“An Act to Authorize the Issue of Certificates of Deposit in Aid of the Refunding of the Public Debt
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to issue, in exchange for lawful money of the United States that may be presented for such exchange, certificates of deposit, of the denominations of ten dollars, bearing interest at the rate of four per centum per annum, and convertible at any time, with accrued interest, into the four per centum bonds described in the refunding act; and the money so received shall be applied only to the payment of the bonds bearing interest at a rate of not less than five per centum in the mode prescribed by said act, and he is authorized to prescribe suitable rules and regulations in conformity with this act.”
On the 4th of March, 1879, the amount of uncalled 5-20 six per cent. bonds outstanding was $88,079,800. Anticipating that sales of four per cent. bonds would continue, I gave the following notice:
“Notice is given that when the 5-20 six per cent. bonds of the United States are covered by subscriptions to the four per cent. consols, the latter will be withdrawn from sale upon the terms proposed by department circular of January 1, 1879, and upon the terms stated in the contract with the Messrs. Rothschild and others, of the date of January 21, 1879. The amount of 5-20 six per cent. bonds outstanding and embraced in calls to this date is $88,079,800. When this sum is covered by subscriptions under the existing circular and contract, all further sales of four per cent. consols, to provide for the refunding of the 10-40 five per cent. bonds, will be made upon terms which will probably be less favorable to the purchaser, and in accordance with new proposals and contracts. This notice is given so that all parties wishing to subscribe for consols upon the terms stated in the circular and contract may have an opportunity to do so until the 5-20 bonds are called.”
In giving this notice I had in view a change in the mode of refunding which would save to the government the whole or large part of the three months’ interest pending the call. This notice gave an additional spur to the market for four per cent. bonds. Copies of it were sent to Mr. Conant and to all parties interested in pending operations, and due notice was given to all persons and corporations engaged in the sale of bonds that all existing contracts would terminate when the 5-20 bonds were covered by subscriptions.
At this time there was a good deal of anxiety as to the effect of the large sale of four per cent. bonds. If these could be exchanged, par for par for six per cent. bonds, the operation would be easy, but many holders of called bonds would not accept the lower rate of interest and invested the principal of their bonds in other securities. General Hillhouse, on the 8th of March, expressed the common feeling as follows:
“There is a good deal of speculation in the papers, as well as in business circles, as to the probable effect on the money market of the settlements to be made in April, during which month, if I am not mistaken, about $150,000,000 of calls will mature. It is now seen, however, that investment demand for the fours is much larger than was anticipated by many; and the subscribing banks will be, therefore, likely to find themselves loaded with large amounts which they cannot dispose of. It would not be strange, in the closing of such vast transactions, if there should be some stringency, but with the favorable indications, that the public are taking the bonds freely, and with the power of the secretary in various ways to facilitate the settlements, it can hardly be more than temporary.”
Mr. Conant wrote me, on March 8, from London:
“I have called on all the members of the syndicate several times within the past few days, and have urged them very strongly to push the sales of the bonds here. I have persistently tried to persuade them that they ought to conduct the business with far more energy, and I have said to them that, at the time the contract was entered into, representations were made to you that $50,000,000 of the four per cent. consols could be disposed of on this side of the Atlantic, and that as they had undertaken the business they should not disappoint you. I have represented to them the importance of preventing the shipments of gold from New York, and that you supposed that the sales of bonds which you expected they would make would prevent such shipments....
“The feeling which I alluded to in my last letter, that when the time arrives for the settlement of the large subscriptions made in New York and elsewhere at home the market will be found overloaded, and that a fall in price will take place, still exists here, and has the effect of causing certain classes of investors to delay making purchases, which they will ultimately make. I have not hesitated to say to the associates here that when refunding operations shall have been completed the four per cent. consols will soon thereafter go to a premium, and good reasons can be given why such should be the case.”
Soon after I commenced receiving prophecies of stringency and disaster. A long letter from Fisk & Hatch, of New York, said that general apprehension had been growing up in financial circles, and was rapidly gaining ground, that the settlements by the national banks with the treasury department, in April and May, for the large subscriptions of four per cent. bonds made in January and February, would occasion serious disturbance and embarrassment in the money market. They advised me to pursue a course that, whether proper or not, was not in accordance with law. Mr. L. P. Morton., on the same date, took a milder view of it, but still suggested a remedy not within my power.
On the 13th, General Hillhouse, in referring to the apprehensions of my correspondents in regard to the settlements in connection with refunding, said that they might be caused in some instances by the suspicion, if not by the conviction, that their subscriptions had been carried beyond the point of absolute safety, “and now that settlement day is approaching they are naturally desirous of ascertaining how far they can count on the forbearance of the government.”
This was the same view I had taken of the matter. I did not feel myself officially bound to do anything but to require prompt payment for the bonds subscribed. The treasury, however, was well prepared for any probable stringency, and I was convinced that the settlements would not cause any serious disturbance. The advices from London continued to be unfavorable. The bonds were offered in the market in some cases at a less price than the syndicate were to pay for them.
In the process of selling the four per cent. bonds I had frequently been written to by persons of limited means, who wished to invest their savings in government bonds of small denominations bearing four per cent. interest. I called the attention of the proper committee of each House to the expediency of issuing notes or certificates of that description, and the act of February 26, 1879, already quoted, was passed.
On the 26th of March I issued a circular relative to these certificates, prescribing the manner in which they should be sold, and stated the purpose and probable effect of their issue, as follows:
“The primary purpose of these certificates is to enable persons of limited means to husband small savings as they accrue, and place them where they will draw interest and become the nest egg for future accumulation. The form of certificate seems better adapted for the purpose than the French ventes or the English savings bank system. The objection to a national savings bank is that, in a country so extensive as ours, the agencies would necessarily be scattered, and the cost and delay of correspondence and transferring money to Washington would be considerable; but, more than all, the United States cannot undertake the risk of repaying deposits at any time when called for. The necessary reserve for that purpose would make the system burdensome. The certificate, as issued, may, at the expense of the subscriber, be either to bearer, or, by being registered, only transferable by assignment on the books of the treasury. It combines, in the cheapest form, all the benefits of any system of savings banks that has been devised. No doubt these certificates, when first issued, will, by voluntary consent of parties, be used as currency; but, after they shall have run a short time, the accruing interest on them will induce their sorting and holding, and thus, like the compound-interest notes, they will cease to be a currency and become an investment. Their possible use as currency is certainly no objection to them; for, though I adhere as strictly as anyone to a specie standard of value, I think that, it being constantly maintained by ample reserves and prompt redemption, current money in different forms should be provided for daily use. Diversity of the currency, if it is always redeemable, is no objection. These certificates will always be redeemable in the bonds stipulated for, and can, with profit, be issued, while the money received for them can be used in redeeming bonds bearing a higher rate of interest. They are of as low a denomination as can be conveniently issued and bear interest. The issue of this certificate is a safe experiment. I have confidence that it will be beneficial to the holder, in begetting habits of saving, and to the treasury, in aiding refunding; but its great benefit will be that the people themselves will in this way have a direct interest in preserving and maintaining the public faith.”
On the same date I wrote a note for publication to the treasurer of the United States, to facilitate the payment of called bonds, as follows:
“As it is desirable to make payment of called bonds in the mode that will least disturb the market, you will draw from the depositary banks the proceeds of four per cent. bonds only when required to make payment of called bonds, and in proportion from the several depositaries to the amounts held by them, as near as may be, in sums of $1,000. Money in the treasury received from four per cent. bonds should be applied to the payment of called bonds before such drafts are made.
“When practicable, drafts upon depositary banks, for transfers of deposits on account of proceeds of four per cent. bonds, may be so drawn as to be payable at the option of the bank, through the New York clearing house.
“Drafts on depositary banks in cities other than New York should be drawn a sufficient time in advance to meet payments there.
“Payment by called bonds should be treated as payment in money as of the date when it would, under this order, be required.”
On the 27th I received from Conant the following cablegram:
“Would be pleased to know if subscriptions to be settled during April can be expected without disturbing market in New York.”
I answered on the same day as follows:
“Entirely confident subscriptions during next month will be settled without disturbing market. Order of the treasury department yesterday will facilitate greatly.”
The following correspondence with Conant, the syndicate and myself then took place:
“London, March 28, 1879.
“Sherman, Washington.
“Rothschild & Sons request me to say they do not consider contract of January 21, 1879, requires subscription two million to be made April 1. On account of market price below par at present time they desire delay subscription few days. Hope you will consent.
“Conant.”
“Treasury Department, March 28, 1879.
“Conant, London.
“I think contract of January 21, 1879, very plain, subscription should be made April 1, but, if they desire, time will be extended to April 8.
“Sherman.”
“Treasury Department, March 28, 1879.
“August Belmont & Co., New York.
“Gentlemen:—In confirmation of my two telegrams of to-day to you, copies of which are inclosed, I have to inform you that the proper legal officers of the department, as well as myself, consider it very clear that, under the contract of January 21, your option to make the second subscription expires on the 1st of April, but I am not at all desirous of raising the question, and therefore am willing to extend the time a week, within which I am quite confident the anxiety about the April payments will begin to subside. Thus far this week, over $17,000,000 called bonds have been redeemed by credit on subscriptions, and $450,000 only paid by draft. Called bonds are rapidly coming in for credit. The subscriptions in excess of bonds called now amount to $6,600,000. With an assurance of a subscription of $2,000,000 from you, by the 1st, or even the 8th, of April, I would immediately issue a call for $10,000,000, and may do so without waiting for your subscription.
“I would prefer that the parties to the contract should not avail themselves of the extension offered, but leave that entirely to your good judgment.
“Very respectfully,
“John Sherman, Secretary.”
(Telegram.)
“Treasury Department, March 28, 1879.
“August Belmont & Co., New York.
“The contract is very plain that the first subscription should be made by April 1. The stipulation for five million each month would have made the second subscription in February or March, but, by the agreement, it need not be made before April 1.
“John Sherman, Secretary.”
“New York, March 28, 1879. “Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.
“Dear Sir:—We received this morning a telegram from Messrs. Rothschild about the next subscription under the contract of the 21st of January, and telegraphed its contents to you, as follows:
‘London associates telegraph consider according contract have all month April to make next subscription. Please telegraph whether you agree they are right’
“In reply we received your telegrams reading:
‘The contract is very plain that the next subscription should be made by April 1. The stipulation for five million each month would have made the second subscription in February or March, but by agreement it need not be made before April 1.’
“and—
‘Have cabled Conant to extend option, if desired, to April 8.’
“contents of which we have communicated to our London friends.
“Yours, very respectfully,
“Pro August Belmont & Co.
“W. Suttgen.
“W. Beuter.”
The explanation of these cablegrams is given in the following letter:
“New Court, St. Swithin’s Lane, } “London, E. C., England, March 29, 1879.} “Dear Mr. Secretary:—On the 27th instant I had the honor to make an inquiry of you by cable dispatch, as follows: ‘Would be pleased to know if subscriptions to be settled during April can be effected without disturbing market in New York.’ The constant decline in the price of all descriptions of our bonds in New York, the strenuous efforts being made by certain parties to sell American bonds here at low rates on home account, particularly the four and four and a half per cent. stock, the advancing rates of interest, and the condition of the exchanges, together with the rumors concerning scarcity of money in New Orleans and elsewhere, gave rise to apprehension, in the minds of many, that refunding operations had been carried to too great an extent; that too many bonds had been subscribed for on speculative account, and that any forced settlement of the subscriptions falling due in April would produce a panic. Private telegrams sent here conveyed information to the effect that arrangements would be made between yourself and the banks, by which the deposits in them would not be drawn upon until absolutely necessary. The answer, however, which I received from you a few hours later was highly gratifying and reassuring, and I gave it as much publicity as possible without, of course, publishing it. It reads as follows: ‘Entirely confident subscriptions during the next month will be settled without disturbing the market. Order treasury department yesterday will facilitate greatly.’
“The question of obligation to make a subscription on the 1st day of April to continue the contract has been under consideration by the syndicate during the past week, and in fact ever since the beginning of the decline in the price of the four per cent. stock. The associates claim that they are only required to take five millions of the bonds during the month of April, and that having already taken three-fifths of the amount in advance, they should, in view of the impossibility of disposing of the stock at present prices, be allowed the balance of the month in which to subscribe for the remaining two millions. They argue that it cannot be expected that they can afford to take the bonds and pay the government one and a half per cent. above the market prices, and they add that they do not think you would wish to have them do so. They also say that if they wanted the bonds for speculative purposes only they should give up the contract and purchase in the open market; but their policy is to keep the price at par and not to buy or sell when it is below par. Bonds will sell more rapidly when they are at par than when below it. It is the speculators and not the investors, as a rule, who deal in stocks when they are cheap. If the price of the bonds had remained at par, I have no doubt but that all the bonds I have here would already have been disposed of, and that the parties would have been ready and willing to make the subscription for five millions on April 1.
“The Messrs. Rothschild say that, owing to the high price which they were compelled to pay for called bonds, and the reduced price at which they were compelled to part with a portion of the four per cent. bonds, they have made a slight loss on their transactions so far. They like to have business relations and connections with governments, and I think that that disposition on their part is paramount to the question of profits. The matter of the subscription was discussed again yesterday, and deferred until Monday for further consideration, and I was asked to send the following cable message to you:
‘Rothschild & Sons request me to say they do not consider contract of January 21, 1879, requires subscription $2,000,000 to be made April 1. On account of market price below par at the present time, they desire delay subscription a few days. Hope you will consent.’
“I hoped you would consent, because I think it quite important, for many reasons, that we should dispose of bonds on this side of the water. They take the place of actual gold in settling exchanges, and thereby prevent the disturbances in the money market which always result from the moving of bullion. I have no doubt but that the use of these bonds in this manner has stimulated purchases of grain and produce from us which would never have left our shores if payment for the same could only have been made in bullion. I received this morning your cable message in answer to the one I sent yesterday, as follows:
‘I think contract of January 21, 1879, very plain. Subscriptions should be made April 1; but, if they desire, time will be extended to April 8.’
“With great respect, I remain, yours truly,
“Chas. F. Conant.
“Hon. John Sherman.”
I have set out in full this correspondence with Rothschild and his associates and with Conant, to show that on the eve of complete success they were discouraged and asked for a postponement of, to them, the small subscription of $1,000,000, and did not even think of taking the option of $10,000,000 of bonds subsequently claimed.
With the 1st of April all stringency disappeared. Accounts were settled without difficulty. The amount of four per cent. consols sold to March 31, inclusive, was $473,443,400.
On the 4th of April, while attending a meeting of the cabinet, I was handed the following telegram:
“New York, April 4, 1879. “Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.
“National Bank of Commerce in New York subscribes for forty million dollars four per cent. bonds. Particulars and certificates by mail.
“Henry F. Vail, President.”
I thought the amount was a mistake, that four instead of forty was meant. I replied as follows:
“Henry F. Vail, President National Bank of Commerce, New York. “Before making call I prefer you repeat your subscription.”
A few moments after sending this telegram I received the following from Mr. Vail:
“I sent you telegram to-day, which from its importance I beg you will telegraph me acknowledgment of its receipt.”
I replied:
“Your telegram is received, and I have asked repetition of it before making call.”
The following telegraphic correspondence then occurred:
“Hon. John Sherman.
“Please enter to-day for us a subscription for ten million dollars four per cents. making, however, no announcement until we see you to-morrow.
“G. F. Baker, President First National Bank, New York.
“Hon. John Sherman.
“We have taken two million subscriptions to-day thus far, and more to follow.
“E. D. Randolph,
“President Continental National Bank, New York.”
“New York, April 4, 1879.
“Hon. John Sherman.
“Your two telegrams received. I hereby confirm my telegram of to-day, subscribing, in name of National Bank of Commerce in New York, for forty million dollars four per cent. bonds.
“Henry F. Vail, President.”
“Henry F. Vail, President National Bank of Commerce, New York.
“Your subscription for forty million four per cent. bonds, having been repeated by telegram, is accepted. A call will issue to-day for the balance of the sixty-sevens and to-morrow a call will issue for the whole of the sixty-eights.
“John Sherman, Secretary.”
“E. D. Randolph, President, etc., New York.
“Your two million subscription received and accepted, but can accept no more. All 5-20’s are covered.
“John Sherman, Secretary.”
“New York, April 4, 18979.
“Hon. John Sherman.
“We subscribe for three millions more, making five in all.
“F. Taylor, Cashier Continental National Bank.”
“Treasury Department, April 4, 1879. “F. Taylor, Cashier Continental National Bank, New York.
“Your subscription for three millions arrived too late; all the 5-20’s have been covered by previous subscriptions.
“John Sherman, Secretary.”
A similar telegram was sent to the Continental National Bank of New York, which subscribed $25,000,000 additional, the Hanover National Bank of New York, $25,000,000, and the New York National Banking Association, $2,000,000.
I then telegraphed to Mr. Conant as follows:
“Subscriptions have been made covering all 5-20 bonds (consols of 1867 and consols of 1868) outstanding, reserving for contracting parties the one million not subscribed for.
“Inform the contracting parties and accept no new subscriptions.”
On the 4th of April, 1879, I had the satisfaction of issuing the 95th and 96th calls for 5-20 bonds, covering all the bonds outstanding issued under the act of March 3, 1865, and the last of the United States 5-20 bonds. The early twenty year bonds, issued during the first two years of the Civil War, were not yet due or redeemable, and, therefore, could not be called for payment. This was a practical illustration of the importance, in issuing government securities, of reserving the right to redeem them before maturity.
