The real question was whether that was the time for emancipation.

I endeavored to give to the subject careful consideration, and came to the conclusion that it was expedient then to emancipate the very few slaves in the District, fewer than there had been at any time within forty years, and fewer than…

I believed also that the social influence of Washington, and the wealth and property controlled and owned in a great measure by slaveholding residents there, had been always against the government of the United States and in favor of the…

The great mass of our constituents were opposed to slavery, morally, socially and politically.

As long as slavery existed in the District, where Congress had the power to abolish it, agitation and excitement would be ceaseless.

I felt that now was the time when this moral conviction should be heard and heeded by the national legislature.

I felt that we were bound to consult the material interest of the people of the District, and that emancipation would add to the value of their property and also add to the population of the city.

The abolition of slavery would bring to the city intelligent mechanics and laboring men who would never compete with the labor of slaves, and who, finding none there but freemen, would develop the great advantages of the city.

At that early day, I believed that it was the duty of Congress to confiscate the slaves in the seceding states as the natural result of the war.

These states had placed themselves in a position by rebellion where they had no constitutional rights which we were bound to observe.

The war being open and flagrant to break up the Union, they were not entitled to the benefit of any stipulation made in their favor as states in the Union.

This was the beginning of the end of slavery.

The response of the loyal states to the call of Lincoln was perhaps the most remarkable uprising of a great people in the history of mankind.

The law of nations treats such a war as a contest between two separate powers, to be governed by the laws of war.

Confiscation in such a war is not a measure to be applied to individuals in a revolting section, but if the revolt is subdued, the property of revolting citizens is subject to the will of the conqueror and to the law of conquest.

That some one should be enacted, and that speedily, is not only my conviction of duty, but it will be demanded by those who will have to bear the burdens of the war.

War is a horrible remedy, but when we are compelled to resort to it, we should make our enemies feel its severity as well as ourselves. . . .

If nothing is confiscated, you array against you all who wish in a civil war merely to preserve their property and to remain quiet.

It was denounced by the Confederates and by timid men in the north, but the beneficial results it aimed at were accomplished, not by law, but by the proclamation of the President and by the armed forces of the United States.

I insisted that if a special fund for hiring substitutes was raised, it ought to be by a tax upon all wealthy citizens, and not confined to the man who was drafted.

I appeal to the conservative men of Ohio of both parties to repeat now the service they rendered the people of the United States in 1875, by the election of Governor Hayes, in checking the wave of inflation that then threatened the country.

I propose, therefore, in a plain way to give you my views on the tariff question, now on trial between the two great political parties of the United States.

The tariff question grew out of a contest between free and slave labor.

During and after the war, for many years, any tariff that would produce enough revenue to meet current expenditures and pay the interest of the public debt, would necessarily give ample protection to domestic industries.

When this large revenue was no longer necessary, many of these taxes were repealed, and then the tariff again became a political question between the Republican and Democratic parties.