Mr. FRENCH. The Naval Militia may be included as a part of the reserve under the law passed some two years ago.

Mr. NEWTON. That would give them the right to make use of the naval planes within the jurisdiction? Mr. FRENCH. I so understand. The SPEAKER.

The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Idaho to concur with an amendment.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SNELL. I agree with the gentleman that it ought not to be done. As far as the House is concerned, I think it should be understood that it is not to be tolerated.

Mr. TILSON. Let us first find the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Speaker, apropos of the remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT], I call attention to the fact that a similar thing happened with reference to the

There was no objection.

Mr. UPDIKE. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, some one introduced the bill H. R. 13597 under my name while I was away on May 7. It is a bill to prohibit the making of photographs, sketches, or maps of vital military and naval defensive installations and equipment, and for other purposes. I had nothing to do with the introduction of this bill and did not authorize my name to be put to the bill, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw it.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. The gentleman has not the original bill and does not know what condition it was introduced under and has not ascertained how it happened that such a bill could be introduced without authorization?

Mr. UPDIKE. I have not been able to ascertain by whom it was introduced and referred to the Military Affairs Committee. I have not been able to ascertain who introduced it or attached my name to it.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana asks unanimous consent to withdraw the bill. Is there objection? There was no objection.

Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one minute.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Tennessee asks unanimous consent to address the House for one minute. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. UPDIKE] has just brought to the attention of the House an incident which I never heard of before, but which it occurs to me requires some investigation by somebody. The gentleman stated that while he was out of the city a bill was introduced in his name, without his authority, and without his knowledge. That is a situation that is likely to present very great embarrassment. Any repetition of it certainly should be prevented. I have no suggestion to make on the spur of the moment as to just how it should be investigated, but it is something that goes to the integrity of the proceedings of the House in a most vital way.

Mr. TILSON. Does not the gentleman think it would be better to wait until the Clerk looks up the facts? I think we should be able to discover very soon all the facts in connection with the case.

Mr. SNELL. Is not this similar to the situation that arose in the Naval Committee at this session, where they had several bills from the department that were distributed around in the name of different Members by the clerk of the committee?

Mr. CRAMTON. And without the authority of the persons whose names were written on the bills?

Mr. SNELL. Yes; that came up earlier in the session. Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. It certainly is a practice that should be frowned upon and stopped.

to the attention of the House. Some one introduced a bill in his name with which he had no connection and of which he had no knowledge. It is a practice that ought to be severely condemned.

LOCAL LABOR PREFERENCES ON UNITED STATES PUBLIC WORKS Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks by inserting two letters, one from the Secretary of the Treasury, and one from the Bureau of the Budget in reference to a bill, H. R. 11141, introduced by the gentleman from New York [Mr. BACON]. I do this because those inter ested in the legislation would like to see the letters and ope that consideration of the letters may help to develop the si tuation as to this legislation in a practical way.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. CRAMTON. The letters are as follows:

Over

In this bill for local labor exclusively, apparently the fact is looked that Federal construction is carried on with Federal funds contributed by citizens from all States and not from local funds; therefore, labor from a particular city or State in which construction is undertaken has no inherent claim for preference.

However, as a matter of fact a contractor, everything else being equal, prefers local labor as he thus saves not only travel expense but in some cases board. This, of course, applies only to laborers and mechanics generally, and there should be differentiation between large and small contracts.

In small jobs and specialized jobs, such as painting, installation of boiler, installation of lighting fixtures, etc., it is customary for a contractor to have the work performed by two or three men constantly employed by him, and to require him to dispense with such men specially trained and employ local men might make it impossible to perform the work satisfactorily, and at the best greatly increase the cost of the work to himself and consequently to the Government. In large construction work, for instance a $500,000 Federal building, the contractor of necessity would have to rely on a superintendent and a limited number of foremen or mechanics who have had experience with him and with his method of procedure, and require him pense with such men and to employ local untrained men would be exceedingly disadvantageous. Furthermore, while unskilled labor is usually abundant, skilled labor, for instance as is required for elevator installation, the setting of marble, laying of terrazzo, acoustica 1 ment, and similar specialized work, is scarce and the local does not often supply mechanics skilled in these trades.