The rapid and irregular subscriptions made on the 4th of April involved the department in serious difficulty in determining who of the many subscribers were entitled to the bonds. The aggregate of subscriptions was more than double the amount of 5-20 bonds outstanding. By adopting a rule of accepting bids made before a fixed hour of that day, and by voluntary arrangements among the bidders, a distribution was made.
The only serious controversy in respect to this distribution was upon the claim of the Rothschilds that they had option extending to the 30th of June for ten millions of bonds, and for one million extended from April 1 to April 8. The latter was allowed, but the department held that the option for ten millions June 30 was dependent upon whether the bonds were previously sold, and this occurred on the 4th of April. This gave rise to a controversy which was settled by the voluntary transfer, by the National Bank of Commerce, of ten millions of the forty millions bonds subscribed for by it. Rothschild, the head of the house, would not accept this offer, but, with some show of resentment, declined to receive his share of the bonds, but they were eagerly taken by his associates.
The 5-20 bonds having been paid off or called, the department proceeded, as soon as practicable, to execute the laws of January 25 “to facilitate the refunding of the national debt,” and February 26 “to authorize the issue of certificates of deposit in aid of the refunding of the public debt.”
On the 16th of April I published the offer of $150,000,000 four per cent. bonds at one-half of one per cent. above par and accrued interest, and reserved $44,566,300 of these bonds for the conversion of ten dollar refunding certificates.
The following telegrams, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury on the 17th of April, tell the result:
From the Bank of New York National Banking Association, New York:
“Send two millions four per cent. bonds under terms of to-day’s dispatch.”
From Chase National Bank, New York:
“We have subscribed for half million dollars four per cent. bonds on terms just issued. Can we deposit our securities at the treasury here, as heretofore?”
From First National Bank, New York:
“Please enter subscription this date for ten million dollars, and reserve further amount of fifteen millions, awaiting our letter. Please make no announcement of either to-day, for reasons will explain.”
From Bank of New York National Banking Association, New York:
“Send seventy-five certificates ten thousand each, fifty of five thousand each, four per cents., in name of I. & S. Wormser. Also four hundred bonds five hundred each, three hundred of one thousand each; in all, one million five hundred thousand. Certificate deposit by mail.”
From Baltzer and Lichtenstein, New York:
“We subscribe to-day through the National Bank of the state for one million fours.”
From National Bank of the State of New York:
“We confirm dispatch of Baltzer and Lichtenstein order one million four per cent. consols, and order, in addition to that and our previous dispatch, one million more, half each coupon and registered.”
Bank of New York National Banking Association, New York:
“We take two million more fours; particulars later.”
From National Bank of the State of New York:
“Please forward immediately four million United States four per cent. consols.”
“Please forward three hundred thousand registered and two hundred thousand coupons four per cent. consols. Particulars by mail.”
“Please forward one million four per cent. consols coupons.”
“Please forward immediately fifteen hundred thousand United States four per cent. consols additional to all former subscriptions.”
From Bank of New York National Banking Association:
“Send one hundred and twenty certificates, ten thousand each, in name of I. & S. Wormser; also eight hundred coupon bonds, one thousand each, in all, two million fours. Certificate by mail.”
“We subscribe for four millions fours; this is in addition to all other telegrams. Certificates by mail.”
From Continental National Bank, New York:
“We subscribe to-day two million four per cents., name Hatch & Foote. Particulars by mail.”
From First National Bank, New York:
“Please enter our subscription under this date for one hundred and fifty million dollars four per cent. bonds and forty million dollars refunding certificates, in all, one hundred and ninety million dollars, under terms of your circulars of April 16 and March 7. These subscriptions are for this bank and its associates. Will see you to-morrow morning. This is repetition of dispatch sent to the department.”
From National Bank, State of New York:
“Confirming previous dispatches covering subscriptions of seven million five hundred thousand dollars to four per cent. loan, please forward additional two millions coupon bonds.”
From Bank of New York National Banking Association:
“We subscribe for one million four per cents. Certificates of deposit by mail to-morrow.”
From National Bank, State of New York:
“Please forward immediately one million more United States four per cent. consols, making a total, together with former subscriptions, of ten million five hundred thousand.”
I sent the following telegram to the First National Bank of New York:
“Your telegram covering one hundred and ninety million consols staggers me. Your telegram for twenty-five million received, and entered at two o’clock. About thirty million from other parties were received and entered before your last telegram. Will wait till letters received. What is the matter? Are you all crazy?”
On the 18th the bids were carefully analyzed and accepted in the order in which they were received. The bid of the First National Bank was made on the behalf of an association of banks and bankers. I declined their offer for refunding certificates and accepted their offer for $111,000,000.
I wrote to Conant, April 18, as follows:
“Since I wrote you the letters yesterday respecting the recent circular of April 16, I have sold the whole of the $150,000,000 of bonds offered therein; $39,000,000 were sold to sundry banks in the city of New York, and the residue, $111,000,000, were sold to an association of banks and bankers through First National Bank. This unexpected and agreeable denouement of our refunding operations will supersede much that I have written you. I received and answered your telegram of to-day. Arrangements will be made with the new associates for delivery of four per cent. consols and the receipt of called bonds in London.
“Although I have given notice that I will feel at liberty to do so after the 4th of May, I prefer that you will postpone any new arrangement for delivery to other parties until the 10th; hoping that before that time Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co. will be able to close out the balance of their last subscription.”
On the same day I made a call for $160,000,000 10-40 bonds, being all of such bonds outstanding, except an amount that would be covered by the proceeds of ten dollar refunding certificates. The sale of these certificates gave the department a great deal of trouble. The object and purpose of the law was to secure to persons of limited means an opportunity to purchase, at par, certificates of indebtedness bearing four per cent. interest. As they could be converted at pleasure into 10-40 bonds of small denominations, it was thought they would be promptly taken by the persons for whom they were designed. They were sold in limited amounts to individuals at post offices, but as they were, when converted into bonds, worth a premium, bankers and others hired men to stand in line and purchase certificates. This was a practical fraud on the law, and was mainly conducted in the cities, and where done the sale was discontinued. The great body of the certificates were taken by the class of persons for whom they were designed. In a brief period they were sold, and the proceeds were in the treasury.
On the 21st of April I made the final call for all outstanding 10-40 bonds. With this call the refunding operations were practically at an end for the time. A good deal of correspondence was had as to priority of bids and sales of refunding certificates, but this was closed, at the end of ninety days, by the full payment of the called bonds, and the substitution of bonds bearing a lower rate of interest. This was accomplished without the loss of a dollar, or, so far as I can recall, without a lawsuit.
The aggregate amount of bonds refunded from March 4, 1877, to July 21, 1879, was $845,345,950.
The annual interest saved by this operation was $14,290,416.50.
The general approval and appreciation of these results was manifested by the public press, and especially in Europe. Mr. Conant, in a letter dated April 19, said:
“On yesterday morning, at the stock exchange, just after the opening hour, a McLean’s cable dispatch was posted up, stating that you had entered into a contract with a syndicate for the sale of $150,000,000 of four per cent. bonds, against the outstanding 10-40 five per cent. bonds. People were astounded at the information, and they were all the more astonished because the operation followed so closely upon the transaction of the 4th instant. The effect of this has been to send the price of the bonds up by three-fourths per cent., and to create a demand for them.”
From the date of these transactions the bonds of the United States rapidly advanced in value. Many similar transactions of my successors in office have been made at a still lower rate of interest.
Among the agreeable incidents connected with the resumption of specie payments was the adoption of resolutions by the Chamber of Commerce of New York, on the 2nd of July, 1879. The second resolution was as follows:
“Resolved, That this Chamber tenders its congratulations to the Honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, at once the framer and executor of the law of 1875, upon the success which has attended his administration of the national finances; as well in the funding of the public debt, as in the measures he has pursued to restore a sound currency.”
I subsequently received, by the hands of William E. Dodge, late president of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, a letter from that body asking me to sit for my portrait to be placed on the walls of their Chamber. On the 24th of February I sent the following reply:
“Gentlemen:—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, by the hands of Wm. E. Dodge, late president of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, of your letter of the 17th instant, covering a resolution of your body, asking me to sit for my portrait to be placed upon the walls of your Chamber.
“The kinds words of Mr. Dodge in delivering the resolution add greatly to the compliment contained therein. I assure you that I deeply appreciate the honor of being designated in this manner, by a body so distinguished as the one you represent, composed of members having so large an influence in the commercial transactions, not only of our country, but of other nations, whose familiarity with financial and commercial subjects gives to its opinions great respect and authority.
“The resumption of specie payments has been brought about by the co-operation, not only of many Senators and Members of Congress, but of the leading merchants, bankers and other business men of the country. It was my good fortune to be selected, by my colleagues in the Senate, to present the resumption act, which was framed with their aid and in their councils, and to hold my present office at the time when, by its terms, the law was to be enforced. The only merit I can claim is the honest and earnest effort, with others, to secure the adoption of the policy of resumption, and to have executed the law according to its letter and spirit. I feel that I cannot accept this high compliment, without acknowledging that I am but one of the many who have contributed to the accomplishment of this beneficent object.
“I will, with great pleasure, give every facility to any artist whom you may select to carry your resolution into effect.
“Expressing to you, and the gentlemen you represent, my appreciation of a compliment so highly prized, I have the honor to be,
“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“John Sherman.
“Messrs. A. A. Lone, James M. Brown, Sam’l D. Babcock, Wm. E. Dodge,
Henry F. Spaulding, Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, New
York.”
Subsequently, in compliance with this request, I gave to Mr. Huntington, an eminent artist selected by that body, a number of sittings, and the result was a portrait of great merit, which was placed in the Chamber of Commerce with that of Alexander Hamilton. I regarded this as a high compliment from so distinguished a body of merchants, but I do not indulge in the vanity of a comparison with Hamilton.
CHAPTER XXXVIII. GENERAL DESIRE TO NOMINATE ME FOR GOVERNOR OF OHIO. Death of My Brother Charles—The 46th Congress Convened in Special Session—“Mending Fences” at My Home in Mansfield—Efforts to Put Me Forward as a Candidate for the Governorship of Ohio—Letter to Murat Halstead on the Question of the Presidency, etc.—Result of My Letter to John B. Haskin—Reasons of My Refusal of the Nomination for Governor—Invitation from James G. Blaine to Speak in Maine— My Speech at Portland—Victory of the Republican Party—My Speech at Steubenville, Ohio—Evidences of Prosperity on Every Hand—Visit to Cincinnati and Return to Washington—Results in Ohio.
On the morning of January 1, 1879, I received intelligence of the sudden death of my eldest brother, Charles T. Sherman, at his residence in Cleveland. In company with General Miles and Senator Cameron, his sons-in-law, and General Sherman, I went to Cleveland to attend the funeral. My respect and affection for him has already been stated. As the eldest member of our family he contributed more than any other to the happiness of his mother and the success of his brothers and sisters. He aided and assisted me in every period of my life, and with uniform kindness did all he could to advance my interests and add to my comfort and happiness. As district judge of the United States, for the northern district of Ohio, he was faithful and just. When, after twelve years service, he was reproached for aiding in securing the reversal of an order of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in collecting an unlawful and unjust tax in the city of New York, as he had a perfect right to do, he resigned his position rather than engage in a controversy. He was unduly sensitive of all accusations or innuendoes touching his honor. He was honest and faithful to every engagement, and had a larger personal following of intimate friends and associates than either of his brothers.
On the 4th of March, 1879, President Hayes convened the 46th Congress in special session to meet on the 18th of that month, to provide necessary appropriations for the legislative, executive and judicial expenses of the government, and also for the support of the army, the 45th Congress having failed to pass bills for these objects on account of a disagreement of the two Houses as to certain provisions relating to the election laws. This session continued until July 1, and was chiefly occupied in political topics, such as reconstruction and elections. The Democratic party, for the first time in twenty years, had control of both Houses, but it neither adopted nor proposed any important financial legislation at that session, the only law passed in respect to coin, currency or bonds which I recall being one to provide for the exchange of subsidiary coins for lawful money, and making such coins a legal tender in all sums not exceeding ten dollars. Congress seemed to be content with the operations of the treasury department at that time, and certainly made no obstacle to their success.
About the 1st of May, Mrs. Sherman, accompanied by our adopted daughter, Mary Sherman, then a young schoolgirl twelve years old, and Miss Florence Hoyt, of New York, Miss Jennie Dennison, of Columbus, and Miss Julia Parsons, of Cleveland, three bright and accomplished young ladies, embarked on the steamer Adriatic for a visit to Europe. Mrs. Sherman placed Mary in a very good school at Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and then with her companions visited the leading cities of Europe.
After accompanying the party to New York I went to Mansfield, and as my family was absent and the homestead occupied by comparative strangers, I stopped at the St. James hotel where, as was natural, I met a great many of my old neighbors and friends, both Democrats and Republicans, who welcomed me home.
Among my visitors were several reporters from different parts of the country who wanted to interview me and especially to learn if I was a candidate for governor, and why I came home. In the afternoon I visited my farm near by and my homestead of about twenty acres adjoining the city. I found them in the usual neglected condition of the property of a non-resident proprietor, with many of the fences down. In the evening I was serenaded at the hotel and made a brief speech to a large audience, commencing as follows:
“I am very happy to be again in your midst, to see your faces and to greet you as friends. The shaking of your hands is more grateful to me than the music of bands or any parade. I never felt like making an explanation in coming before you until now. I found when I arrived in my old home that the papers said I came west seeking the nomination for governor. I came purely on private business— to repair my fences and look after neglected property.”
The reporters seized upon the reference to my fences, and construed it as having a political significance. The phrase “mending fences” became a byword, and every politician engaged in strengthening his position is still said to be “mending his fences.”
Previous to that time mention had been made of me in different parts of the country, not only for the nomination of Governor of Ohio, but for President of the United States. Charles Foster and Alphonso Taft were then spoken of as the leading candidates for nomination as governor. Both were my personal friends and eminently qualified to perform the duties of the office. Although I regarded the position of governor as dignified and important, well worthy the ambition of any citizen, still there were reasons which would prevent my accepting the nomination if it should be tendered me. I felt that to abandon my duties in the treasury department might be fairly construed as an evasion of a grave responsibility and an important public duty. I knew that President Hayes was very anxious that I should remain in the office of secretary until the close of his term. I did not desire to compete with the gentlemen already named, and did all I could to discourage the movement short of absolute refusal to accept the nomination. The newspapers of the day, not only in Ohio but in other states, were full of favorable comments upon my probable nomination for governor, and my correspondence upon the subject was very large. I have no doubt that had I consented to be a candidate both Foster and Taft would have acquiesced in my nomination and I, in all human probability, would have been duly elected as Foster was.
As for the nomination for the presidency I made no movement or effort to bring it about, but then believed that General Grant would, upon his return from his tour around the world, be nominated and elected. The following letter will explain fully my position in regard to the office of both governor and president:
“Washington, D. C., May 15, 1879. “My Dear Sir:—I notice, with heartfelt thanks for your personal kindness in the matter, the course of the ‘Commercial’ in regard to my proposed candidacy for Governor of Ohio, and this induces me to state to you frankly and fully, in confidence, the reasons why I could not accept the nomination if tendered, and why I hope you will give such a turn to the matter as will save me the embarrassment of declining.
“In ordinary circumstance an election as Governor of Ohio, after my life in the Senate, would be extremely flattering and agreeable; but at present, for several reasons, the least of which are personal, I could not accept it.
“My wife has gone to Europe on a visit of recreation greatly needed by her, my house in Mansfield is rented, and all my arrangements are made to be here during the summer. The nomination would require me to recall her, to resume my house, and to break up my plans for the summer. If this alone stood in the way, I could easily overcome it, but I know from letters received that my resignation as secretary would be regarded as a desertion of a public trust important to the whole country, with the selfish view of promoting my personal ambition, not for the governorship merely but for the presidency, which would impair rather than improve any chance I may have in that direction.
“The President would regard this change as a great inconvenience and as defeating a desire he has frequently expressed to maintain his cabinet intact during his term, so that my obligations to him forbid this.
“All these objections might be met except the one which I think is unanswerable, that my presence here in the completion of a public duty is far more important to the whole country and the cause we advocate than if I were to run as a candidate for Governor of Ohio and even succeed with a large majority.
“All things now tend to our success in Ohio and that is likely to be as complete with any other candidate for governor as myself, while if left here I will be able to so finish my business that no one can say it is incomplete.
“As for the mention of my name for the presidency, I am not so blind as not to perceive some favorable signs for me, but I have thus far observed and intend strictly to adhere to the policy of taking no step in that direction, doing no act to promote that object, and using none of the influence of my office towards it, except so far as a strict and close attention to duty here may help. I am not now, and do not intend to get, infected with the presidential fever.
“With high regard, I am, very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“M. Halstead, Esq., Cincinnati, Ohio.”
During 1879 and the following year I received a multitude of letters and newspaper paragraphs advocating my nomination for President. Among the first of such letters was one from an old friend, John B. Haskin, formerly a Member of Congress from New York. On the 10th of May, 1879, I wrote him in answer a letter, not intended for publication, but expressing what I would do in the contingency mentioned by him, as follows:
“What I would aspire to, in case public opinion should decide to make me a candidate for President, would be to unite in co-operation with the Republican party all the national elements of the country that contributed to or aided in any way in the successful vindication of national authority during the war. I would do this, not for the purpose of irritating the south or oppressing them in any way, but to assert and maintain the supremacy of national authority to the full extent of all the powers conferred by the constitution. This, as I understand it, is the Jacksonian as well as the Republican view of national powers.
