that duty. I will endeavor to talk to the people of the State of Illinois about Illinois. God bless her-I love her! Her people are worthy of the best services of the best men everywhere, and if I shall be elected governor the State of Illinois shall have the benefit of earnest, sincere service devoted to its interests. Let Cleveland run the national government, that is his business. He won't need my help, and, as you recollect a little incident in my experience of years ago, I shall not need his.

"Gentlemen of the convention, I promise you fair, earnest, honest service during this canvass. I want to see the canvass conducted in Illinois upon plain, square, practical issues; that there shall be no dodging anywhere; that when we point out the extravagance or the negligence of Republican administrations we shall not be answered by hired bands playing 'Marching through Georgia.' I shall tell the people what the people have a right to know, and it will be no answer that they shall talk to us about the beauties of protection and the advantages of shackling commerce, that the rich may grow richer and the poor may grow poorer. Gentlemen, I am done."

One writer says: "The occasion evidently inspired the speech, and again and again Governor Palmer was cheered in a manner that made the great hall ring long and loud with his praise, for this was the first occasion when a Democrat or Republican had dared to denounce the spoils system of politics or to speak plainly of the conduct of public servants."

The same writer says: "General Palmer made his opening speech of the campaign at the opera house in Springfield the latter part of June. But at the same time his adversaries were not idle, his administration while governor was critically reviewed and every supposable weak point was brought to the surface, and he thus became the object of universal attack, and official reports of the state were quoted in order to make

the assaults the more effective. The fact that he had once been a Republican was urged as a reason why no Republican should vote for him. He was accused of courting the influence of the anarchists, and an anonymous circular to this effect was spread broadcast. His controversy with General Sheridan at the time of the Chicago fire was revived. He was charged with resigning his command in front of the enemy, and Sherman's memoirs were cited to prove the charge. General Palmer bore these assaults with good grace. In his opera house speech he had anticipated his enemies by saying that his career in public life had been long and varied and he expected to have a great deal to say in regard to himself before the close of the campaign. He held that his administration was an open book, that he had committed no act while governor of which he was ashamed, he concealed nothing and gave a reason for every official act while he was the executive which had been made the subject of the campaign. Some of his adversaries in their public speeches not infrequently advised soldiers to 'vote as they shot,' and there was perhaps no unkind word written or spoken of him during the heated contest that so touched his manly pride as did the attempt to cast odium upon his name as a soldier, and when the campaign was over he resigned his membership in the Grand Army of the Republic, as evidence of the displeasure he felt toward those of his comrades who had allowed political prejudice to call in question his acts as a soldier."

I hope that I may be permitted to add from the same writer: "The canvass of the state by General Palmer was regarded as the most illustrious since that of Douglas and Lincoln in 1858. He spoke not infrequently to ten thousand people, sometimes in the scorching sun, sometimes in the pattering rain, sometimes by the dim light of the torch, but always with a power and clearness upon the questions of the hour that arrested the attention of the whole country, and those nearest him, who

felt the public pulse as he mingled with the masses, assumed that but for the ever-pressing influence of the national campaign, he would have been elected."[Politics and Politicians of Illinois, 576-581.]

On June 19th, I had an appointment to speak at Lincoln, Logan county. I observed that the older politicians who had been accustomed to defeat kept away from the meeting, but I was met by an immense number of young Democratic voters, who insisted upon an earnest, energetic campaign. I asked what majority they would give me in Logan county, which before that time had given a majority to the Republicans? One of the persons addressed said, "We will give you three hundred." Although I had some doubts about their ability to do so, I then and there determined to make the canvass energetically and "for all that was out."

During the canvass, I visited all parts of the state, and spoke in more than sixty counties, frequently addressing two audiences in one day, and spoke to thousands of persons. At Streator, it was charged against me that I was in the service of the railroads, and that Mr. Paul Morton of the R. I. R. R. was the treasurer of my campaign.

In my speech, I gave an account of every cent I had received and the names of the donors. It did not exceed four hundred and fifty dollars, but the name of Mr. Morton was not among them, as I had never known him or had any correspondence with him.

Another charge was, that I had pledged the anarchists to pardon such of them as were in the penitentiary. Indeed, a circular imputing that purpose and pledge from me was published and widely circulated throughout the state. To that charge I could only oppose my denial, but the facts are, that a brother of one of the parties executed called upon me at my residence in Springfield one morning after my nomination and said to me that "if I would promise to pardon the anarchists then in the penitentiary, they would give me ten thousand votes."

I told the messenger that I could "make no pledges, but that the anarchists in the penitentiary would stand upon the same footing that other convicts did." I have good reason to believe that the same proposition was made to my opponent, Governor Fifer, and was declined by

him.

In my addresses, I advised the people to depend upon the laws and upon the officers to enforce them. I said I had vetoed the bill under which the Pinkertons were organized, and felt that entrusting police powers to private persons was "dangerous and corrupting." I discussed the railroad question and asserted the right of the state to prohibit combinations and trusts, for I even then foresaw, what has since occurred, the formation by corporations of trusts to regulate the prices of products.

I was defeated by 12,547 votes. Harrison's plurality in the state over Cleveland was 22,104. The Democrats hoped for my election, and Fifer's friends had believed that he would be elected by a plurality of 30,000.

It was claimed that the anarchists had voted for me, but when the vote of Cook county was fully canvassed, it was evident that such was not the case, but the real facts are, that Cook county was carried for me upon the ground that I had done so much for Chicago and Cook county at the time of the great fire.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Letter to Hon. James E. Campbell-Meeting and action of Democratic state convention-Speech on the ratification of my nominationLetter from the Hon. W. E. Mason-My reply.

The canvass of 1888 satisfied me that a Democrat could be elected to the senate of the United States in 1890 if the candidate for that office could be nominated by the Democratic primaries and the convention, and be permitted to canvass the state as the recognized candidate of the Democratic party. In addition to this belief, I think senators should be elected by the people of the states, and not by the legislatures, and that the constitution of the United States should be so amended as to make that course admissible. Accordingly, on March 1, 1890, I wrote to the Hon. James E. Campbell, Chairman of the state Democratic committee, the following letter:

"SPRINGFIELD, March 1, 1890. "HON. JAMES E. CAMPBELL, STREATOR, ILLINOIS ;

"Dear sir-I have your favor of February 22d, and would have answered it sooner, but I have been both busy and sick. I am satisfied that the convention ought to meet in June; any day in that month would be suitable. I saw Mr. Wright, of Petersburg, a few days ago and expressed my views to him fully. I cannot be in Chicago on the 6th on account of urgent engagements. I am anxious to meet the committee for personal reasons. While I desire to be clearly understood with reference to the senatorial question, I am in no sense a candidate for the senate. All that I have ever said is, that I think that the state convention ought to adopt as a permanent rule of party action the nomination of a candidate for the senate, and that if my view of party policy in that