to dis

treat

market

whom

man,

It is also foreseen that in the attempt to comply with the provisions of the bill there would be constant disagreement as to what constitutes competency. The bill says men who are available or qualified to perform the work." Usually the least qualified are the loudest to poclaim their competency, and if the contractor refuses to employ a man he considers incompetent or after employment discharges such a the construction engineer in charge would become involved in the con troversy and a decision by the construction engineer involves the ernment. If under these circumstances unsatisfactory work is formed the contractor would not be slow in disclaiming responsibility. At best a heavy additional burden would be placed on the construction engineer and the administrative work of the office, as well as the cost of construction would be increased.

Gor

per

It is believed that the passage of this bill will work to the disadvan tage of the Government.

Very truly yours,

A. W. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury.

Hon. LOUIS C. CRAMTON,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, May 2, 1928.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CRAMTON: On April 19 you wrote me with regard to II. R. 11141, a bill to require contractors and subcontractors engaged on public works of the United States to give certain preferences in the employment of labor, and stating that you would be glad to have an expression of views with regard to this proposed legislation.

I referred this matter to the Interdepartmental Board of Contracts and Adjustments, having in mind not only their views with regard to this proposed legislation but also to what extent it might operate as an amendment of the proposed new public contract law in the bill II. R. 5767, introduced by you.

I am sending you herewith a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Interdepartmental Board of Contracts and Adjustments of April 27, 1928, which gives the views reached by that board on the legislation proposed in H. R. 11141.

The board has also advised me that the legislation proposed in this bill would necessitate an amendment or deletion of section 14 of bill H. R. 5767, which section deals with "hours of labor."

Major Cushing suggested for consideration H. R. 11141, being a bill to require contractors and subcontractors engaged on public works of the United States to give certain preferences in the employment of labor. This bill was read and also the report of the Committee on Labor, which unanimously recommended its adoption (Rept. No. 1140). Briefly sum marized, this bill, which is an amendment to the eight hour law, would require that every Government contract involving the employment of laborers or mechanics shall contain a provision that in the employment of such laborers and mechanics by any contractor or subcontractor preference shall be given in the following order:

"(1) To citizens of the United States and of the State, Territory, or District in which the work is to be performed who have been honorably discharged from the military or naval forces of the United States, and who are available and qualified to perform the work to which the employment relates.

"(2) To citizens of the United States who are bona fide residents of the State, Territory, or District in which the work is to be performed and who are available and qualified to perform the work to which the employment relates.

“(3) To citizens of the United States. "(4) To aliens.

"(e) That the contractor or subcontractor shall, by advertisement and through employment agencies, give effect to the preferences under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section before employing any person under paragraphs (3) and (4) of this section."

The bill also requires the contractor or subcontractor to keep a list of the names of the laborers and mechanics employed upon such work, setting forth their citizenship and place of residence, to be available for examination by any officer or employee of the United States and provides a penalty of $5 for each laborer or mechanic for every calendar day in which he shall be required or permitted to labor upon such work in violation of the foregoing provisions.

Mr. George O. Von Nerta was present at the meeting and submitted the following views of the office of the Supervising Architect, upon this proposed legislation:

"This bill requires contractors and subcontractors engaged on public works of the United States to give certain preferences in the employment of labor, the main object being that under contracts for Federal construction work preference shall be given to local labor.

"In this bill for local labor exclusively, apparently the fact is overlooked that Federal construction is carried on with Federal funds contributed by citizens from all States and not from local funds; therefore, labor from a particular city or State in which construction is undertaken has no inherent clair for preference.

"However, as a matter of fact, a contractor--everything else being equal-prefers local labor, as he thus saves not only travel expense but in some cases board. This, of course, applies only to laborers and mechanics generally, and there should be differentiation between large and small contracts.

"In small jobs and specialized jobs, such as painting, installation of boiler, installation of lighting fixtures, etc., it is customary for a contractor to have the work performed by two or three men constantly

employed by him, and to require him to dispense with such men especially trained and employ local men might make it impossible to perform the work satisfactorily and at the best greatly increase the cost of the work to himself and consequently to the Government.

