the mere fact of Mr. Blaine's election. And I am ready further to declare that, for this reason, while I had my preferences among the Democratic candidates, I should have been willing, as against Mr. Blaine, to support any of them, provided he be an honest man with a perfectly untarnished record of official integrity. And here I may say, by the way, that some of Mr. Blaine's friends pretend that the nomination of Mr. Hendricks for the Vice-Presidency, together with Governor Cleveland in the first place, must be a great embarrassment to men of my way of thinking, and that we are unwilling to face it. They are mistaken. I am willing to face it. There are things in Mr. Hendricks's record, in the way of opinion and endeavor, which, I say it frankly, I was opposed to at the time and which I would oppose now were they to be repeated. But there is one thing which is not to be found in Mr. Hendricks's record, and that is the least flavor of corruption or of the prostitution of official power for private gain. Here is what the New York Tribune said of him some years ago: “An honest jurist, an able and incorruptible statesman and a wise politician, his views on public questions are entitled to great weight. His record as Senator, Representative, Commissioner and State legislator is pure and untarnished.” And this happens to be now the main question. I therefore do not hesitate to say that were Mr. Hendricks not the candidate for the Vice-Presidency merely, but the Presidency itself, I should, in spite of our disagreements on subjects of policy, accept his election as a welcome escape from the blood poisoning with which Mr. Blaine's election would inevitably curse the American Republic.
Nobody can deny that I have treated Mr. Blaine fairly and with moderation. I have not depended upon statements made by his enemies or detractors. I have not even quoted the fiery denunciations poured upon him,