“You see my general ideas would lead me to lean greatly upon the war Democrats and soldiers in the service, who have been influenced by political events since the war to withhold support from the Republican party.
“The true issue for 1880 is national supremacy in national matters, honest money and an honest dollar.”
Mr. Haskin gave, or showed, this letter to a New York paper, and it was published. I expressed my opinion, but it was not one that should have been made public without authority. The letter was the subject of comment and criticism, and was treated as an open declaration of my candidacy for the office of President. It was not written with this purpose, as the context clearly shows. This incident was a caution to me not to answer such letters, unless I was assured that my replies would be treated as confidential. Yet I do not see how a man in public life can refuse to answer a friendly letter, even if his meaning can be perverted.
During the months of May and June I had a correspondence with John B. Henderson, of St. Louis, in which he expressed his great interest in my nomination. This resulted in a conference, which he advised, with President Hayes. My reply was as follows:
“Treasury Department, June 23, 1879. “My Dear Sir:—In compliance with your suggestion, I yesterday mentioned to the President my embarrassment from the general discussion of my name as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination. The points I mentioned were how far I should commit myself to a candidacy and what I should do to promote it, and second whether, under certain circumstances, he would not, in spite of his declination, become a candidate for re-election. He was very explicit on both points—first that I ought at once to let it be understood that I was a candidate in the sense stated in the Haskin letter, and no more—that great care should be taken that while a candidate, I ought not to take part in any movement of opposition to others named—especially General Grant. The feeling is growing daily that General Grant will not allow his name to be used and that, while his eminent services should be fully recognized and rewarded, it is neither right nor politic to elect him to the presidency for the third term. The President very truly said that any appearance of a personal hostility or opposition to General Grant, would be inconsistent with my constant support of his administration during eight years, and would induce a concentration that would surely defeat me. Upon the second point he was very explicit—that he would not be a candidate under any circumstances, and as far as he could properly, without any unseemly interference, he would favor my election. This was the general tenor of his conversation, which he said he would repeat to General Schurz. This relieves me from some embarrassment, but I still think it is better for us to remain absolutely quiet, awaiting the development of public opinion or the voluntary action of personal and political friends. Unless there is a clear preponderance of opinion in preference for my nomination against all others, I do not want to enter upon the scramble. As yet I do not see any concentration. Hoping to see you soon, I remain,
“Very sincerely yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. John B. Henderson.”
After a brief visit to Mansfield I went to Columbus, where I met with a hearty reception from men of both political parties. The legislature was in session, and the senators and members, judges of the courts, and executive officers of the state, called upon me and gave me cordial greetings. I attended a reception at the house of Governor Dennison, where I met the leading citizens of Columbus. On my return to the hotel I was serenaded by a band, and being introduced by Governor Dennison made a brief speech of a non-partisan character, and in closing said:
“I want to make one personal remark about myself. Some of my newspaper friends here have tried to make me a candidate for Governor of Ohio, but I hope none of you will vote for me in convention or before the people. I propose to stick to my present place until the question of resumption is settled beyond a doubt. I want to convince everybody that the experiment of resumption is a success; that we can resume; that the United States is not bound to have its notes hawked about at a discount, but that a note of the United States may travel about the world, everywhere received as equal to gold coin, and as good as any note ever issued by any nation, either in ancient or modern times. I want to see that our debt shall be reduced, which will be done through four per cent. bonds. If the present policy prevails, we shall be able to borrow all the money needed for national uses for less than four per cent., perhaps as low as three.”
I returned directly to Washington. Finding that a determined effort would be made to force my nomination as governor, I wrote the following letter to prevent it:
“Treasury Department, } “Washington, May 15, 1879.} “My Dear Sir:—In view of the kindly interest manifested by political friends during my recent visit home, that I should be nominated as the Republican candidate for Governor of Ohio, I have given the subject the most careful consideration, and have come to the conclusion that I cannot, in my present situation, accept such a nomination if tendered.
“I am now engaged in a public duty which demands my constant attention and which can clearly better be completed by me than by anyone coming freshly into the office. To now accept the nomination for governor, though it is an honor I would otherwise highly prize and feel deeply grateful for, would be justly regarded as a abandonment of a trust important to the whole country, to promote my personal advancement. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the convention will not embarrass me by a tender of a nomination which I would be obliged to decline.
“It may be that no such purpose will be manifested, but I write you so that if the convention should so incline, you may at once state why I cannot accept.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“General J. S. Robinson, Chairman Republican State Committee,
Columbus, Ohio.”
Charles Foster was nominated by the Republican convention in the latter part of May, and Thomas Ewing by the Democratic convention. These nominations necessarily made prominent the financial questions of the time. After the close of the funding operations, I received from Mr. Blaine, as chairman of the Republican committee of Maine, the following invitation, which I accepted:
“Augusta, Me., July 3, 1879.
“Hon. John Sherman, Secy. of Treas.
“My Dear Sir:—Could you speak at Portland, Tuesday, July 23, and then during the same week at Augusta and Bangor—say 25th-27th? Your Portland speech we should expect to have printed the next day, accurately from your own slips.
“Your two other speeches, hardly less important to us, might be made with less care and accuracy, that is, more on the order of the general stump speech.
“In your Portland speech I hope, however, you will talk on something more than the finance, making it, however, the leading and prominent topic—but giving a heavy hit at the conduct of the Democrats during the extra session.
“Sincerely,
“James G. Blaine.”
The election in the State of Maine preceding those of other states, great interest was taken in it, as the result there would have much influence in other parts of the country. That state in the previous year had faltered in support of the Republican party. In that year there were three candidates in the field for governor, the Republican, whose name I do not recall, the Democratic, Garcelon, for hard money, and the Greenback, Smith, under the lead of Solon Chase, an alleged lunatic in favor of fiat money, the repeal of the resumption law, and the enactment of an eight-hour law. Smith received about 40,000 votes, Garcelon about 28,000, and the Republican candidate about 54,000. Many Republicans either did not vote or voted the Democratic or Greenback ticket. By the constitution of that state a majority of all the votes cast is required to elect a governor, and in case of failure the house of representatives of the state proceeds to ballot for choice. The names are then sent to the senate for the action of that body. The result was the election of Garcelon, the Democratic candidate.
This was due to a strong feeling then prevailing in favor of irredeemable or fiat money, and to some discontent among Republicans with the liberal measures adopted by President Hayes to secure peace and quiet in the south, especially the recognition of Hampton as Governor of South Carolina and of Nichols as Governor of Louisiana.
I thought it important to turn the issues of the campaign to the financial measures accomplished by the Republican party, and therefore prepared with some care a speech to be delivered at Portland, and confined mainly to this subject. This speech was made on the 23rd of July, 1879. I regard it as the best statement of the financial question made by me in that canvass. In it I stated fully the action of the administration in respect to the resumption of specie payments, and the refunding of the public debt. The people of Maine had been greatly divided upon these measures. The Greenback party was opposed to the effort to advance the United States note to the value of coin which it represented, but wished to make it depend upon some imaginary value given to it by law. I said the people of Maine would have to choose between those who strictly sought to preserve the national faith, and to maintain the greenback at par with coin, and those who, with utter disregard of the public faith, wished to restore the old state of affairs, when the greenback could only be passed at a discount, and could neither be received for customs duties, nor be paid upon the public debt.
The Greenback party had embodied in their platform the following dogmas:
“The general government should issue an ample volume of full legal tender currency to meet the business needs of the country, and to promptly pay all of its debts.”
“The national banking system should be immediately abolished.”
“We demand the immediate calling-in and payment of all United States bonds in full legal tender money.”
One of the Members of Congress from the State of Maine, Hon. G. W. Ladd, was reported to have paid his attention to me, in a speech in Portland, in the following language:
“Mr. Sherman has sold one hundred and ninety millions of four per cent. bonds in one day to bloodsuckers who were choking the country, and he should be impeached.”
In closing my speech I said:
“It is to support such dogmas, my Republican friends, that we are invited to desert the great party to which we belong. It may be that the Republican party has made in the last twenty years some mistakes. It may not always have come up to your aspirations. Sometimes power may have been abused. To err is human; but where it has erred it has always been on the side of liberty and justice. It led our country in the great struggle for union and nationality, which more than all else tended to make it great and powerful. It has always taken side with the poor and the feeble. It emancipated a whole race, and has invested them with liberty and all the rights of citizenship. It never robbed the ballot box. It has never deprived any class of people, for any cause, of the elective franchise. It maintains the supremacy of the national government on all national affairs, while observing and protecting the rights of the states. It has tried to secure the equality of all citizens before the law. It opposes all distinctions among men, whether white or black, native or naturalized. It invites them all to partake of equal privileges, and secures them an equal chance in life. It has secured, for the first time in our history, the rights of a naturalized citizen to protection against claims of military duty in his native country. It prescribes no religious test. While it respects religion for its beneficial influence upon civil society, it recognizes the right of each individual to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without prejudice or interference. It supports free common schools as the basis of republican institutions. It has done more than any party that ever existed to provide lands for the landless. It devised and enacted the homestead law, and has constantly extended this policy, so that all citizens, native and naturalized, may enjoy, without cost, limited portions of this public land. It protects American labor. It is in favor of American industry. It seeks to diversity productions. It has steadily pursued, as an object of national importance, the development of our commerce on inland waters and on the high seas. It has protected our flag on every sea; not the stars and bars, not the flag of a state, but the stars and stripes of the Union. It seeks to establish in this republic of ours a great, strong, free government of free men. It would, with frankness and sincerity, without malice or hate, extend the right hand of fellowship and fraternity to those who lately were at war with us, aid them in making fruitful their waste places and in developing their immense resources, if only they would allow the poor and ignorant men among them the benefits conferred by the constitution and the laws. No hand of oppression rests upon them. No bayonet points to them except in their political imaginings.
“We would gladly fraternize with them if they would allow us, and have but one creed—the constitution and laws of our country, to be executed and enforced by our country, and for the equal benefit of all our countrymen. If they will not accept this, but will keep up sectionalism, maintain the solid south upon the basis of the principles of the Confederate states, we must prepare to stand together as the loyal north, true to the Union, true to liberty, and faithful to every national obligation. I appeal to every man who ever, at any time, belonged to the Republican party, to every man who supported his country in its time of danger, to every lover of liberty regulated by law, and every intelligent Democrat who can see with us the evil tendencies of the dogmas I have commented upon, to join us in reforming all that is evil, all the abuses of the past, and in developing the principles and policies which in twenty years have done so much to strengthen our government, to consolidate our institutions, and to excite the respect and admiration of mankind.”
I made similar speeches at Lewiston, Augusta, Waterville and Bangor. General Sherman’s estimate of my speech at Portland, in reply to an inquiry, is characteristic of him, viz:
“General, your brother, Secretary Sherman, seems to be doing some telling work just now in the State of Maine; in fact, it is conceded that his recent financial triumphs have made him a power.”
“Well, yes, I think John’s doing right well. He made a good speech at Portland, one that seemed to me carefully prepared. I think he answered his critics quite conclusively, but if I were in John’s place I would now save my breath and make no more speeches, but simply say in reply to other invitations, ‘Read my Portland speech,’ because whatever other efforts he may make during the campaign must be more or less a rehash of that.”
In the canvass that followed in Maine but little attention was paid to the sectional question, and the Republican party gained a complete victory.
About the middle of August the business of the treasury department, being confined to routine duties, was left under the management of Assistant Secretary John B. Hawley. I determined to spend the remainder of the month in the campaign in Ohio, then actively progressing, but confined mainly to the issue between the inflation of paper money and the solid rock of specie payments. I made my first speech in that canvass at Steubenville on the 21st of August. The meeting was a very large one. Every available seat was occupied by an intelligent audience, and the aisles and corridors were filled with people sitting or standing. I opened my speech as follows:
“I am happy to be again among the people of Ohio, to whom I am under the highest obligations of duty and gratitude, and especially to be here in this good county of Jefferson, whose representatives have thrice honored me by their vote when a candidate for the Senate of the United States. I cheerfully come to speak on matters in which you, as well as the whole people of the United States, have a common interest; and I will best meet your wishes by stating, in a plain, frank way, such facts and reasons as appear to me to justify the support you have uniformly given to the Republican party since its organization in 1854, and to present adequate grounds for supporting it now.
“Three parties present candidates to the people of Ohio for the highest offices of the state. It will not be necessary or just for me to arraign the personal character, standing, or services of either of the candidates on either of these tickets. They are all respected citizens, and each would, no doubt, if elected, satisfactorily perform the duties of the office for which he is nominated.
“But the issues involved are far more important than the candidates. I assure you that upon the election in Ohio depend questions of public policy which touch upon the framework of our government and affect the interests of every citizen of the United States. The same old questions about which we disputed before the war, and during the war, and since the war, are as clearly involved in this campaign as they were when Lincoln was elected, or when Grant was fighting the battles of his country in the Wilderness.
“There are also financial questions involved in this contest. The Republican party proposed, maintained, and executed the resumption act as the best remedy for the evils that followed the panic of 1873. Under that act it has brought about the resumption of specie payments. By its policy all forms of money are equal to and redeemable in coin. It has reduced the interest on all the public debt that is now redeemable. It has maintained and advanced the public credit. It now declares its purpose to hold fast to what it has done, to keep and maintain every dollar of paper money in circulation as of equal value to the best coin issued from the mint, and as soon as possible to complete the work of reducing interest on all the public debt to four per cent. or less.
“The Greenback party not only denounces all we have done, but proposes to reverse it by the issue of an almost unlimited amount of irredeemable paper money, to destroy the system of free national banks, and to call in and pay off all the United States bonds with irredeemable money.
“The Democratic party of Ohio, both in its platform and by its candidates, supports more or less all of these dogmas; but it does so not as a matter of principle, but for political power. Its main object is, by any sort of alliance on any real or pretended popular issue, to gain strength enough to unite with the solid south, so that it may restore to power, in all departments of the national government, the very same doctrines that led to the Civil War, and the very men who waged it against the Union. To obtain political power, the democracy seek, by party discipline, to compel their members to abandon the old and cherished principles of their party of having a sound currency redeemable in coin. For this, they overthrew Governor Bishop; for this, they propose to reopen all the wild and visionary schemes of inflation which have been twice rejected by the people of Ohio. Our contest with them is not only on financial questions, but upon the old and broad question of the power and duty of the national government to enforce the constitution and laws of the United States in every state and territory, whether in favor of or against any citizen of the United States.
“Let us first take up these financial questions, and in charity and kindness, and with due deference to opposing opinions, endeavor to get at the right, if we can.
“The great body of all parties are interested in and desirous of promoting the public good. If they could only hear both sides fairly stated, there would be less heat and bitterness in political contests, and more independent voting.”
I then proceeded with a full discussion of the financial questions, referring especially to the speeches made by General Ewing, with whose opinions I was conversant. I closed with a brief discussion of the southern question, and especially the nullification of the election laws in the southern states. This speech was the best of many made by me in different parts of the state. I was engaged in the canvass in Ohio for two weeks afterward, during which I visited my home at Mansfield.
In traversing the state I was surprised at the remarkable change in the condition of business and the feelings of the people, and at the evidences of prosperity not only in the workshops but on the farms. It was jokingly said that the revival of industries and peace and happiness was a shrewd political trick of the Republicans to carry the state. As I rode through the country I saw for miles and miles luxuriant crops of thousands of acres of wheat, corn, oats and barley. It was said that this was merely a part of the campaign strategy of the Republicans, that really the people were very poor and miserable and on the verge of starvation. This was the burden of the speeches of General Ewing, who attributed the miseries of the people to my “wicked financial policy,” and said that I was given over to the clutches of the money power and stripped and robbed the people of Ohio for the benefit of the “bloated bondholders.”
While General Ewing was fighting in the shadows of the past, caused by the panic of 1873, a revolution had taken place, and he who entered into the canvass with the hope that the cry of distress would aid him in his ambition to be governor, must have been greatly discouraged by the evidences of prosperity all around him. I found in my home at Mansfield that business was prosperous, the workshops were in full blast, and smoke was issuing from the chimney of every establishment in the place.
My coming to Ohio naturally excited a good deal of comment and of opposition from Democratic speakers and papers. I was charged with nepotism in appointing my relatives to office, but upon examination it was found that I had appointed none, though several, mostly remote, were holding office under appointments of General Grant. On the 25th of August I left Mansfield for Columbus and Cincinnati, and on the train met Charles Foster and others on their way to Mount Vernon. On their arrival they were met by flags and music, and in response to the calls I made a brief speech.
On the 27th of August I made my usual annual visit to Cincinnati and the Chamber of Commerce of that city. That body is composed in almost equal numbers of members of the two great parties, and therefore, in addressing it, I carefully refrain from discussing political topics. At that time there was a good deal of discussion of the order made by me on the 13th of August, addressed to the treasurer of the United States, directing him not to withdraw from bank depositaries the money deposited for the payment of called bonds, until it was required for that purpose. At the date of that order over $70,000,000 of called bonds were still outstanding, but only $52,000,000 remained on deposit with national bank depositaries to pay them, thus showing that $18,000,000 United States notes had been withdrawn from the depositaries into the treasury in advance of their need for such payment. These sums were fully secured by the deposit with the government of bonds to the amount of such deposits and a further sum of bonds to the amount of five per cent. of the deposit.