"In large construction work-for instance, a $500,000 Federal building the contractor of necessity would have to rely on a superintendent and a limited number of foremen or mechanics who have had experience with him and with his method of procedure, and to require him to dispense with such men and to employ local untrained men would be exceedingly disadvantageous. Furthermore, while unskilled labor is usually abundant, skilled labor-for instance, as is required for elevator installation, the setting of marble, laying of terrazzo, acoustical treatment, and similar specialized work-is scarce, and the local market does not often supply mechanics skilled in these trades.

"It is also foreseen that in the attempt to comply with the provisions of the bill there would be constant disagreement as to what constitutes competency. The bill says men who are available or qualified to perform the work'; usually the least qualified are the loudest to proclaim their competency, and if the contractor refuses to employ a man whom he considers incompetent or after employment discharges such a man, the construction engineer in charge would become involved in the controversy, and a decision by the construction engineer involves the Government. If, under these circumstances, unsatisfactory work is performed, the contractor would not be slow in disclaiming responsibility. At best a heavy additional burden would be placed on the construction engineer, and the administrative work of the office as well as the cost of construction would be increased.

"It is believed that the passage of this bill will work to the disadvantage of the Government."

A general discussion ensued. Major Call suggested the possibility of local laborers and mechanics greatly increasing their price without competition from the outside.

Captain Montgomery asked how the provisions of the bill could be administered in the construction of a bridge across a river boundary between two States or construction such as the contemplated Boulder Dam project.

A number of the members believed that disputes would constantly arise between the contractor and the Government representative as to whether a local man was qualified properly to perform their work, and that many contractors who had skillful mechanics constantly in their employ would refuse to bid upon Government work if they knew that they might be compelled to accept local mechanics concerning whose ability and integrity they had no information.

It was also suggested that the contractor might be involved in labor disputes and strikes if he were compelled to take on local men not affiliated with labor unions.

Doctor Snoddy suggested that the bill would not be so objectionable if a proviso were inserted that would not require the employment of local men except at a reasonable price and also a proviso that would permit outside contractors to bring in skilled mechanics regularly in their employ.

At the conclusion of the discussion the board voted to indorse the views of the Office of the Supervising Architect and go on record in opposition to the bill in its present form.

*

MEMORIAL ADDRESS

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD by publishing a memorial address delivered by me at Higginsville, Mo., June 5, 1927. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent given to extend my remarks, I desire to print the following:

Those who followed the fortunes of the Confederacy are accustomed to observe June 3 as Memorial Day, on which they pay loving tribute to the valiant men, living and dead, who fought, suffered, and sacrificed for the Southland, its beloved traditions, and its rights under the Federal Constitution. This date was selected because it was the birthday of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. It has become a custom at the Confederate Home of Missouri to observe the Sunday following June 3 as Memorial Day in order that larger numbers may attend and participate in these ceremonies.

The four men who probably exerted the greatest influence in the Civil War period were Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee. Abraham Lincoln, and William Lloyd Garrison. These colossal characters, two of the South and two of the North, were all cast in heroic molds and all born within a span of three years; Garrison, December 10, 1805; Lee, January 19, 1807; Davis, June 3, 1808; and Lincoln, February 12, 1809. These and other outstanding leaders in the War between the States have crossed over the great divide into the silent land where their disagreements have been composed and where, I am persuaded, each now concedes and honors the sincerity, patriotism, and courage of the others. If the souls of these dauntless heroes meet and hold friendly converse

in the sunlit regions beyond the tomb, as the shades of Æneas and Dido met and talked in the somber realms of the departed, should not we who still linger behind forget our animosities, bury our hatreds, curb our passions, and joyfully strike friendly hands over the bloody chasm that divided our people in that dark period of our Nation's history?

And while we are assembled to pay a deserved tribute to the heroes of the South whose sacred ashes sleep beneath the pines, willows, and magnolias, I would not knowingly speak one word that would offend the sensibilities of those who espoused the northern cause and battled bravely to preserve the Union. On the contrary, I would honor those who wore the blue, as I honor those who wore the gray. They were brethren, divided by bloody war but reunited when peace brought her healing balm to a stricken Nation. There is honor enough for both sides, and to the soldiers of the North and the soldiers of the South a grateful and unified Nation gives unstinted praise and an overflowing measure of imperishable glory.

