when the opponents of Grant united on 

 Gen. Garfield and nominated him. 



On the inauguration of President Garfield, 

 March 4, 1881, Mr. Elaine was made Secretary 

 of State. He was with the President when 

 he was assassinated in the railway-station in 

 Washington, July 2, 1881, and was practically 

 the head of the government from that date un- 

 til Garfield's death in September. He retired 

 from President Arthur's Cabinet Dec. 19, 1881, 

 and in the same month was chosen by Con- 

 gress to deliver the oration in the memorial 

 services for the late President, Feb. 27, 1882. 

 This oration, which proved to be one of his 

 finest efforts, may be found, in full, in the 

 " Annual Cyclopedia" for 1882, page 127. 



In the National Republican Convention, held 



in Chicago, June 3-6, 1884, on the first ballot 

 for a presidential candidate Mr. Elaine received 

 334i votes, in a total of 820; his chief com- 

 petitors being President Arthur and Senators 

 Edmunds and Logan. On the second ballot 

 Elaine's vote rose to 349, on the third to 375, 

 and on the fourth to 541 most of his competi- 

 tors, except Arthur, having dropped out. The 

 nomination, as usual, was at once made unani- 

 mous. Hon. John A. Logan was nominated 

 for Vice-President. Mr. Elaine's letter of ac- 

 ceptance was published July 19. The follow- 

 ing extracts show its salient points: 



Revenue laws^are in their very nature subject to fre- 

 quent revision in order that they may be adapted to 

 changes and modifications of trade. The Ee publican 

 party is not contending for the permanency of any 

 particular statute. The issue between the two parties 

 does not have reference to a specific law. It is far 

 broader and far deeper. It involves a principle of 

 wide application and beneficent influence, against a 

 theory which we believe to be unsound in conception 

 and inevitably hurtful in practice. In the many tariff 

 revisions which have been necessary for the past 

 twenty-three years, or which may hereafter become 

 necessary, the Republican party has maintained and 

 will maintain the policy of protection to American in- 

 dustry, while our opponents insist upon a revision, 

 which practically destroys that policy. The issue is 

 thus dist'mct ; well-defined, and unavoidable. The 

 pending election may determine the fate of protection 

 for a generation. The overthrow of the policy means 

 a large and permanent reduction in the wages of the 

 American laborer, besides involving the loss of vast 

 amounts of American capital investecl in manufactur- 

 ing enterprises. 



The agricultural interest is by far the largest in the 

 nation and is entitled in every ad.iustment of revenue 

 laws to the first consideration. Any policy hostile to 

 the fullest development of agriculture in the United 

 States must be abandoned. Eealizing this fact, the 

 opponents of the present system of revenue have 

 labored very earnestly to persuade the farmers of the 

 United States that they are robbed by a protective 

 tariff, and the effort is thus made to consolidate their 

 vast influence in favor of free trade. But, happily, 

 the farmers of America are intelligent, and can not be 

 misled by sophistry when conclusive facts are before 

 them. They see plainly that during the past twenty- 

 four years wealth has not been acquired in one section 

 or by one interest at the expense of another section or 

 another interest. They see that the agricultural States 

 have made even more rapid progress than the manu- 

 facturing States. The farmers see that in 1860 Massa- 

 chusetts and Illinois had about the same wealth be- 

 tween 8800,000,000 and $900,000,000 each and that in 

 1880 Massachusetts had advanced to $2,600,000,000, 

 while Illinois had advanced to $3,200,000,000. ^ They 

 see that New Jersey and Iowa were just equal in pop- 

 ulation in 1860, and that in twenty years the wealth of 

 New Jersey was increased by the sum of $850,000,000, 

 while the wealth of Iowa was increased by the sum of 

 $1,500,000,000. They see that the nine leading agri- 

 cultural States of the West have grown so rapidly in 

 prosperity that the aggregate addition to their wealth 

 since 1860 is almost as great as the wealth of the entire 

 country in that year. In these extraordinary develop- 

 ments the farmers see the helpful impulse of a home 

 market, and they see that the financial and revenue 

 system enacted since the Republican party came into 

 power has established and constantly expanded the 

 home market. 



As a substitute for the industrial system which un- 

 der Republican administrations has developed such 

 extraordinary prosperity, our opponents offer a policy 

 which is but a series of experiments upon .our system 

 of revenue a policy whose end must be harm to our 