I felt that the withdrawal of this great sum in advance of the presentation of the called bonds would necessarily create an injurious contraction of the currency. To meet this condition of affairs, upon the advice of the treasurer at Washington and the assistant treasurer at New York, and the pressing complaints of business men not interested in depositary banks, I issued this order:
“Treasury Department, August 13, 1879.
“Hon. James Gilfillan, Treasurer United States.
“Sir:—With a view to closing as soon as practicable the accounts of the department with depositary banks on loan account, without unnecessary disturbance of the money market or the withdrawal of legal tenders from current business, you will please receive from such depositaries in payment called bonds to be credited when passed through the loan division. You will require from such depositaries sufficient money in addition to the called bonds, to insure the withdrawal of all deposits on loan account on or before the 1st of October next. The letter of the department of March 26 is modified accordingly.
“Very respectfully,
“John Sherman, Secretary.”
It was said that this was done to relieve the banks, and especially the First National and the National Bank of Commerce, of New York, which in closing out the refunding operations had, as already stated, made large subscriptions for themselves and others, and it was intimated that I was interested in these banks. This innuendo was without foundation or excuse, and was made merely to create a political sensation. This order was made, not at the request of the banks, for they were entirely prepared to pay the money, but at the urgent demand of business men, that the currency should not be withdrawn from the banks where it was employed in active business, and be deposited in the treasury where it would lay idle.
I thus explained the matter to the Chamber of Commerce, and to the public at large. I felt that it would not be advisable for me to drain the money market of legal tenders, and to hoard them in the treasury to await the presentation of called bonds. If such a course had been adopted, the clamor would have been louder and more just. The order, no doubt, had a happy effect, as the running accounts were rapidly and quietly closed, by the payment of the called bonds, without any disturbance in the money market. The clamor made was beneficial because it induced the holders of the called bonds to send them in for payment, in which I greatly rejoiced.
In the evening of that day a reception was given to me at the Lincoln club. While it was going on a large crowd, headed by a band, approached the clubhouse, and loudly insisted that I should speak to them. As this was a political club, I felt at liberty, on being introduced by Warner M. Bateman, to make a political speech, mainly devoted to my early friend, General Ewing, and his peculiar notions of finance. This was reported in the papers at the time. If there was too much political feeling manifested in my speeches at this period, it may be partly excused by the extreme violence of denunciation of me by Democratic speakers and newspapers.
Later in the evening I visited Wielert’s pavilion, on Vine Street, where the usual evening concert was being given. The visitors were mainly German citizens, and, as such, were known to be in favor of a sound currency based upon gold and silver. The orchestra at once stopped the piece they were playing, and played the “Star Spangled Banner,” amid the cheering of the assemblage. They insisted upon a speech, and I said:
“When I came here to-night I did not expect to make a speech, as I have made one already. I only came to see the people enjoy themselves, to drink a glass of that good old German beverage, beer, and to listen to the music. I am very happy to meet you, and shall carry away with me a kindly remembrance of your greeting. All I want, and that is what we all want, is honest money. A dollar in paper is now worth a dollar in gold or silver anywhere in this country, and we want affairs so shaped that the paper money issued may be exchanged anywhere or under any circumstances for gold or silver. That is my idea of honest money. [Cries, ‘That is so.’ ‘That is ours, too,’ etc.] We may be assured that such shall be the character of the money in our country if the people will sustain the party which has equalized the values of the paper and metal moneys. Again I thank you for your kind reception.”
I returned to Washington and remained there during the month of September, actively employed in the duties of the department. During this month nearly all the outstanding called bonds were presented and paid, and all sums deposited with national banks during the operation of refunding were paid into the treasury and these accounts closed.
Fruitful crops in the United States, and a large demand for them in Europe, caused an accumulation of coin in this country. Much of it came through the customhouse in New York, but most of it was in payment for cotton and provisions. It was readily exchanged for United States notes and silver certificates. As all forms of money were of equal purchasing power and paper money was much more convenient to handle than coin, the exchange of coin, by the holders of it, for notes or certificates, was a substantial benefit to them and strengthened the treasury. I promoted these exchanges as far as the law allowed. I deemed it wise to distribute this coin among the several sub-treasuries of the United States, maintaining always the reserve for the redemption of United States notes in the sub-treasury in New York as the law required. For this purpose I issued the following order:
“Treasury Department, } “Washington, September 19, 1879.} “Gold coin beyond the needs of the government having accumulated in the treasury of the United States, by the deposit in the several public assay offices of fine bars and foreign coin, for which the depositors have been paid, at their option, in United States notes, the treasurer of the United States, and the several assistant treasurers at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans and San Francisco, are hereby authorized to pay out gold coin as well as silver coin and notes upon the current obligations of the government, and upon advances to disbursing officers, as may be convenient and practicable. Transfers of coin for this purpose will be made to any assistant treasurer, when necessary, by the treasurer of the United States, upon application to him. The treasurer of the United States in this city, upon the receipt by him of a certificate of deposit issued by the United States assistant treasurer at New York, stating that there has been deposited with him legal tender notes in the sum of $100 or multiples thereof, will also cause to be shipped from the mint to the depositor, at his risk and expense, a like amount of gold coin. Standard silver dollars may also be obtained as heretofore.
“John Sherman, Secretary.”
The result of this policy was beneficial, though the demand for coin rarely existed except for foreign exchange, and this was generally in New York, and largely depended upon the balance of trade. Our people had been so accustomed to the use of paper money that they received and paid United States notes in preference to coin, and this more readily since these notes were equal in purchasing power to coin.
Senator Thurman, my colleague and personal friend, was active in the canvass in Ohio. His term expired on the 4th of March, 1881, and he was a candidate for re-election by the legislature about to be chosen. I heard of his speeches, especially those in respect to resumption. He commented upon the fact that United States notes were only redeemed in the city of New York, and claimed that we had not actually resumed, for gold was not in circulation. He appealed to his audiences to say whether they had any gold and whether they were not compelled to receive the same greenbacks then as they had since the period of the war, and said if they wanted gold they had to go to New York for it. I regarded this as a piece of demagogism, for he knew the difference between the greenbacks then and the greenbacks before resumption. Hearing that he was to speak in Bellaire shortly I arranged to have certain disbursements for wages in that neighborhood made in gold coin. When he made his speech in Bellaire, soon afterwards, he repeated the same statements that he had previously made, and appealed to the audience to know whether they had seen any of the gold coin they had heard so much about. Much to his surprise and embarrassment quite a number of persons held up and shook gold coin. This put a stop to his inquiries. The people appreciated the advance in the purchasing power of their money, and neither demanded coin nor cared for it.
Early in October I yielded to the urgent request of Mr. Foster to help in the closing days of the canvass, and, on the evening of the 8th, addressed a meeting at the west front of the capitol in Columbus, far exceeding in numbers any political gathering during the campaign. My opening will indicate the general trend of my remarks:
“It is not within my power to reach with my voice all who have assembled on this occasion, and besides, for some time I have not been much in the habit of speaking in the open air, and don’t know how long my voice will hold out, but I think I will be able to say all that you will desire to hear from me, as I will be followed by a gentleman distinguished in war and able to supply any imperfections in my address.
“When I was here in August last it appeared that the great point in the political contest in which we were about to engage was whether the people of Ohio would stand fast to the resumption of specie payments, which the Republicans, by a steady and patient courage and unswerving conviction, had finally brought to a successful consummation on the 1st day of January last, or whether the people of Ohio would yield to the wild and fanciful ideas of inflation, and desert the great good that had been accomplished after so long a trial.
“The Democratic party, which had been holding the honored principles of that party, seemed to be willing to go after strange gods, and to form new alliances, to do anything to gain success, and that old party sought to form at least temporary alliances, so that the people would forget the great issue, and follow after these strange and delusive ideas of which I will speak. Therefore it was that my friend General Ewing was nominated for Governor of Ohio, with the expectation that as he had advanced some such ideas in times past, a coalition would be made between the parties naturally hostile, and that the State of Ohio would be thus gained for the Democratic ticket.”
In the course of my remarks I read an extract from General Ewing’s speech of the year before, in which he stated that if we were out of debt to foreign countries, and if our foreign commerce floated under our own flag, resumption in gold and silver would be impossible on the then volume of paper money; that if it were attempted the desperadoes of Wall street and the money kings of England would present greenbacks, and take the gold as fast as it could be paid over the counter of the treasury. I said in reply:
“Not a year rolled around until this resumption came, and these Wall street desperadoes and these money kings of Europe, instead of coming and demanding our gold in exchange for greenbacks, now bring their gold to us and want greenbacks for it.
“The money kings of Europe have brought us gold—$36,900,000 in gold coin from France—and the English have brought their gold and exchanged it for United States notes. And these Wall street desperadoes are as eager to get our greenbacks as you are. They don’t want the gold at all and we cannot put it on them. Why, my countrymen, United States notes may now travel the circuit of the world with undiminished honor, and be everywhere redeemed at par in coin. They are made redeemable everywhere, and at this moment the greenback is worth a premium on the Pacific coast and in the Hawaiian Islands, and in China and Japan it is worth par; and in every capital of Europe, in Berlin, in Paris, in London, an American traveling may go anywhere in the circuit of the civilized world, and take no money with him except United States notes.
“Well, now, General Ewing was mistaken. Well, why don’t General Ewing come down and say ‘I was mistaken?’ [A voice, ‘He will come down.’] Yes, after next Tuesday he will.”
On the next day I spoke at Springfield to an audience nearly as large, following the general lines of my Columbus speech. On the following day I spoke at Lancaster from a stand in front of the town hall, in plain sight of the house in which General Ewing and I were born. I spoke of General Ewing in very complimentary terms, said we had been intimate friends from boyhood, that our fathers had been friends and neighbors, but that he and I then found ourselves on opposite sides of a very important question. I expressed my respect for the sincerity of General Ewing’s motives, but believed that he was thoroughly and radically wrong. I said I wished to state frankly how he was wrong, and to what dangerous consequences the fruit of his errors would lead, and I wanted the people of Lancaster to judge between us.
On the Saturday before the election I spoke in Massillon. By some misunderstanding I was advertised to speak on that afternoon at both Massillon and Mansfield, but, by an arrangement subsequently made, I spoke at Massillon to one of the largest meetings of the campaign, and then was taken by special train to Mansfield in time to make my closing speech in the canvass. It was late in the afternoon, but the crowd that met to hear me remained until my arrival, of which the following account was given by the local paper:
“But the grand ovation was reserved for our distinguished townsman, Secretary Sherman. There were acres of men, women, and children and vehicles at the depot to meet him, and as he stepped from the cars he was greeted with the booming of cannon, the music of half a dozen bands, and the loud and long acclaim that came from the throats of the immense concourse of friends. A thousand hands of old neighbors were stretched out to grasp his as he moved along with great difficulty, piloted by the reception committee, through the vast and surging crowd. Cheer after cheer went up on every imaginable pretext, and many times calls for ‘Three cheers for John Sherman, our next President,’ were honored with a power and enthusiasm that left no room for doubt as to the intensity of the devotion felt for him at his old home.”
In this connection I wish to say once for all that I have been under the highest obligations to the people of Mansfield during my entire life, from boyhood to old age. I have, with rare exceptions, and without distinction of party, received every kindness and favor which anyone could receive from his fellow-citizens, and if I have not been demonstrative in exhibiting my appreciation and gratitude, it has nevertheless been entertained, and I wish in this way to acknowledge it.
In opening my address in the evening I said:
“My fellow-townsmen, I regret your disappointment of to-day, that, by some misunderstanding as to the hour of your meeting, I felt it my duty, in obedience to the request of the state committee, to attend the great mass meeting as Massillon this afternoon, and now come before you wearied and hoarse, to speak of the political questions of the day.
“When I was in Ohio in August last, the chief question in the pending political canvass was, whether the resumption of specie payments, so long and steadily struggled for, and happily accomplished by the Republican party, should be maintained, or whether it should give way to certain wild and erratic notions in favor of irredeemable paper money. Upon this issue General Ewing was nominated by the Democratic party, in the hope that he would gain support from a third party committed to inflation. Since then it would appear that the Democratic leaders seek to change the issue. The same old questions about the rights of states to nullify the laws of the United States—the same old policy to belittle and degrade our national government into a mere confederacy of states—are now thrust forward into prominence.”
On the following Tuesday I voted, and immediately started for Washington. The news of the triumphant election of Foster and Hickenlooper, by over 30,000 majority, and a Republican majority of twenty-five in the legislature, reached me while on the train.
The management by Governor Foster of his canvass, and his work in it, was as laborious and effective as any ever conducted in Ohio. He visited every county in the state, often made four or five speeches in a day, and kept special railroad trains in motion all the while, carrying him from place to place. He is not, in the usual sense, an orator, but in his numerous campaigns he has always made clear and effective statements which the people could understand. His manner is pleasing, without pretension or gush. He had been elected to Congress several times in a district strongly Democratic. In the campaign of 1879 he adopted the same plan that had been so successful when he was a candidate for Congress. He was an experienced and efficient hand-shaker.
CHAPTER XXXIX. LAST DAYS OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION. Invitation From General Arthur to Speak in New York—Letter to Hon. John Jay on the Subject—Mr. Evarts’ Refined Specimen of Egotism— An Anecdote of the Hayes Cabinet—Duty of the Government to Protect the Election of All Federal Officers—My Speech in Cooper Institute —Offers of Support to Elect Me as a Successor of Senator Thurman —My Replies—Republican Victory in New York—President Hayes’ Message to Congress—My Report as Secretary of the Treasury— Modification of My Financial Views Since that Time—Bank Notes as Currency—Necessity for Paper Money—Mr. Bayard’s Resolution Concerning the Legal Tender Quality of United States Notes—Questions Asked Me by the Finance Committee of the Senate.
In the latter part of September I was invited by General Arthur, as chairman of the Republican state committee of New York, to speak to the Republicans of that state during the pending canvass, in aid of election of Mr. Cornell as governor. The circumstances of the removal of Arthur and Cornell caused some doubt whether I should accept the invitation, as it seemed that the nomination of Cornell and the management of the canvass by Arthur was an expression of triumph, and my acceptance would be regarded as a humiliation of the President. I did not think so and in this opinion the President concurred. I, therefore, accepted the invitation by the following letter:
“Treasury Department, } “Washington, September 29, 1879.} “Dear Sir:—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th inst., inviting me to speak to the Republicans in New York some time during the pending campaign. It will give me great pleasure to do my utmost in aid of the election of Mr. Cornell and the Republican ticket at the coming election, and I wish I could accept your invitation without reserve; but in view of engagements made in Ohio, and the official duties incumbent upon me, I cannot make any more definite reply than to say that by the middle of October I hope to be able to set aside two or three days to be spent in your canvass at such places as you may think I can render the most satisfactory service. I have also received an invitation from Mr. Johnson, secretary of your committee. Please consider this an answer.
“Very respectfully,
“John Sherman.
“To General C. A. Arthur,
“Chairman Republican State Committee, New York.”
Shortly afterward I received a letter from Hon. John Jay, expressing regret at my acceptance, for the reasons I have stated. To this I replied as follows:
“October 4, 1879.
“My Dear Sir:—Your note of the 2nd is received.
“I feel as you do that the nomination of Mr. Cornell, and the appointment of Mr. Arthur to conduct the canvass, has the look of a reproach to the President for their removal. If only their personal interests were involved, I should feel great indifference to their success, but it so happens that Republican success in New York is of such vital importance to the people of the United States, that their personal interest in the matter, and even the motive of the nomination and appointment, should be overlooked, with a view to secure the country against the return to power of the Democratic party.
“We must carry New York next year, or see all the results of the war overthrown and the constitutional amendments absolutely nullified. We cannot do this if our friends defeat a Republican candidate for governor fairly nominated, and against whom, there are no substantial charges affecting his integrity. Besides, the nomination of Mr. Cornell could easily have been prevented if the friends of the President and the administration had aided to defeat it. He was nominated by our acquiescence, and we should not now complain of it. The expediency of holding the meeting you propose, depends entirely upon the question whether or not it would aid the Republican cause this fall. I am inclined to think it would not, that such a meeting would deter Republicans from supporting the regular ticket and, therefore, is ill advised. I thus frankly state my opinion as you ask it, but without any desire in any way to influence that of others.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. John Jay, Katonah, N. Y.”
After the election in Ohio I received from General Arthur a list of appointments for me in New York, which if I had attempted to fill would have overtaxed my strength. Mr. Evarts had also been invited, but limited his acceptance to one speech to be made in Cooper Institute. I complained to him that it was not fair to request of me so many speeches where he, a citizen of that state, agreed to make but one. His answer was characteristic. He said: “Well, Mr. Sherman, when the people of New York wish my views upon public questions they arrange for a meeting in Cooper Institute, or some such place. I make the speech and it is printed and is read.” I thought this, under the circumstances, a refined specimen of egotism, meaning that he had only to pronounce his opinion to attract universal attention and he need not therefore repeat his speech at any other place.