Since the historic muse began to keep a record of all the dark hand of destiny weaves, few events have exerted a more far-reaching influence than the War between the States from 1861 to 1865. From the time the curtain went up on human history, we find in every age innumerable acts of heroism and deeds of daring that justify honest praise and are worthy of our profound respect. But the archives of no other nation register more superb courage, more unselfish devotion to principle, more intrepid adventures, more dauntless resolution, more chivalrous deeds, more lofty patriotism to Nation and States, more sublime sacrifices, more magnanimity in victory, more fortitude in adversity, more dignified and self-respecting submission in defeat, and more honorable and sincere acquiescence in the fortunes of war, than are disclosed by the chronicles of that epoch-marking struggle between the North and the South, known in history as the great Civil War.

Our complex and composite civilization is largely the result of struggles between tribes, nations, and races for supremacy. By military combat have been determined many of the great issues and momentous problems that have mightily influenced the course of human history. Many of our priceless liberties were born, not on downy beds of peace, but on the cold and cruel iron couch of war. Many of our most cherished institutions were made possible by sanguinary conflicts, tempered by human blood and sacrifices, and beaten into shape on the accursed anvil of war.

Our civil and religious liberties are largely the fruitage of bloody battles, fought not only by our forefathers but by heroic men in past ages, of whose struggles, sacrifices, and sufferings we are the chief beneficiaries.

Nevertheless war has scourged mankind mercilessly. For death war prepares a rich feast, and for the devil it supplies an abundant harvest. It makes wounds and scars that peace and time can not entirely efface. It capriciously throws the iron dice of destiny which spell the destruction of one nation and the exaltation of another.

War is facinating only to those who have never come face to face with its desolation; who have never stumbled, shell shocked, bleeding, faint, and half blinded, over barbed-wire entanglements and sweltering fields of tombless dead; who have never heard the clash of sabers, the roar of artillery, or the rattle of musketry; never witnessed brazenthroated cannon vomiting iron indignation and molten death from their bowels of wrath; never viewed once smiling and attractive landscapes, now scourged by the withering breath of war; never gazed on cultivated fields furrowed and laid waste, and lofty hills leveled by high explosives and death-dealing shrapnel; never seen cities, villages, churches, and factories transformed into shambles and slaughterhouses, and never seen crêpe on every door, mourning at every fireside, and the death watch in every home.

When war begins, hell opens her greedy jaws and spews her withering vomit of death over an ill-fated and helpless people. The whirli gig of war generates poverty, pestilence, famine, unspeakable misery, unutterable anguish, and a plague of indescribable calamities that mangle and destroy the bodies and blister and burn the conscience and souls of men. No poet can portray, no orator describe, no artist paint the orphans' tears, the lamentations of innumerable hosts, the barbarism, the smoking ruins, the despoiled cathedrals, the desecrated temples, the crumbling walls, the feast of vultures, the dance of death, and the waste of life that inevitably follow in the wake of war. Wars are won by iron and gold, by the mangling of human bodies, and the sacrifice of human lives, and obviously military victories have always been purchased at a staggering cost of blood and treasure.

While at best war is ghastly, inhuman, hideous, and always to be deplored, nevertheless many wars were fought to establish a just cause, to resist aggression, for the betterment of mankind, for the improvement of social, civic, and economic conditions, and for the protection or advancement of civilization; and in such cases the prosecution of war was amply justified. If the sword is drawn in a righteous cause, "sweet is the smell of gunpowder." By war men have broken the power of tyrants, freed themselves from unbearable oppression, successfully resisted invasion, and won the priceless boon of self-government. By wars peoples have, little by little, struggled up from serfdom to citizenship; from the miry clay of despotism into the sunlight of liberty, equality, and fraternity. By wars nations have

escaped exploitation, misrule, and times without number stayed the ruthless march of conquerors.

By revolutionary wars inefficient and oppressive governments have been overturned and the blessings of civil and religious liberty secured for a progressive, forward-looking people. By some wars the path of progress has been opened, honorable and lasting peace secured, stable governments established, civic order and social justice insured, and the civilization of the world tremendously advanced. By wars selfgoverning republics have sprung up on the ruins of autocracies and unspeakable despotisms. By wars society is often purged of vicious forces that threaten the public welfare. By wars inferior civilizations have been supplanted by superior civilizations.

