the present law, and trust that it will be made the basis of still greater improvement in coming decades.

It must be borne in mind that, if our national statistics are to be taken with completeness, we must lay more stress on the Census than do the states of Europe. They have bureaus of statistics permanently established and under the direction of experienced statisticians; with us such a bureau is still a desideratum. The great advantages attending such an establishment are thus forcibly stated by Dr. E. M. Snow, the eminent statistician of Rhode Island, in a letter addressed to the Census Committee:

"I sincerely hope that, in the statute organizing the census of 1870, provision will be made for the establishment of a permanent census bureau; or, better still, (notwithstanding one failure,) a permanent statistical bureau. The reasons for this are perfectly conclusive to all who are acquainted with the collection and compilation of statistics. The greatest defects in all our censuses have been owing to the want of knowledge and of experience in those employed upon them. We are almost destitute of men in this country, except in three or four States, who are familiar with the practical duties required in taking a census. The whole country needs educating on this subject. A permanent bureau, with an efficient head, would soon organize a corps of men in each State, who would be familiar with the information to be obtained, and with the best methods of obtaining it.

"On the score of economy, also, a permanent bureau would be the cheapest. With a corps of clerks educated in the best methods of doing their duties, and with trained men to obtain the information, and by making use of local officers and other sources of information in different States, I am perfectly confident that a permanent census bureau could obtain all the information now obtained by a decennial census, except that relating to population, and could obtain it every year, with no greater expense than is now required to obtain it once in ten years. The efficiency and economy, in statistical matters, of men familiar with their duties, are greater beyond comparison than of men who are ignorant of these duties.

"A permanent national bureau of statistics is also very much needed to systematize the whole subject, to give information to all portions of the country, and to take the lead in the organization of similar bureaus in the several States. When such bureaus become general in all the States, the national government will be able, with their assistance, to obtain all the statistics now obtained by the national census, and much more, far more frequently, far more correctly, and with much less expense." 1

1 Letter to the Select Committee on Census of 1870, dated February 16, 1869.

We have already a Commissioner of Mining Statistics, some provisions in the Treasury Department for financial statistics, a Bureau of Education whose chief function is to collect educational statistics, and some attention is given to statistics in the Department of Agriculture. It is greatly to be regretted that these statistical forces have not been consolidated, the scope of their work enlarged, and the whole thoroughly organized; all of which could be done at an expense not greatly increased. But at this late day it is manifestly impossible to organize and equip a permanent statistical bureau in time to take the next census; and hence, regret it as we may, we must again depend wholly on the Census Office.

The American census should furnish a muster-roll of the American people, showing, as far as it is possible for figures to show, their vital, physical, intellectual, and moral power; it should provide us with an inventory of the nation's wealth, and show us how it is invested; it should exhibit the relation of population to wealth, by showing the distribution of the one and the vocations and industries of the other. The Ninth Census of the United States will be far more interesting and important than any of its eight predecessors. Since 1850, in spite of its losses, the republic has doubtless greatly increased in population and in wealth. It has taken a new position among the nations. It has passed through one of the most bloody and exhaustive wars of history. The time for reviewing its condition is most opportune. Questions of the profoundest interest demand answers. Has the loss of nearly half a million young and middle-aged men, who fell on the field of battle or died in hospitals or prisons, diminished the ratio of increase of population? Have the relative numbers of the sexes been sensibly changed? Has the relative number of orphans and widows perceptibly increased? Has the war affected the distribution of wealth, or changed the character of our industries? And, if so, in what manner and to what extent? What have been the effects of the struggle on the educational, benevolent, and religious institutions of the country? These questions, and many more of the most absorbing interest, the census of 1870 should answer. If it do not, the failure will reflect deep disgrace on the American name.

THE CANVASS IN OHIO.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT MOUNT VERNON, OHIO,

AUGUST 14, 1869.