This incident recalls to my mind a specimen of his keen wit. Among the early meetings of the cabinet President Hayes announced three or four personal appointments that he intended to make, mainly in the foreign service, in the department of which Mr. Evarts was the head. Evarts seemed to be surprised at these appointments, and after some pause he said: “Mr. President, I have never had the good fortune to see the ‘great western reserve’ of Ohio, of which we have heard so much.” For a moment Hayes did not perceive the quiet sarcasm of Mr. Evarts, which was a polite expression of his feeling that he should have been consulted about these nominations before they were announced. We all caught the idea and the President joined heartily in the laughter. Mr. Evarts is not only a man of keen wit, but is a great lawyer and able advocate. I learned, from my intimate association with him in the cabinet, and subsequently in the Senate as a member of the committee on foreign relations, to respect and love him.
On the 25th of October, when on my way to New York, at the request of General Kilpatrick I made a speech at Paterson, New Jersey, on the occasion of the ratification of the Republican nominations. In this speech I expressed my opinions upon the subject of fraudulent elections, especially in the south, and, while the government has not been able at any time to completely protect the ballot box in several states, the opinions I then expressed are still entertained. I believe the right of each lawful voter to vote in national elections should be enforced by the power of the national government in every state and territory of the Union. I said at this time:
“Now I want to serve notice on the Democratic party, that the Republican party has resolved upon two things, and it never makes up its mind upon anything until it is determined to put it through. We are going to see that every lawful voter in this country has a right to vote one honest ballot at every national election, and no more. If the Democratic party stands in the way, so much the worse for the Democratic party. If the south, rebellious as it is, stands in the way again, we will protect every voter in his right to vote wherever the constitution gives the right to vote. Local elections must be regulated by state laws. Southern voters may cheat each other as they please in local elections. The Republican party never trenched on the rights of states, and does not intend to.
“Whenever national officers or Congressmen are elected, those are national elections, and, under the plain provisions of the constitution, the nation has the right to protect them. The Republican party intends, if the present law is not strong enough, to make it stronger. In the south 1,000,000 Republicans are disfranchised. With the help of Almighty God, we intend to right that wrong. Congress has a right to regulate congressional elections. The Tweed frauds, reversing the vote of New York state in 1868, led to the passage of the first federal election law, breaking up false counts. Then the Mississippi plan was introduced in the south.
“If Congress was purged to-day of men elected by fraud and bloodshed in the south, the Democrats would be in a pitiful minority in the capital. At the last session the Democrats tried to repeal the election laws, and were met by veto after veto from the stanch Republican President. Then they tried to nullify existing laws. We must as firmly resist nullification now as when Jackson threatened ’by the eternal God’ to hang the original nullifier, Calhoun. We must have free elections. We are determined to assert the supremacy of the United States in all matters pertaining to the United States, and to enforce the laws of the United States, come what will.”
This declaration of mine at the time created a good deal of criticism, especially in the New York papers, but, in spite of this, my convictions have grown stronger with time that it is the imperative duty of the national government to protect the election of all federal officers, including Members of Congress, by wise conservative laws.
On the 27th of October I spoke in Cooper Institute, confining myself mainly to an exposition and defense of the financial policy of the administration. This was hardly needed in the city of New York though, as Evarts said of his speech, I knew what I said would be printed, and people who were not familiar with financial topics could read it. The commercial papers, while approving the general tenor of the speech, complained that I did not advocate the retirement of the legal tender notes of the government. They seemed then, as they do now, to favor a policy that would withdraw the government from all participation in furnishing a currency. I have always honestly entertained the opinion that the United States should furnish the body of circulating notes required for the convenience of the people, and I do yet entertain it, but the notes should always be maintained at parity with coin. In the cities generally, where banks have great influence and where circulating notes are superseded in a great measure by checks, drafts and clearing house certificates, the wants of the people for paper money secured by the highest sanction of law and by the promise and credit of the government are not appreciated. In this speech I referred to the banks as follows:
“They [the banks] are interwoven with all the commercial business of the country, and their loans and discounts form our most active and useful capital.... The abolition of the national banks would inevitably lead to the incorporation of state banks, especially in bankrupt states, where any expedient to make paper money cheap will be quickly resorted to.... It will open the question of the repeal of the provisions of the loan laws fixing a limit to the amount of United States notes, and thus will shock the public credit and raise new questions of authority which the Supreme Court would probably declare to be unconstitutional. Free banking open to all, with prompt and easy redemption, supplies a currency to meet the varying wants of different periods and seasons. Who would risk such a question to the changing votes of Congress?”
I must add, however, that I do not believe the banking system would be sustained by popular opinion unless the great body of our currency was in the form of United States notes or certificates based upon coin. If there is any profit in the circulation of such notes, it ought to inure to the government. The circulation of banks should only be equal to the local demands for currency and should always be amply secured, as now, by the deposit of United States bonds, or some substitute for these bonds equally valuable, when the national bonds shall be redeemed. This security ought not to extend beyond the amount of bank notes actually outstanding, leaving the security of deposits by individuals to depend upon the assets of each bank. The duty of the government is performed when it guards with undoubted security the payment of the circulating notes issued by the banks. In this speech I spoke of the resumption act and the history of resumption as follows:
“The resumption act was a Republican measure, supported, advocated and voted for by Republican Senators and Members, and without the aid of a single Democrat in either House of Congress. It has been adhered to and successfully executed by that party. The Republican party has won no victory more complete than the passage, execution and success of the resumption act. This measure was adopted in January, 1875, in the midst of the panic, when our paper money was worth only 85 cents on the dollar. It was a period of wild speculation and inflation. The rate of interest was higher than before or since—the government paying six per cent. in gold, corporations in fair credit from eight to ten per cent., and individuals from ten to twelve per cent. Recklessness in contracting debts was universal. Railroads were built where they were not needed; furnaces were put up in excess of all possible demands; and over-production and over-trading occurred in all branches of business. The balance of trade for ten years had been steadily against us, with an aggregate excess of imports over exports of over $1,000,000,000.
“The panic of 1873 put an end to all these wild, visionary schemes, and left the country prostrate and in ruin. All business enterprises were paralyzed. Congress, in a hopeless quandary, looked in vain for some way of escape from the bankruptcy which threatened every interest and every individual. Then it was the Republican party devised and placed upon the statute book the resumption act, and, against noisy opposition and continual speaking, steadily persevered in its execution.
“Now that resumption is a success, Democrats say the Republican party did not bring it about, but that Providence has done it; that bountiful crops here and bad crops in Europe have been the cause of all the prosperity that has come since resumption. We gratefully acknowledge that Providence has been on the side of the Republican party, or rather, that, having sought to do right, we find ourselves supported by Divine Providence, and we are grateful to the Almighty for the plentiful showers and favorable seasons that brought us good crops; but we also remember that it was the passage of the resumption act, the steady steps toward resumption, the accumulation of the coin reserve, the economy of the people, and their adjustment of business affairs to the time fixed for resumption, that, with the blessings of Divine Providence, brought us resumption.
“We should be, and are, thankful to the Almighty, but we are under no thanks whatever to the Democratic party. It has not, for twenty-five years, had Providence on its side, but we may fairly infer that, as it has steadily resisted Providence and patriotic duty for more than twenty years, it must have had the devil on its side. Democrats can claim no credit, but stand convicted of a blundering mistake in abandoning the old and tried principles of their party, and following after strange gods with the hope of a brief and partial success. They have failed, and that dogma for hard money, which they abandoned, has been adopted by the Republican party, as the corner stone of its greatest success.”
I spoke at Albany, Rochester, and Syracuse, and, on my way to Washington, at New Brunswick, New Jersey.
After the election in Ohio, I received several letters from members of the legislature, offering their support to me as a candidate for United States Senator, to be elected in January to succeed Mr. Thurman, for the term commencing on the 4th of March, 1881. Among them was a letter from L. M. Dayton, a member of the general assembly from Hamilton county, to which I replied as follows:
“Washington, D. C., November 2, 1879. “My Dear Sir:—Your note of the 30th ult., in which you inquire whether I will be a candidate for election as Senator of the United States in place of Senator Thurman, is received.
“Early last summer, when this subject was first mentioned to me by personal friends, I freely expressed my conviction that as the general assembly of Ohio had three times conferred upon me this high and much coveted honor, I ought not to stand in the way of others who might fairly aspire to that position. I am of the same opinion now. During the recent canvass I stated to several gentlemen who had been named in the public press as probable candidates, that I would not be a candidate, and I could not now recede from that position without just reproach.
“Please say so to your fellow members, and accept my hearty thanks for your partiality.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. L. M. Dayton, Cincinnati, Ohio.”
I also wrote the following letter to Senator A. B. Cole, of Portsmouth, in reply to a similar offer:
“Washington, D. C., November 11, 1879. “My Dear Sir:—Your very kind letter of the 10th inst. is received. I thank you again for your offer to support me for the Senate, but you will have seen from the letter I wrote to Colonel Dayton, that I have determined, under the circumstances stated therein, not to be a candidate, so that members may feel entirely free to follow their judgment in the selection of the Senator. I must be impartial between the several candidates.
“I thank you also for what you say about the nomination for the presidency. Such a nomination would be a very exalted honor, so much so that I ought not to do anything to promote or to defeat it. I would be very glad to get the hearty cordial support of the Ohio delegation, and that being granted I am perfectly willing to abide the decision of the national convention, and will be ready to support anyone who is nominated.
“I should be glad to see your son, and hope you will give him a letter of introduction to me.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. A. B. Cole, Portsmouth, Ohio.”
Cornell was elected Governor of New York, and with him a Republican legislature. The elections generally that fall were in favor of the Republican party, but, as both Houses of the 46th Congress were Democratic, President Hayes had to conduct executive business with a Congress not in political harmony with him until the 4th of March, 1881, when the term of Congress and of the President expired. I feel bound to say that no merely obstructive financial measures were adopted during that Congress.
The message of the President, communicated to Congress on the 1st of December, 1879, dealt with the usual topics of such a document; but, instead of commencing with our foreign relations as usual, he began by congratulating Congress on the successful execution of the resumption act and the funding of all the public debt redeemable, into bonds bearing a lower rate of interest. He recommended the suspension of the coinage of the silver dollar, and the retirement from circulation of United States notes with the capacity of legal tender. He held that the issue of such notes during the Civil War was not authorized except as a means of rescuing the country from imminent peril, and the protracted use of them as money was not contemplated by the framers of the law. While I did not concur in all the views stated by the President, especially as to the policy of retiring United States notes then in circulation, yet his general conclusions in favor of the coin standard were, in my view, sound and just. I was very willing to hold on to the progress made in making United States notes equivalent to coin rather than to attempt to secure their retirement from circulation.
In the report made by me as Secretary of the Treasury I stated my opinion that the existing law was ample to enable the department to maintain resumption upon the volume of United States notes then outstanding; but added, that in view of the large inflow of gold into the country, and the high price of public securities, it would seem to be a favorable time to invest a portion of the sinking fund in United States notes to be retired and canceled, and in this way gradually to reduce the maximum of such notes to the sum of $300,000,000, the amount named in the resumption act.
I would not make such a recommendation now, as I am convinced that United States notes based on coin in the treasury are the best form of currency yet devised, and that the volume might be gradually increased as the volume of business increases. Since resumption such notes have been maintained at par with coin by holding in the treasury coin to the amount of thirty per cent. of the notes outstanding. This coin, lying idle and yielding no interest, costs the government the interest on an equal amount of bonds, or a fraction over one per cent. on the sum of United States notes in circulation. These notes are a part of the debt of the United States, and if redeemed, must be paid by the issue of $346,000,000 of bonds. I see no reason why the people of the United States should not have the benefit of this cheap loan rather than the national banks, and there are many reasons why the issue of a like amount of notes by national banks cannot fill the place or perform the functions of United States notes. The issue of bank notes would be governed by the opinions and interest of the banks, and the amount could be increased or diminished according to their interests and without regard to the public good. As an auxiliary and supplement to United States notes, bank notes may be issued as now when amply secured by United States bonds, but it would be a dangerous experiment to confine our paper money to bank notes alone, the amount of which would depend upon the interest, hopes and fears of corporations which would be guided alone by the supposed interests of their stockholders.
There is another objection to a sole dependence on bank notes as currency: They cannot be made a legal tender either by the states or the United States, while it is settled by the Supreme Court that notes of the United States may be made a legal tender, a function that ought to belong to money.
I know that my views on this subject are not entertained by the influential class of our citizens who manage our banks, but in this I prefer the opinion and interest of the great body of our people, who instinctively prefer the notes of the United States, supported by coin reserves, to any form of bank paper that has yet been devised. The only danger in our present currency is that the amount may be increased to a sum that cannot be maintained at par with coin, but the same or a greater danger would exist if the volume of paper money should be left to the interested opinion of bankers alone.
It is sometimes claimed that neither the government nor banks should issue paper money, that coin only is money. It is sufficient to say that all commercial nations have been constrained by necessity to provide some form of paper money as a substitute for coin. The experience of the United States has proven this necessity and for many years our people were compelled to rely upon state bank notes as a medium of exchange, with resulting loss and bankruptcy. For the want of paper money at the commencement of the Civil War, the United States was compelled to issue its notes and to make them a legal tender. Without this the effort to preserve the Union would have utterly failed. With such a lesson before us it is futile to attempt to conduct the business of a great country like ours with coin alone. Gold can only be a measure or standard of value, but cannot be the current money of the country. Silver also can only be used as money for the small transactions of life, its weight and bulk forbidding its use in commerce or trade. The fluctuations in market value of these metals make it impossible to permit the free coinage of both at any ratio with each other without demonetizing one of them. The cheaper money will always be the money in circulation. Wherever free coinage now exists silver is the only money, while where gold is the standard, silver is employed as a subsidiary coin, maintained at par in gold by the mandate of the government and its receipt for or redemption in gold. The only proposed remedy for this fluctuation is an agreement by commercial nations upon a common ratio, but thus far all efforts for such an agreement have failed. If successful the result might not be as satisfactory as anticipated.
I urged, in my report, the importance of adjusting the coinage ratio of the two metals by treaties with commercial nations, and, until this could be done, of limiting the coinage of the silver dollar to such sum as, in the opinion of Congress, would enable the department to readily maintain the standard dollars of gold and silver at par with each other.
In this report I stated the refunding transactions already described, and recommended the refunding of all bonds of the United States in the same manner as they became redeemable. This was successfully executed by my successors in office. I was able to say truly of the treasury department, in conclusion:
“The organization of the several bureaus is such, and the system of accounting so perfect, that the financial transactions of the government during the past two years, aggregating $3,354,345,040.53, have been adjusted without question, with the exception of a few small balances now in the process of collection, of which it is believed the government will eventually lose less than $13,000, or less than four mills on each $1,000 of the amount involved.”
The question of the legal tender quality of United States notes, discussed in my report, was followed, on the 3rd of December, by the introduction in the Senate of a resolution by Mr. Bayard as follows:
“Resolved, etc., That from and after the passage of this resolution the treasury notes of the United States shall be receivable for all dues to the United States excepting duties on imports, and shall not otherwise be a legal tender; and any of said notes hereafter reissued shall bear this inscription.”
This resolution, while pending in the committee, was debated at some length, and reported back adversely on the 15th of January, 1880, by Mr. Allison, from a majority of the committee. Mr. Bayard presented the views of the minority in favor of the resolution. It was subsequently discussed at considerable length by Mr. Coke, of Texas, and Mr. Bayard, on opposite sides. No definite action was taken and the matter rested, and I do not recall that it was ever again brought before the Senate. I felt satisfied with the majority report, as I doubted the expediency or power of Congress to deny to these notes any of the qualities conferred upon them by the law authorizing their issue, as was the legal tender clause. The beneficial result of resumption was appreciated by both parties and there was no disposition of Congress to pass any legislation on the subject. The speech of Mr. Bayard, made on the 27th of January, 1880, was a careful and able review of the whole subject of legal tender, but it was evident that neither House of Congress agreed with him in opinion.
A bill in regard to refunding the debt maturing after the 1st of March, 1881, was introduced in Congress on the 27th of December, 1879, by Fernando Wood, chairman of the committee of ways and means of the House. It provided for a change of existing laws so as to limit the rate of interest upon the bonds to be issued in such refunding to not to exceed three and a half per cent. per annum. This bill, if it had been passed, would have prohibited the sale of all bonds for resumption, as well as for refunding, at a greater rate of interest than three and a half per cent. I opposed this proposition, as it would impair the power of maintaining resumption in case such bonds could not be sold at par, and the existing law did not prevent the secretary from selling those already authorized at a premium. No action was taken upon the bill by that Congress, and Mr. Windom, my successor, found no difficulty in refunding these bonds on more favorable terms without any change of existing law.
On the 30th of January, 1880, I appeared before the finance committee of the Senate in response to their invitation. The committee was composed of Senators Bayard (chairman), Kernan, Wallace, Beck, Morrill, Allison and Ferry, all of whom were present. Mr. Bayard stated that a number of propositions, upon which it was desired to obtain my views, had been submitted by Senator Beck, and then read them as follows:
“1. What reason, if any, there is for refusing to pass a bill authorizing the receipt of legal tenders for customs dues.
“2. Why the trade dollar should not be converted into a standard dollar.
“3. What has been the cost of converting the interest-bearing debt, as it stood July 14, 1870, to what it is now, including double interest, commissions, traveling expenses of agents, etc., and the use of public money by banks, and the value of its use, so as to determine whether the system should be continued or changed.
“4. The effect of the abolition of the legal tender quality of greenbacks upon the paper currency.