By wars shackles have been stricken from the ankles of untold milItons, loads lifted from backs that were breaking under an unbearable burden of oppression; and following the smoke, carnage, miasma, gall, and wormwood of battle men were permitted to breathe the air of freedom and enjoy the sunshine and blessings of just governments. I do not want to be understood as advocating or justifying war as a means by which international disputes shall be settled. On the contrary, I abhor war and implore a benign providence that conditions may never again require our beloved land to unsheathe the sword or determine its domestic or international controversies by the gage of battle. I believe henceforth it will not be difficult to compose our. international disagreements by diplomacy and arbitration, without in the least impairing our vital interests or sacrificing our national dignity.

I do not want to be understood as saying that all wars in the past have been unrighteous, but many have been prosecuted for causes that were just, and many of these wars have contributed materially to the progress of the world and the stabilization of society, notwithstanding the tremendous woe and wastage which are the inevitable incidents of military operations.

May I cite a few incidents in which wars have done much to promote worthy ends, stabilize governmental institutions, and in other ways advance civilization? In numerous decisive battles the free democracies of Greece beat back the tide of oriental despotism, thereby determining for all time that the dominant civilization of the world for centuries should be European, not Asiatle.

Issuing forth from their almost impenetrable forests, the ancient Germans under Arminius met the well-trained Roman legions commanded by Varus, defeated them in battle, arrested the hitherto resistless advance of the Cæsars, and laid the foundation for the modern European States, thereby definitely determining that Teutonic, Frank, and Saxon institutions, and not Roman policies and ideals, should ultimately dominate medieval and modern Europe.

By military operations, as much as by diplomacy, tact, and intrigue, the turbulent vassals, warring factions, and rival provinces of France were united into a cohesive nation.

The unity and stability of the English people were largely promoted by the intestine conflicts culminating in the struggle between the rival Houses of York and Lancaster, known in history as the War of the Roses, which for 30 years desolated England, sacrificed 80 princes of the blood and a large proportion of the ancient nobility, but on the accession of the Earl of Richmond under the title of Henry VII, England emerged from this fratricidal struggle into an era of civility, science, culture, and racial solidarity purged and chastened, but with stable institutions and a united, homogeneous, progressive, and forward-looking people.

The German states, occupying the heart of Europe, for centuries the seat of culture and the patrons of art, science, literature, and philosophy, were kept apart by mutual jealousies, and because her 300 petty dynasties were not welded into a great State for 500 years they did not exert the power and influence to which their numbers, resources, genius, and accomplishments entitled them. But under the master hand of Bismarck, and following devastating provincial wars, the North German Confederation came into being, at the head of which was the progressive Kingdom of Prussia; and later, out of the womb of the Franco-Prussian War, came forth the German Empire, strong and stalwart from its birth, as Minerva sprang full grown and full armed from the brain of Jupiter. By the fortunes of war the Italian states, divided and distracted for centuries, suffering economic and political vassalage, crushed and helpless beneath the despotism of an alien race, were freed from the yoke of Austria, thereby making possible the unification of the Italian people and the merging of the rival provinces into the stable Kingdom of Italy. For causes as holy as any that ever moved men to action, our forefathers initiated and carried to a successful conclusion the Revolutionary War, by which the American colonists became a free and independent people, after sacrifices unexcelled in the annals of time.

As a result

of this epoch-marking, history-making conflict, our Federal Union was established and entered upon a career of unrivaled growth and development, as the first successful experiment by a great people in self-government. From a feeble, struggling confederation it rapidly grew to a great Republic whose present and potential power and matchless accomplishments amazed mankind. Our flag was soon carried from the Mississippi to the Pacific. The far-flung region from the Canadian plains to the Rio Grande River was added to our public domain. Within the bound

been the subject of bitter disputation for many years; questions that involved a fundamental difference as to the nature of our Federal Union; questions that affected not only the political but the social, industrial, and economic life of our people.

