we can, upon this question, arouse the indignant protest of the North, and unite our efforts in a determination that those who perpetrate these wrongs against popular suffrage shall not by means of those wrongs seat a President in Washington to secure the Federal patronage in a State, we shall have done much to bring this wrong to an end. But at least while we are protesting by representatives from our State Department at Washington against wrongs perpetrated in Russia against the Jew, and in our popular assemblies here against the wrongs which England has inflicted upon Ireland, shall we not at least in reference to this gigantic and intolerable wrong in our own country, as a party, lift up a stalwart and determined protest against it? But some of these independent journalists, about which our friend MacMillan talked, call this the "bloody shirt." They say we are trying to revive the strife of the war, to rake over the extinct embers, to kindle the fire again. I want it understood that for one I have no quarrel with the South for what took place between 1861 and 1865. I am willing to forget that they were rebels, at least as soon as they are willing to forget it themselves, and that time does not seem to have come yet to them. But our complaint is against what was done in 1884, not against what was done during the war. Our complaint is against what will be done this year, not what was done between 1861 and 1865. No bloody shirt--though that cry never had any terrors for me. I believe we greatly underestimate the importance of bringing the issue to the front, and with that oft-time Republican courage and outspoken fidelity to truth denouncing it the land over. If we cannot do anything else we can either make these people ashamed of this outrage against the ballot or make the world ashamed of them.