“5. The necessity for a sinking fund and how it is managed.
“6. Whether silver coin received in payment of customs duties has been paid out for interest on the public debt; and if not, why not.”
Senator Allison desired to know if this interview was to be stenographically reported, and the committee decided that it should be.
My answers to these questions and the colloquy with the committee in respect to details cover fifty-four printed pages, and give by far the most comprehensive statement of treasury operations during the two or three years before that meeting, and suggestions for future legislation, that has been written or published. The length of the interview prevents its introduction in full, but a statement of some portions of it may be interesting. In answer to the first question I said:
“The act of February 25, 1862 (section 3694, R. S.), provides that all the duties on imported goods shall be paid in coin; and the coin so paid shall be set apart as a special fund to be applied to two purposes, one of which is the payment in coin of interest on the bonds of the United States, and the balance to the sinking fund.
“This is an obligation of the government that its coin revenue should be applied to the payment of interest on the public debt. So long as legal tender notes are maintained at par and parties are willing to receive them in payment of coin interest, there is no objection to receiving legal tender notes for customs dues.
“Since resumption it has been the practice of the department to thus receive them, but this practice can be kept up only as long as parties holding interest obligations are willing to accept the same notes in payment thereof. If, by any unforseen and untoward event, the notes should again depreciate in value below coin, the obligations of the government would still require that interest on the public debt be paid in coin; and if customs dues were payable in legal tender notes, the department would have no source from which to obtain the coin necessary to the payment of interest, for of course holders of interest obligations would not accept a depreciated currency when they were entitled by law to coin.”
I reminded the committee that in my report of December, 1878, I stated that on the 1st of January following I would receive United States notes for customs duties. As these notes were redeemable in coin, it was unreasonable to require the holder of notes to go to one government officer to get coin for his notes to pay customs duties to another government officer. I held that the United States notes had become coin certificates by resumption, and should be treated as such. I informed them that I issued the order with some reluctance, and only after full examination and upon the statement of the Attorney General, who thought technically I could treat the note as a coin certificate. I called their attention to the fact that I had informed Congress of my purpose to receive United States notes for customs duties and had asked specific authority to do so, but no action was taken, and I was assured that none was needed. The conversation that followed showed that they all agreed that what I did was right. It was evidently better not to provide by specific law that the United States notes should be receivable for customs dues, for in case of an emergency the law would be imperative, while, if the matter was left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, he could refuse to receive notes for customs dues and compel their payment in coin.
This led to a long colloquy as to whether the time might come when the United States notes could not be redeemed in coin. I entered into a full explanation of the strength of the government, the amount of reserve on hand, the nature of our ability, and said: “Still we know that wars may come, pestilence may come, an adverse balance of trade, or some contingency of a kind which we cannot know of in advance may arise. I therefore think it is wise to save the right of the United States to demand coin for customs duties if it should be driven to that exigency.”
The question then arose as to the propriety of confining redemption of notes to one place. Mr. Wallace inquired whether the government notes should not be receivable and interchangeable at every government depositary. I answered that the notes should be received everywhere at par with coin, but I doubted the propriety of paying coin for United States notes except at one place and that in New York, the natural center for financial operations, where most of the customs dues were paid and where coin could be most safely hoarded.
Mr. Beck examined me at considerable length, and, with his usual Scotch tenacity, insisted, in spite of the attorney general, that I was not authorized to receive legal tender notes for customs dues. He asked me by what authority I claimed this power. I quoted the third section of the resumption act, and gave him a copy of my circular letter to officers of customs, dated on the 21st of December, 1878, in which, after calling attention to that section, I said:
“By reason of this act, you are authorized to receive United State notes, as well as gold coin and standard silver dollars, in payment of duties on imports, on and after the first day of January, 1879.
“Notes thus received will in every instance be deposited with the treasurer, or some assistant treasurer of the United States, as are other collections of such duties, to be redeemed, from time to time, in coin, on government account, as the convenience of the service may demand.”
Mr. Beck then said:
“I desire to know, Mr. Secretary, whether it is not better, in your opinion, that the Congress of the United States should prescribe the duties of executive officers, so that they can act in pursuance of law, rather than the executive officer should be acting on his own notions of what is best?”
I replied:
“I say yes, decidedly.”
Mr. Beck inquired:
“Is not that what we are proposing to do now, by the passage of this law which I seek to have enacted, and are you not opposing that condition of things?”
I replied:
“An executive officer, when there is a doubt about the law, must give his own construction of it, but should, of course, readily conform to the action of Congress as soon as it is declared. The objection I make is not to the passage of a law, but that the bill as proposed applies it to a possible future state of affairs such as did not exist when this order was made and does not now.”
The subject then turned to the exchange of trade dollars for standard dollars. Mr. Beck said: “I have introduced several bills to facilitate the exchange of trade for standard dollars.” I said:
“The bill which I have here is a House bill. There is no objection in my mind to the object of this bill; that is, to provide for the exchange of the trade dollar for the standard silver dollar; the only point is whether the trade dollar shall be treated as bullion, or as a coined dollar of the United States. Now, I am clearly of the opinion that it ought to be treated as so much bullion, issued at the expense of merchants, for their convenience and benefit, and without profit to the United States, and therefore not entitled to any preference over other bullion, and we might say not to so much, because it was issued to private parties for their benefit and at their cost, but stamped by us merely to enable the coins to be used to better advantage in a foreign market. I have not, therefore, any objection to the bill if you allow us to pay the same for these trade dollars as for other bullion.”
This reply led to a long examination about silver at home and in foreign markets, and the objections made to having two silver dollars, one coined for private persons, from bullion furnished by them, and the other coined for the United States from bullion purchased by it.
Mr. Beck next inquired what effect the abolition of the legal tender quality of the greenbacks would have on our paper currency. This led to a long colloquy between him and myself, in which all the laws relating to the subject and the practice of the government, from its organization to that time, were discussed.
On the question whether United States notes ought still to be a legal tender, I referred him to my report, in which I said: “The power of Congress to make them such was asserted by Congress during the war, and was upheld by the Supreme Court. The power to reissue them in time of peace, after they are once redeemed, is still contested in that court.”
I soon found that Mr. Bayard and Mr. Beck were quite opposed to each other on this topic, and I suggested that I thought that the argument upon it should be between them. My own opinions were sufficiently stated in the report in which I submitted to Congress whether the legal tender should not be repealed as to all future contracts, and parties be left to stipulate the mode of payment. I said that United States notes should still be receivable for all dues to the government, and ample provision should be made to secure their redemption on demand.
The examination, or, rather, conference, took a wide range between the members of the committee and myself. Mr. Beck pressed me to express my opinion of the legal tender which was contained in the bill introduced by him, providing for a mandatory legal tender of all forms of money. I answered:
“I do not think, Mr. Senator, you ought to ask me that question, because that is a matter you are called upon to decide and pass upon in your sphere as a Senator. I would say, on the other hand, that I do not think it ought to have any such effect. I suppose, however, Mr. Bayard would very frankly tell you what the intention of the resolution is.”
Mr. Bayard then said:
“I know one thing: That banks cannot compel me to receive their notes for debts due me, nor can any man compel me to receive them. If the government owes me my salary, I think they could, perhaps, pay me in the national bank notes, under the existing law, but you cannot compel the payment of a debt between private parties with it.”
I said:
“If you will allow me, I should like to amplify a little on one point: I think if Congress would take up this question of the modification of the legal tender note and make certain rules of evidence (which would be clearly constitutional), which good lawyers undoubtedly approve, declaring that where a contract is made between parties upon the basis of United States notes, it shall be presumed by courts, in the affirmance of contracts, that the payment in United States notes shall be a sufficient compliance therewith, and that, in the absence of any absolute provision to the contrary, paper money, or promises to pay money, shall be a legal tender in discharge of any obligation.”
In respect to the cost of refunding, the next subject of inquiry, I was able to give them full details, with all the orders of the treasury department from the 16th of January, 1878, until the close of these operations in the summer of 1879. Many of these details had not then been published, but I furnished the fullest information available. In response to an inquiry as to the amount of commissions paid to the national banks on account of the sale of the four per cent. bonds, a full table was exhibited of the subscriptions of, and commissions paid to, the twenty-six national banks chiefly engaged in this business, in which the total amount of sales made by them was shown to be $552,929,100, and the amount of commissions paid was $1,363,070.34. In exhibiting these tables I said:
“Here is a table showing the sales and commissions of certain banks. I have taken all banks who sold over $1,000,000. There were twenty-six of them. The First National Bank, having been always connected with the national securities and having been the agent of the syndicate, continued to be the agent of the foreign syndicate, and continued to have altogether the largest business. They sold of the four per cent. bonds $262,625,000. The sales of the other banks are kept here in the same way. The Bank of New York (National Banking Association), I think, was the next. It sold $57,259,500. The National Bank of Commerce sold $51,684,000; the National Bank of the State of New York sold $46,915,000, and so on down.”
I called attention to the fact that in the last sale of about $200,000,000 four per cent. bonds, we received one-half of one per cent. premium, or a million dollars, which nearly covered the entire commissions paid to the twenty-six banks named. Full details were given of the various loans, and it was shown that the cost of selling the last loan was less expensive to the government, in proportion to the amount sold, than any previous loan.
In reference to the sinking fund, about which I was asked my opinion, I said it was the same old question that had been so often debated. I explained that a sinking fund is nothing but an obligation or promise, on the part of the government or an individual, to pay a certain amount annually of the principal of the debt in addition to the interest. In this way the debt is gradually liquidated and the annual interest lessened. A sinking fund promised by a government is nothing more or less than a name for the surplus revenue of the government. A government without a surplus revenue cannot possibly have a sinking fund. There is no way to pay a debt except by having an income above your expenditures, and you can call your surplus revenue a sinking fund if you choose. I said that under existing law the department was required to purchase one per cent. of the entire debt of the United States each fiscal year, and to set the amount apart as a sinking fund, and to compute interest thereon to be added with the amount to be subsequently purchased each year. This act can only be construed as an authority to purchase the debt in case of surplus revenue for the purpose.
In practice, while keeping a book account with the sinking fund, we have reduced the debt by the application of surplus revenue more rapidly than if the requirements of the sinking fund had been literally complied with. At several periods we, in fact, did not reduce the debt, but actually increased it, and especially within the last two years, but in other years of prosperity, when the revenues exceeded our expenditures, we were able to pay a much larger amount of the debt than the sinking fund required by law.
Mr. Beck said: “I propose to inquire pretty carefully, before we get through with this interview, concerning the immense reduction of the public debt which has been made, of over $700,000,000, from the highest point down to the present, so that we may be governed in the future taxation by actual requirements of the public service.” He expressed his wish, after he had carefully examined the interview thus far, to continue it at a future day, but I was not again called upon.
CHAPTER XL. THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION IN 1880. Talk of Grant for President for a Third Term—His Triumphal Return from a Trip Around the World—The Candidacy of Mr. Blaine and Myself —Many of My Opponents Those Who Disagreed with Me on Financial Questions—Accused of Being a Catholic and of Using Patronage to Aid in My Nomination—My Replies—Delay in Holding the Ohio State Convention—My Interview with Garfield—Resolution of the State Convention in My Favor—National Convention at Chicago, on June 2, 1880—Fatal Move of Nine Ohio Delegates for Blaine—Final Nomination of Garfield—Congratulations—Letter to Governor Foster and to Garfield—Wade Hampton and the “Ku-Klux Klan.”
During the entire period of this session of Congress the nomination for President by the Republican national convention was naturally the chief subject of interest in political circles. General Grant returned from his voyage around the world arriving in San Francisco in December, 1879, and from that time until he reached Washington his progress was a grand popular ovation. He had been received in every country through which he passed, especially in China and Japan, with all the honors that could be conferred upon a monarch. He made no open declaration of his candidacy, but it was understood that he was very willing to again accept the office of President. His friends openly avowed their intention to support him, and answered the popular objection against a third term by the fact that a term had intervened since he last held the office. Mr. Blaine was also an avowed candidate and had strong supporters in every part of the Union. My name was mentioned as a candidate, and it was generally supposed that one of the three would be the nominee of the Republican convention. I soon found that the fact that I held an office which compelled me to express my opinions was a drawback rather than a benefit, and, while I had the natural ambition to attain such a distinction, I was handicapped by my official position.
The friends of General Grant succeeded in getting control of the national committee and could dictate the time and place for holding the convention. Senator Cameron was chosen chairman of that committee. He openly avowed his preference for the nomination of General Grant, and exercised all his influence and power to promote it. It was decided to hold the convention on the 2nd of June, 1880, at Chicago.
The chief topic of all the newspapers and politicians was the merits and demerits of the three candidates then recognized as the persons from whom the choice was to be made. Every charge against either the personal character or conduct of each was canvassed with the broadest license, and often with great injustice. The life and conduct of General Grant were analyzed, and praised or blamed according to the bias of the speaker or writer. Mr. Blaine always had a warm and ardent support by the younger Republicans in every part of the United States. His brilliant and dashing manner and oratory made him a favorite with all the young and active politicians, but, as he was a bold and active fighter, he had enemies as well as friends. My strength and weakness grew out of my long service in the House, Senate and cabinet, but, as my chief active work was connected with the financial questions, upon which men of all parties differed widely, I had to encounter the objections of all who were opposed to my views on these questions. The idea was that in the certain contest between Grant and Blaine I might be nominated, in case either of them should fail to receive a majority of the votes cast in the convention.
It is scarcely worth while to point out the changes of opinion during the popular discussion that preceded the meeting of the convention of which every newspaper was full, the discussion being universal. Votes were taken and expression of opinion sought in every community in the United States.
My letter book at this time became a curious mixture of business and politics, so that I was early compelled to ask two of my personal friends to take an office, which I furnished them in the Corcoran building in Washington, to answer such letters as grew out of the contest, and as a place where conferences could be held by persons interested in my nomination. In this way I severed all connection between my duties in the treasury and the necessary correspondence caused by my being named as a candidate for President. I was at once charged in the newspaper and even by personal letters, with all sorts of misdemeanors, of which I was not guilty, but which I felt it a humiliation to reply to or even to notice. Among the first was a statement that in some way or other I was under the influence of the Catholic church, and was giving Catholics an undue share of appointments. My answer is here inserted, not as important, but as a specimen of many such communications upon various subjects:
“March 1, 1880.
“My Dear Sir:—Your note of the 20th is received.
“I appreciate your kindness and frankness and will be equally frank with you.
“There is not one shadow of ground for the suspicion stated by you. I was born, bred, educated and ingrained as a Protestant and never had any affinity, directly or indirectly, with the Catholic church, but share the common feelings and prejudices of Protestants against the special dogmas and rites of that church. Still I believe the Catholics have as good a right to their opinions, their mode of worship, and religious belief as we have, and I would not weaken or impair the full freedom of religious belief, or make any contest against them on account of it for all the offices in Christendom. I have no sympathy whatever with the narrow dogmatic hate and prejudice of Mr. Cowles on this subject, though no doubt much of this is caused by the unfortunate fact that his daughter has become a Catholic, and I am charitable enough to take this into consideration when thinking of him. Mrs. General Sherman, it is true, is a Catholic. She was born so and will remain so. She is a good Catholic, however, in good wishes and good works, but has also too much of the dogmatism and intolerance of a sectarian for my ideas. She neither claims to have nor has any sort of influence over me.
“It is a mean business to get up such a prejudice against me when men are so ashamed of it that they are afraid to avow it.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. Geo. H. Foster, Cleveland, Ohio.”
Another allegation made was that I was using the patronage of my office to aid in my nomination. In regard to this I wrote as follows to a friend:
“I think the impression has been made upon the public mind that the patronage of this department has been used in my favor. This ought to be met. Of the two men who parcel out the patronage of this department, one, General Raum, commissioner of internal revenue, is a known personal friend of General Grant, appointed by him, and the great majority of the officers under that bureau are believed to be for General Grant. I have not sought to control any of them. McCormick, my first assistant secretary, was a known Blaine man. The second, Hawley, was a known personal friend of General Grant, and recently resigned to run for nomination as Governor of Illinois. McPherson, a known Blaine man, was chief of the bureau of engraving and printing, which employs some seven hundred people. The officers named have practically made all the appointments in the treasury other than the presidential ones. Probably no one who ever held my position has ever been so utterly indifferent to the distribution of patronage, except that I always insisted that good Republicans should be appointed to every position, small or great. I never inquired who they were for for President. In official letters, a copy of one of which I could furnish you if desired, I gave distinct instructions that I would not permit anyone to remain in the service who was making himself obnoxious to citizens generally, by pressing my claims or advocating my nomination for President by the next national convention, or by opposing me.”
I also soon learned that nearly every applicant whose appointment I could not give or secure harbored this as a reason why I should not be nominated for President, and in three or four cases where the applicants were men of influence they opposed the selection of delegates friendly to me. I do not mention any names, for most of these gentlemen, years afterwards, became my warm friends.
I early announced that unless the State of Ohio would give me a substantial indorsement, my name would not be presented to the convention. James S. Robinson was the chairman of the state committee and A. L. Conger was a prominent member. They disagreed as to the time of holding the state convention for the appointment of delegates to the national convention, which my friends were anxious to have at as early a period as possible, so that the position of Ohio might be known to, and possibly influence the action of, other states. The disagreement between these two gentlemen resulted in a postponement of the convention until a period so late that before it met most of the delegations were selected by the other states. That was thought to be inimical to my success, and led to ill-will and contention. Governor Dennison and Governor Foster had frankly and openly avowed their purpose to support my nomination, and actively did so. They advised me of the condition of opinion from time to time, and early represented that I might reasonably expect the support of all the districts, except perhaps those represented by Garfield and McKinley, and the Toledo district.