MR

R. CHAIRMAN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS,- I am glad that the campaign begins, so far as you and I are concerned, on so pleasant an occasion, and under such favorable circumstances; that you are comfortably seated, and ready to consider calmly and without passion the issues of the campaign now opening; and I trust that we shall deliberate to-night not so much in the spirit of partisans as of men who are inquiring what are the wants and interests of our country. Of course it cannot be left out of sight that there are in Ohio two great political parties that have put forth their doctrines, and entered the field to contest before you the merits of the various points on which they differ. To discuss these differences, and their relations to the situation of the country, is my purpose to-night. In the outset, fellow-citizens, I call your attention to the very peculiar political situation in which the Democratic party is now placed; I desire to say that I wish that that party might be just as good, true, pure, and worthy a party as possible. I do not rejoice when the Democratic party acts badly, and is found unworthy. I wish they might be so true and so worthy that it would make but little difference to the country which of the two parties should come into power. I wish that party was so patriotic in all its doctrines and aspirations that it might exert a beneficial and salutary influence on the policy and conduct of the Republican party, so that if we went astray, or took up any false doctrines, or in any way became untrue to the people, the Democratic party might chastise us by taking our place and serving the State more worthily than we had done. I am therefore grieved to see the Democrats in this cam

paign taking positions so revolutionary that, in my opinion, it would be a vast calamity to the country should they get into power. Believing this, I desire to call your attention to their attitude at the present time.

In the first place, fellow-citizens, the Democratic party attempted in this campaign to take what they called "a new departure." Their old leaders had been meeting with a series of terrible and crushing defeats, and the thoughtful men of the party saw that a change in the line of march was their only hope. From 1860 onward, every step the Democracy has taken has led to defeat. Last summer I know that the wisest men in that party felt, and did not hesitate to say, that it was absolutely impossible for them to succeed unless they changed their line of march. An attempt was made in the New York Convention last year to move in a new direction, and try the chances of success by the nomination of Salmon P. Chase; in which purpose they came very near succeeding. The purpose at that time was to wash from the Democratic party the stains which the Rebellion left upon it. In view of their known sympathy with the Rebellion, their known hostility to our party in putting down the Rebellion, their stout resistance to every measure to overthrow slavery and build up freedom in the country, the most thoughtful and philosophic men in the party said, "We must wash away these stains; we must forsake the old party, must strike out a new course, and let the dead past bury its dead." And they came very near to taking up this new line of march in their attempt to nominate Chief Justice Chase; but they failed to make that nomination, and of course they failed in the election, as they had been doing for eight years.

This year the Democracy of Ohio, smarting under accumulated defeats suffered at our hands during the last decade, resolved that they would indeed take "a new departure." When they met in Columbus on the 7th of July last, notwithstanding their old leaders were there, notwithstanding a large part of the Convention favored the nomination of Mr. Pendleton for Governor, and another large part favored the nomination of Judge Ranney or some other well-known leader of the old school, yet so deeply was the party penetrated with the conviction that on the old line and with the old leaders nothing but defeat awaited them, that a majority of the Convention broke the slate, turned their backs upon their old leaders, and, in the

hope of washing away the stains of the past, nominated a distinguished Union General of the late war, whom they believed to be personally disaffected toward the President of the United States and toward the Republican party. This was a great revolution in the Democratic party; it was not only a revolution, but it was an acknowledgment that defeat lay in the old direction, and that their only hope was in a new line of march under a new leader. This leader was General W. S. Rosecrans.

For General Rosecrans personally I have none but words of kindness. I love to speak of him as a friend, as a man who has done much for his country during its great struggle, — as a man who, by his personal valor and by his clear conception of the nature of the Rebellion, achieved a reputation and made a record which will always form an important part of American history. And I desire to say that I could not believe that he would accept the nomination. However great his personal disagreements might have been, however much he may have been alienated from any men or set of men in the Republican party, he could not, with the least regard to his own history, have accepted the nomination.

There were men in our army who fought gallantly, simply because they believed it to be their duty to obey orders. Though these orders may have been distasteful to them, though the object for which the war was waged may have been obnoxious to them, yet when their superior officers commanded, they obeyed as a matter of soldierly honor. General Rosecrans was not a man of that sort. His opinions were all convictions. He was intensely right or intensely wrong, but never indifferent. I knew but few men who from the very beginning of the war saw more clearly into the heart of the Rebellion, and hated it with more intensity, than General Rosecrans. He looked upon the Rebellion as a crime which sapped the very foundations of the Union, and upon the leaders of the Rebellion as personal criminals in the eyes of God and man.

Not only were these the views he held concerning the Rebels themselves, but he held stronger and more decided convictions, if possible, concerning all men here in the North who in any degree sympathized with them. I trust that during those days I sufficiently felt and expressed my hostility to those men who not only refused to help put down the Rebellion, but did all in their power to stop the progress of those who were putting it