In the ocean of our national life two mighty currents of civilization met, each seemingly irresistible, each hostile to the other, each sustained by a militant public sentiment, sectional interests, and sectional hatreds so strong that these currents could not be turned back or diverted from their course by peaceable methods.

For a half century the American people had diligently sought a peaceable solution of the slavery issue and the question as to whether or not our Federal Government was a national unit or a compact of sovereign States from which any State might at will withdraw. These questions had been debated from every possible angle, and for decades patriotic efforts were made to compose the radical differences between the North and South on these perplexing problems. These well-intended efforts came to naught because these were questions involving such fundamental and antagonistic conceptions of government and were so vital to the social and economic life of the people that no compromise was possible, and it became quite evident that destiny had decreed that these issues could only be permanently settled by the arbitrament of war and by deluging this fair land with a flood of unutterable woe and indescribable miseries incident to a great civil war.

Many compromises had been attempted, but they only salved over the festering ulcers and did not remove the diseased tissue or sterilize the germ that produced the cancerous sores that threatened our national existence. But, according to Emerson, the sword cut the "Gordian knot in twain which all the wit of the East and West, of northern and border statesmen could not untie."

Civil wars are more desperate and destructive than conflicts between nations and races, because in domestic struggles the opposing forces are more evenly matched in courage, training, strategy, initiative, and all the arts of war. In intestine strife the soldiers in each army have a better understanding and appreciation of the resources, courage, and fighting capacity of those who make up the opposing army.

The southern soldiers well knew in advance that their northern foes were brave men who were determined to preserve the Union and who were not afraid to go against the cold steel and gamble with death on the fields of battle. On the other hand, every Union soldier who got close enough to the battle lines to smell powder, realized from the beginning the temper, courage, pluck, intrepidity, and resourcefulness of the soldiers of the South, and their resolution to strike and spare not, make every possible sacrifice, shed their rich red blood, and die uncomplainingly in the cause of the Confederacy. Neither the Yank" or "the Johnny Reb" was deficient in courage. Each was a foeman worthy of the steel of the other. Each displayed unfaltering devotion to his convictions and to the cause he believed to be just. Each respected the courage of the other. Those who wore the gray and those who wore the blue were alike inspired by the heroism of their fathers, who suffered together at Valley Forge and fought side by side at Saratoga, Monmouth, Germantown, and Yorktown. No brave man who fought under either flag speaks contemptuously of the courage of those he met in battle. The glory and heroism of either army is not dimmed by conceding similar heroism and glory to the other army. It was not a disgrace for either army to be beaten back or defeated by the other. Those who won and those who lost alike displayed dauntless valor and unexampled fortitude.

Into this epoch-marking struggle the people of the North and South entered with undisguised reluctance and profound regrets. Though fierce passions swept over the souls of men as a majestic tempest scourges the mighty deep, all, on sober second thought, realized that the forces of hell were soon to be loosed, and that the impending blood letting, skull cleaving, brain spattering, windpipe slitting, manslaghtering, death dealing encounter would divide households, estrange lovers, disrupt lifelong friendships, rend asunder a hitherto happy and homogeneous people, enkindle age-lasting hatreds, and perhaps destroy the Republic. All knew that war, at best, was a terrible trade, a frightful thing, even in a righteous cause; and that civil wars are momentous evils and leave the deepest wounds. It is therefore not strange that thoughtful men in the North and South with assiduity labored to harness sectional passions and settle these controversies by pacific methods.

But these belated efforts to avert the disaster of war were unavailing, and at the touch of the slowly moving yet relentless hand of destiny, long sleeping, long sheathed swords sprung from their rusty scabbards, strains of martial music floated over our hills and valleys, tent cities arose, as if by magic, on dotted landscapes but lately tessellated with checkered squares of golden grain and wild flowers of surpassing beauty; men untrained in the arts of war heard the distant drum beat and call to arms, and inspired by invincible heroism, left the plow in the furrow, dropped the axe, laid down the hammer, closed their offices, counting houses, shops, mills, and factories, fondly embraced their pale-faced but dry-eyed wives, kissed the pink cheeks of babes unswept by passion and untouched by sin, serenely sleeping in white-canopied cradles; yes, these stout-hearted men shouldered their rusty muskets, cast a last loving, lingering glance

at the scenes of their domestic felicity, and with firm lips from which laughter had departed, they, with stately tread, marched forth to battle for a cause they sincerely believed to be just and righteous. Conceding the valor and devotion to duty and country of those who wore the blue, we come together to-day for the specific and commendable purpose of paying a sincere tribute to those dauntless souls who wore the gray, and with unfaltering devotion followed the glorious but failing fortunes of the Confederacy.