I went to Mansfield on private business about the latter part of March, and as usual was called upon to make a speech, which I did, at Miller’s Hall, on the 31st of March, and which was reported in full at the time. I stated my position in regard to the nomination, as follows:
“By the course of recent events, and not by my own seeking, my name is mentioned among those from whom the Republican party will select one to carry its banner in the approaching presidential contest. It is not egotistic to state this fact, and it would not be manly to shrink from the criticism and scrutiny which such a choice necessarily invites and provokes.
“I accepted the position without a pretense of mock modesty, because I do not think it right to allow friends to put themselves to trouble on my account without a frank avowal that I was willing to accept, and without delaying until certain of success; but with a firm determination not to detract from the merits or services of others, nor to seek this lofty elevation by dishonorable means or lying evasions or pretense. In this way, and in this way only, am I a candidate; but with great doubt whether, if nominated, I would meet the expectation of friends, and resolved in case of failure that I will abide, cheerfully and kindly, by the choice of the convention.
“There is one condition, scarcely necessary to state, upon which my candidacy depends, and that is, if the Republicans of Ohio do not fairly and fully, in their convention, express a preference for me, and support me with substantial unanimity in the national convention, my name will not be presented to that convention with my consent.
“This, fellow-citizens, is about all, and is perhaps more than I ought to say about personal matters, for in the great contest in which we are about to engage, the hopes, ambitions, and even the lives, of men, are of but little account compared with the issues involved.”
I proceeded, then, to discuss the political questions of the day.
During the month of April delegates were selected from the different congressional districts of the state to attend the state convention, to meet on the 28th of that month. Prior to the convention the question of the nomination was the subject of discussion in every district. The sentiment in my favor was clearly expressed in nearly every county or district of the state. On the 8th of April I wrote the following letter to a friend:
“McKinley is still in Ohio, and I presume will be there for some days. I have to-day written to him at Canton covering the points you name. You had better write to him yourself giving the list of appointments desired.
“There is a strong feeling that Garfield, in order to save his district, should go to the Chicago convention as a delegate. He is placed in a very awkward attitude now. If this district should be against my nomination it would be attributed to either want of influence on his part, or, what is worse, a want of sincerity in my support. In view of the past this would be a very unfortunate thing for him. This is a delicate matter for me to take any part in, and I leave it entirely to your good judgment and kind friendship.”
While in Ohio I had a consultation, at Columbus, with Governor Foster, ex-Governor Dennison, and a number of other personal friends, all of whom expressed great confidence that by the time the state convention met, the friendly feeling in favor of Blaine, in some of the districts of Ohio, would be waived in deference to the apparent wishes of the great majority. In that event, in case my nomination should prove impracticable, the whole delegation could be very easily changed to Mr. Blaine. As to General Grant, though he had many warm personal friends in Ohio, yet, on account of objections to a third term, very few desired his nomination.
Prior to the state convention I had an interview with General Garfield which he sought at my office in the department, and he there expressed his earnest desire to secure my nomination and his wish to be a delegate at large, so that he might aid me effectively. He had been chosen, with little or no opposition, United States Senator, to fill the place of Thurman, whose term expired March 4, 1881. I had not a doubt of the support of Governor Foster, with whom I had been in close correspondence, and who expressed a strong desire for my nomination. I was permitted practically to name the four delegates at large, and had implicit confidence that these delegates would take the lead in my behalf.
The state convention, which met on the 28th of April, was exceptionally large, and was composed of the leading Republicans of Ohio, who proceeded at once to the business before them. The persons named by the convention as delegates at large to the national convention, to assemble in Chicago on June 2, were William Dennison, James A. Garfield, Charles Foster and Warner M. Bateman, who were instructed for me. The following resolution of the convention expressed the preference of the Republicans of Ohio in favor of my nomination, and recommended that the vote of the state be cast for me:
“Resolved, That the great ability, invaluable services, long experience, full and exalted character, and unwavering fidelity to Republican principles of our distinguished fellow-citizen, John Sherman, entitle him to the honors and confidence of the Republican party of Ohio, and of the country. His matchless skill and courage as a financier have mainly contributed to accomplish the invaluable and difficult work of resumption and refunding the public debt, and made him the trusted representative, in public life, of the business interests of all classes of the American people. He has been trained from the beginning of his public life in advocacy of the rights of man, and no man has been more unfaltering in his demand that the whole power of the government should be used to protect the colored people of the south from unlawful violence and unfriendly local legislation. And in view of his services to his country, and his eminent ability as a statesman, we, the Republican party of Ohio, present him to the Republican party of the country, as a fit candidate for president, and respectfully urge upon the Republican convention at Chicago, his nomination, and the district delegates are respectfully requested to vote for his nomination.”
The trend of public sentiment, as shown by the newspaper, indicated that Grant and Blaine would each have a very strong following in the national convention, but that the contest between them might lead to my nomination. After the state convention, it was generally assumed that I would receive the united vote of the delegation in conformity with the expression of opinion by the convention. During this period a few leading men, whose names I do not care to mention, made a combination of those unfriendly to me, and agreed to disregard the preference declared by the state convention.
During the month of May the feeling in my favor increased, and many of the leading papers in New York and in the eastern states advocated my nomination as a compromise candidate.
At this time I was in constant communication with General Garfield, by letters and also by interviews, as we were both in Washington. On the 10th of May he wrote me:
“I think it will be a mistake for us to assume a division in the Ohio delegation. We should meet and act as though we were of one mind, until those delegates who are hostile to you refuse to act with us, and if we fail to win them over, the separation will be their act, not ours.”
The national convention met June 2, 1880. It was called to order in the Exposition Hall, Chicago, by Senator J. Donald Cameron, and a temporary organization, with Senator George F. Hoar as president, was soon perfected. An effort was made by the friends of General Grant to adopt the unit rule, which would allow a majority of each state to determine the vote of the entire delegation. This was rejected.
Four days were occupied in perfecting the permanent organization, and the nomination of candidates for President. During this time a minority of nine of the delegation of Ohio announced their determination to vote for Blaine. This was a fatal move for Blaine, and undoubtedly led to his defeat. Nearly four-fifths of the delegation were in favor of my nomination, in pursuance of the express wishes of the Ohio convention, but they were all friendly to Blaine, and whenever it should have become apparent that my nomination was impracticable, the whole delegation could easily have been carried for him without a division, and thus have secured his nomination. The action of those nine delegates, who refused to carry out the wishes of the state convention, prevented the possibility of the vote of Ohio being cast for Mr. Blaine.
Long before the convention I had declared, in a published interview, that “Blaine is a splendid man, able and eminently fit for President. If nominated he will find no one giving him a heartier support than myself.” We were connected by early ties of association and kinship, and had been and were then warm friends. Blaine, when confident of the nomination, said of me: “To no living man does the American people owe a deeper debt of gratitude than to John Sherman, for giving them resumption with all its blessings. As Secretary of the Treasury he has been the success of the age. He is as eminently fit for President as any man in America, and should he be nominated all I am capable of doing will be done to aid in his election. Should it be my fortune to become President, or should it fall to the lot of any Republican, no one elected could afford to do less than invite Secretary Sherman to remain where he is.” The folly of a few men made co-operation impracticable. I received opposition in Ohio from his pretended friends, and he therefore lost the Ohio delegation, which, but for this defection, would have made his nomination sure had I failed to receive it.
The speech of General Garfield nominating me has always been regarded as a specimen of brilliant eloquence rarely surpassed, the close of which I insert:
“You ask for his monuments. I point you to twenty-five years of national statutes. Not one great beneficent law has been placed on our statute books without his intelligent and powerful aid. He aided to formulate the laws that raised our great armies, and carried us through the war. His hand was seen in the workmanship of those statutes that restored the unity of the states. His hand was in all that great legislation that created the war currency, and in a still greater work that redeemed the promise of the government, and made our currency the equal of gold. And when at last called from the halls of legislation into a high executive office, he displayed that experience, intelligence, firmness, and poise of character which has carried us through a stormy period. The great fiscal affairs of the nation, and the great business interests of our country, he has preserved, while executing the law of resumption and effecting its object, without a jar, and against the false prophecies of one-half the press and all the Democracy of this continent. He has shown himself able to meet with calmness the great emergencies of the government for twenty-five years. He has trodden the perilous heights of public duty, and against all the shafts of malice has borne his breast unharmed. He has stood in the blaze of ‘that fierce light that beats upon a throne,’ but its fiercest ray has found no flaw in his armor, no stain on his shield.”
On the first ballot 9 of the Ohio delegation voted for Mr. Blaine, 34 for me, and 1 for Edmunds. The general result was 304 for Grant, 284 for Blaine, 93 for Sherman, 34 for Edmunds, 30 for Washburne, 10 for Windom. The vote of my friends would have nominated Blaine at any period of the convention, but under the conditions then existing it was impossible to secure this vote to either Blaine or Grant.
The final result was the selection of a new candidate and the nomination of Garfield.
It is probable that if I had received the united vote of the Ohio delegation I would have been nominated, as my relations with both General Grant and Mr. Blaine were of a friendly character, but it is hardly worth while to comment on what might have been. The course of the Ohio delegation was the object of severe comment, and perhaps of unfounded suspicions of perfidy on the part of some of the delegates.
As soon as I heard of the movement to nominate Garfield I sent the following telegram to Mr. Dennison:
“Washington, June 8, 1880.
“Hon. William Dennison, Convention, Chicago, Ill.
“Whenever the vote of Ohio will be likely to assure the nomination of Garfield, I appeal to every delegate to vote for him. Let Ohio be solid. Make the same appeal in my name to North Carolina and every delegate who has voted for me.
“John Sherman.”
The moment the nomination was made I sent the following dispatch to Garfield at Chicago:
“Washington, June 8, 1880.
“Hon. James A. Garfield, Chicago, Ill.
“I congratulate you with all my heart upon your nomination as President of the United States. You have saved the Republican party and the country from a great peril, and assured the continued success of Republican principles.
“John Sherman.”
I understood that the health of Governor Dennison, who had faithfully represented me in the national convention, was somewhat impaired by his confinement there, and invited him to join me in a sail on the Chesapeake Bay, spending a few days at different points. He accepted and we had a very enjoyable trip for about ten days.
During this trip I wrote, for the 4th of July issue of the New York “Independent,” an article on Virginia and state rights. I had promised to do this some time before but could not find an opportunity, and availed myself of the quiet of the cruise to fulfill my promise. The history of Virginia has always had for me a peculiar interest, mainly because of the leading part taken by that state in the American Revolution. The great natural resources of the state had been neglected, the fertility of the soil on the eastern shore had been exhausted, and no efforts had been made to develop the vast mineral wealth in the mountains along its western border. The destruction of slavery and the breaking up of the large farms and plantations had discouraged its people, and I thought, by an impartial statement of its undeveloped resources, I might excite their attention and that of citizens of other states to the wealth under its soil. This article, written in a friendly spirit, excited the attention and approval of many citizens of the state, and brought me many letters of thanks.
In time I became thoroughly advised of what occurred at the Chicago convention and had become entirely reconciled to the result, though frequently afterwards I heard incidents and details which occasioned me great pain and which seemed to establish the want of sincerity on the part of some of the delegates, and tended to show that for some time before the meeting of the convention the nomination of General Garfield had been agreed upon. After its close I had numerous letters from delegates of other states, complaining bitterly of the conduct of the Ohio delegation and giving this as a reason why they had not voted for me. I was assured that large portions of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other delegations, had notified General Foster that they were ready to vote for me whenever their vote was required, but no such request came from him. The matter had been made the subject of public discussion in the newspapers. I was content with the result, but was deeply wounded by what I could not but regard as a breach of faith on the part of some of the Ohio delegation, and especially of Governor Foster, who had been fully advised of my feelings in regard to his course. I received a letter from him, on the 23rd of June, answering the allegations that had been publicly made in regard to him, and explaining his action. In reply I wrote him the following letter:
“Washington, D. C., June 30, 1880. “Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 23rd came while I was still absent on the Chesapeake Bay. I regret that I did not see you, for a free conversation would be far more satisfactory than letter writing.
“I wish to be perfectly frank with you, as since I first became acquainted with you I have felt for you warm friendship, and have always had entire confidence in you. I confess, however, that the information I received in regard to your operations at Chicago had greatly weakened this feeling and left a painful impression upon my mind that you had not done by me as I would have done by you under like circumstances. Your letter chased away much of this impression, and, perhaps, the better way would be for me to write no more, but to treat your letter as entirely satisfactory and conclusive. Still I think it right for me to give you the general basis of the impressions I had formed.
“My first impulse was to send you at once a mass of letters from delegates and others attending the convention, but this would only create a controversy, and, perhaps, betray confidence, which I could not do. The general purport of these letters is that, while you spoke freely and kindly of me, yet there was always a kind of reserve in favor of Blaine and a hesitation in pressing me that indicated a divided opinion, that partly by the divisions in the Ohio delegation and partly by the halfway support of yourself, and, perhaps others, the Ohio delegation lost its moral strength and, practically, defeated me before any ballot was had.
“This general impression I could have passed by, but it was distinctly stated to me, by delegates and friends of delegates present at the convention, that they proffered the votes of large portions of their respective delegations to you with the understanding that they were to be cast for me whenever you indicated the proper moment. This was specifically said as to Indiana, Massachusetts, Connecticut and the Blaine portion of the Pennsylvania delegation. It was said that you prevented Massachusetts from voting for me from about the tenth to the fifteenth ballot on Monday, that nine of the Connecticut delegates held themselves ready to vote for me on your call, but that you put it off, and Harrison is quoted as saying that twenty-six votes from Indiana were ready to be cast for me on Monday, at any time after a few ballots, but they were withheld on account of representations from the Ohio delegation. Mr. Billings, of Vermont, is quoted as saying that the Vermont delegation, with two or three exceptions, were ready to vote for me, but were discontented with the position taken by you, and doubted whether you desired their vote for me.
“These and many other allegations of similar import, coming one after the other, led me to believe that you had changed the position you took in the early part of the canvass, and had come to the conclusion that it was not wise to nominate me, and that other arrangements for your future influenced you in changing your opinion. This impression caused me more pain than anything that has transpired since the beginning of the contest.
“I assure you I have no regrets over the results of the convention. Indeed, the moment it was over, I felt a sense of relief that I had not had for six months.
“The nomination of Garfield is entirely satisfactory to me. The only shade that rests on this feeling is the fact that Garfield went there by my selection to represent me and comes from the convention with the honor that I sought. I will do him the justice to say that I have seen no evidence that he has contributed to this result except by his good conduct in the presence of the convention. I had always looked with great favor upon the contingency that if I was not nominated after a fair and full trial and Blaine was, you would be the candidate for the Vice Presidency, and had frequently said to mutual friends that this was my desire. The contingency of Garfield’s nomination I did not consider, for I supposed that as he was secure in the Senate for six years, he would not desire the presidential nomination, but as it has come to him without his self-seeking it is honorable and right and I have no cause of complaint. If I believed that he had used the position I gave him to supplant me, I would consider it dishonorable and would not support him; but, while such statements have been made to me, I feel bound to say that I have never seen nor heard from credible sources any ground for such an imputation, and, therefore, he shall have my earnest and hearty support.
“There are one or two features of this canvass that leave a painful impression upon me. The first is that the opposition to me in Ohio was unreasonable, without cause, either springing from corrupt or bad motives, or from such trivial causes as would scarcely justify the pouting of a schoolboy.
“I receive your frank statement with confidence and act upon it, will treat you, as of old, with hearty good will and respect, and will give no further credence to the stories I hear. You can have no knowledge of the extent of the accusations that have been made against you.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. Charles Foster, Columbus, Ohio.”
With this letter I sought to divest myself of all feeling or prejudice growing out of the recent canvass.
At the close of the fiscal year and the preparation of the usual statements made at that time, there was a period of rest, of which I availed myself by taking an excursion along our northeastern coast. The quiet of the voyage, the salt air, and the agreeable companions, were a great relief from the confinement and anxiety of the previous months. Upon my return to New York from this outing, on the 19th of July, I found two letters from General Garfield, both relating to the progress of the canvass, and asking my opinion of his letter of acceptance. In reply I wrote him:
“New York, July 19, 1880. “My Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 16th was received by me this morning. When I left Washington, about the 1st of July, I felt very much debilitated by the heat and by the long mental struggle through which I had passed. I have had the benefit now of three weeks quiet and rest, mostly on the ocean, avoiding, whenever possible, all political talk, and feel, in consequence, greatly refreshed and invigorated. I take the outward voyage via Fortress Monroe to Washington, arriving there on Thursday.
“I received the telegraphic invitation to speak at Chicago but could not accept, as I must give some relief to French and Upton upon my return.
“I have received letters and telegrams from Nash about his proposed canvass, and highly approve it. I do not see, however, how it is possible for me to prepare a speech during the present month. I now propose to write a political letter in response to one from Chicago, which I believe will have a wider circulation than a campaign speech. During the latter part of August or the first of September, which is as early as the active campaign ought really to commence, I will be prepared to make several speeches in Ohio, and, perhaps, in other states. This is my present plan. I regard Indiana and New York as the pivotal states, and there the struggle should be.