Who will question the honesty or challenge the sincerity of these men who sacrificed everything and unflinchingly defied their mightiest hereditary enemy-death-in the performance of their duty as they understood it, and in defense of their altars and firesides from what they considered unwarranted aggression? Where in all the ages of the world's history can be found a people who made greater sacrifices for their convictions, or exhibited more spiritual grandeur than those who fought for "the lost cause ? The men of the South were as true to their ideals as the needle of the magnetic pole. They would not sacrifice principle for expediency. They declined to purchase peace and tranquility by a surrender of their traditional attitude on political and economic problems, or by a sacrifice of what they conceived to be their rights under the Federal Constitution.

"

When

In this memorable contest the South was in a state of unreadiness, at a disadvantage from the beginning, outclassed as to resources, ill organized, ill-equipped, and fighting against overwhelming numbers. The North had the men; the North had the money and industrial and commercial assets 80 essential in military conflicts. But in every southern heart there was a fixed resolution to resist aggression. the bloody, inexorable, unpitying scourge of war swept her destructive, devastating, desolating way through the sunny Southland, those who followed "the Bonnie Blue Flag" wore the rich livery of victory with a dignity and modesty that become brave men, and in the deep and troubled waters of adversity they were sustained by a courage and fortitude akin to that of the ancient Stoics and eminently worthy of emulation.

In all the stormy strife, in all that frightful wilderness of death they felt no pangs of fear, and their stalwart iron frames stood the racking waste of war, famine, and blood like giant oaks, unbending before the savage fury of a mountain tempest.

The issues that culminated in the Civil War were not one-sided. There was much to be said on each side of the question. From a purely legalistic standpoint the South had the better of the argument. By this I mean that the circumstances surrounding the adoption of our Federal Constitution and its construction and application for threequarters of a century sustained many of the contentions advanced by the South. The institution of slavery was specifically recognized and sanctioned by the Constitution. The agitation in the North was for a change in existing law that would prohibit slavery. So on this ques

tion the South was standing by the Constitution and the North seeking to change it. The relation of the several States to the General Government and the constitutional right of a State to withdraw or secede from the Federal Union were not specifically settled by the Constitution and were matters of dispute, in relation to which there was room for honest difference of opinion. It was the contention of the northern statesmen that where the several States ratified the Constitution, they were bound not only by the provisions embodied in the instrument but by all amendments or changes thereafter made, while the southern school of political thought insisted that the States had accepted the Constitution as written and submitted, and that any radical departure from the scheme of government therein set forth which militated against the rights of any State justified such State in recalling its approval and withdrawing from the voluntary Federal compact.

While the doctrine of nullification had its chief strength in the South, the policy did not originate in the slave-holding State, but was incubated in the New England States and was adroitly asserted in the Hartford convention in its 20-day session, between December 15, 1814, and January 5, 1815. This body was composed of 22 representatives appointed by the Legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and three representatives from counties in New Hampshire and Vermont. While the resolutions calling this convention stated that its purpose was not repugnant to the Federal Union, the proceedings and resolutions of the convention urged organized opposition to Federal laws. Northern historians have endeavored to justify the good faith and patriotism of the members of this convention, but they were undoubtedly actuated by secret treasonable designs against the United States Government. Preceding the Civil War there was a rapidly growing sentiment in the North in favor of nullifying the acts of Congress relating to slavery. Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, and other active northern leaders urged the repudiation of the Constitution of the United States and borrowing the words of the prophet Isaiah characterized it as "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell." Prior to the elec tion of Mr. Lincoln, practically all of the nullification sentiment was in the North, the South, being satisfied with the Constitution, was its chief defender.

The war between the States is frequently mentioned as the "Great Rebellion." Many thoughtful students of history are convinced that only in a technical sense can this war be designated by the dishonor