“Your letter of acceptance I approve heartily, although I thought you yielded a little too much in one or two sentences on the civil service question. Although politicians have undertaken to ridicule and belittle the efforts of President Hayes to bring about some sort of civil service reform, yet the necessity of such a reform is so ingrafted in the minds of the leading sensible people of the northern states that anything like an abandonment of that idea will not meet favor. I agree with you that it can only be done by the co-operation of Congress, and it would be a great stroke of public policy if Congress could be prevailed upon to pass a law prescribing a reasonable tenure for civil office, with such guards against arbitrary removals as would make the incumbents somewhat independent in their opinions and actions. I had a conversation with Fletcher Harper, at Long Beach, on Saturday, which leads me to think that he is anxious upon this subject and also upon the financial question.
“The silver law threatens to produce within a year or so a single silver standard, and already there is a feeling of uneasiness in New York as to whether we can maintain resumption upon the gold standard while the silver law remains. I could at any moment, by issuing silver freely, bring a crisis upon this question, but while I hold my present office I certainly will not do so, until the gold reserve is practically converted into silver, a process that is going on now at the rate of nearly two millions a month. I have no fear, however, of being forced to this issue during my term, and I hope Congress will come together next winter in such temper that it may arrest the coinage of the silver dollar, if it will not change the ratio. This question, however, is a very delicate one to discuss in popular assemblages, and I propose, therefore, in my speeches, to make only the faintest allusions to it, not surrendering, however, our views upon the subject, for upon this, I take it, we are entirely agreed.
“I feel very hopeful of success. In this state business men are generally satisfied, and your support is so strong that, even if inclined, the Conkling Republicans will not dare oppose or shirk the contest. I hear different stories about Conkling, but believe that in due time he will do what he can, though his influence is greatly overrated. A too active support by him would excite the prejudices of hosts of people here who are determined not to follow where he leads.
“Very sincerely yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. James A. Garfield, Mentor, O.”
After the 19th of July I was at my desk, busily engaged in the routine duties of my office, until, in accordance with the following request of General Garfield, I visited New York to attend a conference of Republicans, as to the conduct of the pending canvass:
“Mentor, O., July 31, 1880. “Dear Mr. Sherman:—I understand that the national Republican committee have asked you to meet with them for consultation, in New York, on the 5th prox.
“At their unanimous and urgent request, I have reluctantly consented to attend, but I shall esteem it a great favor if you will also go.
“Very truly yours,
“J. A. Garfield.
“Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.”
More than two hundred prominent Republicans from all parts of the country met on the 5th of August, among whom were Senators Blaine and Logan, Marshall Jewell, Thurlow Weed, and Edwards Pierrepont. I was called upon to make an address. The only passage I wish to quote is this:
“The Republican party comes before the business men of this country —with all its evidences of reviving prosperity everywhere—and asks whether they will resign all these great affairs to the solid south, headed by Wade Hampton and the Ku-Klux Klan, and a little segment of these northern states, calling themselves the Democratic party.”
More than a month afterwards, Governor Hampton wrote me a letter complaining of my connecting him with the “Ku-Klux Klan,” and the following correspondence ensued:
“Doggers’ Springs, September 17, 1880.
“To Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.
“Sir:—Some days ago I saw a report of your speech at a conference held by the national Republican committee, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York, and you were quoted as having used the following language: ‘And now you are asked to surrender all you have done into the hands of Wade Hampton and the Ku-Klux, and the little segment in the north that is called the Democratic party.’ May I ask if you used these words, and, if you did so, did you mean to connect me, directly or indirectly, with what was known as the Ku-Klux Klan?
“Requesting an early reply, addressed to me, care of Augustus Schell, Esq., New York, I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“Wade Hampton.”
“Washington, D. C., September 21, 1880. “Hon. Wade Hampton, care of Augustus Schell, Esq., New York.
“Sir:—Your note of the 17th inst. is received, in which you inquire whether, at the conference held by the national Republican committee, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York, I used the language attributed to me as follows: ‘And now you are asked to surrender all you have done into the hands of Wade Hampton and the Ku-Klux, and the little segment in the north that is called the Democratic party.’ In reply, I have to advise you, that while I do not remember the precise language, I presume the reporter correctly stated, in a condensed way, his idea of what I said. I no doubt spoke of you as the leading representative of the Democratic party in the south, and referred to the Ku-Klux Klan as the representative of the barbarous agencies by which the Democrats have subverted the civil and political rights of the Republicans of the south.
“I did not connect you personally with the Ku-Klux Klan. Indeed, I knew that you had, in one or two important instances, resisted and defeated its worst impulses. I appreciate the sense of honor which makes you shrink from being named in connection with it. Still, you and your associates, leading men in the south, now enjoy benefits of political power derived from the atrocities of the Ku-Klux Klan, in which phrase I include all the numerous aliases by which it has, from time to time, been known in the south. Your power in the southern states rests upon the actual crimes of every grade in the code of crimes—from murder to the meanest form of ballot-box stuffing committed by the Ku-Klux Klan and its kindred associates, and, as you know, some of the worst of them were committed since 1877, when you and your associates gave the most solemn assurance of protection to the freedmen of the south.
“These crimes are all aimed at the civil political rights of Republicans in the south, and, as I believe, but for these agencies, the very state that you represent, as well as many other states in the south, would be represented, both in the Senate and House, by Republicans. But for these crimes the boast attributed to you, that one hundred and thirty-eight solid southern votes would be cast for the Democratic ticket, would be but idle vaporing; but now we feel that it is a sober truth.
“While I have no reason to believe that you or your northern associates personally participated in the offenses I have named, yet, while you and they enjoy the fruits of these crimes, you may, in logic and morals be classed as I classed you, as joint copartners with the Ku-Klux Klan in the policy which thus far has been successful in seizing political power in the south, and which it is hoped, by the aid of the small segment of the Democratic party in the north, may be extended to all the departments of the government. It is in this sense that I spoke of you, the Ku-Klux Klan and the northern Democratic party.
“Permit me, in conclusion, while frankly answering your question, to say the most fatal policy for the south would be by such agencies as I have mentioned to secure again political ascendency in this country, for I assure you that the manhood and independence of the north will certainly continue the struggle until every Republican in the south shall have free and unrestricted enjoyment of equal civil and political privileges, including a fair vote, a fair count, free speech and free press, and agitation made necessary to secure such results may greatly affect injuriously the interests of the people of the south.
“Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“John Sherman.”
“Charlottesville, Va., October 1, 1880.
“To Hon. John Sherman.
“Sir:—Your letter has been received. As you do not disclaim the language to which I called your attention, I have only to say that in using it you uttered what was absolutely false, and what you knew to be false. My address will be Columbia, S. C.
“I am your obedient servant,
“Wade Hampton.”
“Treasury Department, }
“Washington, D. C., October 18, 1880.}
“To Hon. Wade Hampton, Columbia, S. C.
“I have to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 1st inst., handed me unopened by Mr. C. McKinley, a few moments ago, after my return from the west. I had this morning read what purported to be an extract of a speech made by you, published in the Charleston ‘News and Courier,’ and upon your general reputation as a gentleman had denied that you had made such a speech or written such a letter as is attributed to you in that paper. What I stated to you in my letter of September 21, I believe to be true, notwithstanding your denial, and it can be shown to be true by public records and as a matter of history. As you had, long before your letter was delivered to me, seen proper to make a public statement of your views of the correspondence, I will give it to the press without note or comment, and let the public decide between us.
“Very respectfully,
“John Sherman.”
This correspondence excited a good deal of attention, and broke off all social relations between us. We afterwards served for many years in the Senate together, but had no intercourse with each other except formal recognition while I was president of the Senate. I always regretted this, for I did not feel the slightest enmity to General Hampton, and recognized the fact that while enjoying the office he held as the result of the crimes of the Klan, yet he and his colleague, M. C. Butler, were among the most conservative and agreeable gentlemen in the Senate, and the offenses with which I connected his name were committed by his constituents and not by himself.
CHAPTER XLI. MY LAST YEAR IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. Opening of the 1880 Campaign in Cincinnati—My First Speech Arraigned as “Bitterly Partisan”—Letter from Garfield Regarding the Maine Election—Ohio Thought to Be in Doubt—Many Requests for Speeches —Republican Ticket Elected in Ohio and Indiana—A Strange Warning from Detroit Threatening Garfield with Assassination—The Latter’s Reply—My Doubts About Remaining in the Treasury Department or Making an Effort for the Senate—Letter to Dalzell—Last Annual Report to Congress in December, 1880—Recommendations Regarding Surplus Revenue, Compulsory Coinage of the Silver Dollar, the Tariff, etc.—Bills Acted Upon by Congress.
During July and August I received many invitations to speak on political topics, but declined all until about the 1st of September. In anticipation of the election of Garfield, and his resignation as Senator, I was, as early as July, tendered the support of several members of the legislature who had voted for him for Senator, and who wished to vote for me in case he resigned. I replied that I would prefer the position of Senator to any other, that I resigned my seat in the Senate to accept the office of Secretary of the Treasury, and would be gratified by a return to my old position, but only in case it came to me as the hearty choice of the general assembly. During the month of August the two assistant secretaries, who had been for a year confined to the department and upon whom the duties of secretary had devolved during my recent absence, went on their usual vacation, so that I was fully occupied during office hours with the routine business of the department.
My first speech of the campaign was made on Monday, the 30th of August, in Cincinnati. It was carefully prepared, and delivered in substance as printed. My habit has been for many years, at the beginning of a political canvass, to write or dictate a speech and hand it to the press associations, to be printed in the newspapers only after the speech is made. This is done for the convenience of the press and to secure an accurate report. The speech at Cincinnati, thus prepared, was not read by me, but I spoke from briefs which enabled me to substantially follow it. Subsequent speeches had to vary according to the nature and mood of the audience, or the political subject exciting local interest and attention. At Cincinnati I gave a comparison of the principles, tendency, and achievements of the two great parties, and the reasons why the Democratic party wanted a change in the executive branch of the government. I contrasted the aims and policy of that party, at each presidential election from 1860 to 1880, with those of the Republican party, and expressed my opinion of the effects that would have followed their success at each of those elections. I stated in detail the results secured during the last four years by the election of a Republican President. These included the resumption of specie payments, the refunding and the steady reduction of the public debt, the faithful collection of the revenue, economy of public expenditures, and business prosperity for which I gave the causes, all of which were opposed or denied by the Democratic party. I entered into detail on the measures proposed by the then Democratic Congress, the motive of them, and the ruinous effects they would produce, and alleged that the changes proposed were dictated by the same policy that was adopted by Buchanan and the active leaders of the War of the Rebellion and by the corrupt power that controlled the city of New York. I replied to the charges of fraud made as to the election of President Hayes, that the alleged fraud consisted in the judgment of the electoral commission created by the Democrats that Hayes was duly elected. I narrated the gross crimes of the Ku-Klux Klan and kindred associations to control the elections in the south, and the attempted bribery of an elector in Oregon.
This speech was arraigned as bitterly partisan, but it was justified by facts proven by the strongest evidence. I have recently carefully read it, and, while I confess that its tone was bitter and partisan, yet the allegations were clearly justified. At this time such fraud and violence could not be practiced in the south, for the tendency of events has quieted public sentiment. The lapse of time has had a healing effect upon both sections, and it is to be hoped that hereafter parties will not be divided on sectional lines.
The Cincinnati speech had one merit, in that it furnished speakers and the public the exact statistics of our financial condition in advance of my annual report to Congress in December. I made speeches each week day in Ohio and Indiana until the 11th of September, when I returned to Washington.
The election in Maine, which occurred early in September, was unfavorable to the Republican party, and caused General Garfield some uneasiness. He wrote me the following letter:
“Mentor, Ohio, September 17, 1880.
“Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.
“My Dear Sir:—Yours of the 15th inst. is received. I hear in many ways the same account which you give of the cause of our falling off in Maine. The latest news indicates that we have carried the election after all, but our people claimed too much, and the moral effect of it may be bad in some of the doubtful states. Still, so far as I can see, every Republican is more aroused and determined than ever.
“I think we should now throw all our force into Indiana and Ohio until the October election. Indiana is now more thoroughly organized by our people than it has been for many years, and I believe that nothing can defeat us, except importations and purchases by the Democracy. I have not known the Republicans of that state so confident in six years as they now are, and every available help should be given them to win the fight. I have learned certainly that the Democrats intend to make a powerful raid upon Ohio, for the double purpose of beating us if they can, and specially in hopes that they may draw off our forces in Indiana.
“I know you can accomplish a great deal, even while you are in Washington, but I hope you will give as much time as possible to the canvass here and in Indiana—especially give us the last ten days.
“Very truly yours,
“J. A. Garfield.”
I replied on the 22nd of September that the assured election of Plaisted, the fusion electoral ticket in Maine, and many things in my correspondence, made me feel exceedingly anxious about the result of the election, that my advices from Ohio were not satisfactory, and I felt that we must exert ourselves to the utmost to insure victory at our October election. “I think from my standpoint here,” I said, “I can get more certain indications of public opinion than anyone can while canvassing. I therefore have determined to go to Ohio the latter part of this week, and to devote the balance of the time, until the election, to the campaign.” I also advised him that I had arranged to have several other speakers go to Ohio.
To this he replied:
“Mentor, Ohio, September 25, 1880. “My Dear Sir:—Yours of the 22nd inst. is received. I am glad that you are coming back to take part in the canvass. Within the last ten days it has become evident that money is being used in large amounts in various parts of this state. Reports of this come to me in so many independent ways that I cannot doubt it. I was in Toledo on the 22nd to attend the reunion of the ‘Army of the Cumberland,’ and my friends there were thoroughly alarmed. They said the Democrats had an abundance of money, and that those in Toledo were contributing more than they had done for many years.
“I think our friends should push the business aspect of the campaign with greater vigor than they are doing, especially the tariff question which so deeply affects the interests of manufacturers and laborers. The argument of the ’solid south’ is well enough in its way, and ought not to be overlooked, but we should also press those questions which lie close to the homes and interests of our own people.
“Very truly yours,
“J. A. Garfield.
“Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.”
About this period I received an invitation to speak in New York, but doubted the policy of accepting, and answered as follows:
“Washington, D. C., September 20, 1880. “My Dear Sir:—Your note of the 17th, inviting me to address the citizens of New York, under the auspices of your club, during the campaign, is received. Please accept my thanks for the courteous manner in which your invitation is expressed.
“I will be compelled to remain here until the 4th of October and then go to Ohio and Indiana to engage in the canvass, which will carry me to the 15th or 16th of October. I have been urged also to go to Chicago and Milwaukee, and have made promises in several cities in the eastern states, especially in Brooklyn; so that I do not see how it is possible for me to accept your kind invitation. I have also some doubt whether it would be politic to do so. It seems to be the determination of a certain class of Republicans in New York to ignore or treat with dislike President Hayes and his administration, and to keep alive the division of opinion as to the removal of Arthur. From my view of the canvass the strength of our position now is in the honesty and success of the administration. While I have no desire to contrast it with General Grant’s, yet the contrast would be greatly in favor of President Hayes. The true policy is to rise above these narrow family divisions, and, without disparagement of any Republican, unite in the most active and zealous efforts against the common enemy. Senator Conkling does not seem to have the capacity to do this, and the body of his following seems to sympathize with him. I doubt, therefore, whether my appearance in New York would not tend to make divisions rather than to heal them, to do harm rather than good. I am so earnestly desirous to succeed in the election that I would even forgo a self-defense to advance the cause.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. B. F. Manierre, Ch. Rep. Central Campaign Club, New York.”
On the first of October I left Washington for Mansfield and spoke at a mass meeting there on Saturday evening, the 2nd. The canvass on both sides was very active and meetings were being held in all parts of the state. The meeting at Mansfield held in the open square both in the afternoon and evening, was very large. I spoke each day except Sunday during the following week, at different places in Ohio and Indiana. Confidence in Republican success grew stronger as the October election approached. After the vote was cast it was found that the Republican state ticket was elected by a large majority in both these states. In pursuance of previous engagements, I spoke at Chicago, Racine, and Milwaukee, after the October election. The speeches at Chicago and Milwaukee were reported in full and were circulated as campaign documents. During the latter part of the month of October I spoke at the city of Washington and in Bridgeport, Norwalk and New Haven, Connecticut, and at Cooper Institute in the city of New York, and then returned home to vote at the November election.
The result was the election of a large majority of Republican electors and the certainty of their voting for Garfield and Arthur as President and Vice President of the United States. I had done all that it was possible for me to do to bring about that result and rejoiced as heartily as anyone, for I thoroughly believed in the necessity of maintaining Republican ascendency in the United States, at least until a time when the success of the opposite party would not endanger any of the national results of the war or the financial policy of President Hayes’ administration.
On the day after the election General Garfield wrote me the following letter:
“Mentor, Ohio, November 4, 1880. “My Dear Sir:—Yours of the 1st inst. came duly to hand, and was read with much interest. The success of the election is very gratifying. The distrust of the solid south, and of adverse financial legislation, have been the chief factors in the contest. I think also that the country wanted to rebuke the attempt of the Democrats to narrow the issue to the low level of personal abuse. I am sure that all our friends agree with me that you have done very important and efficient work in the campaign.
“I may go to Washington before long to look after my personal affairs. If I do not, I hope to have some other opportunity of seeing you.
“Very truly yours,
“J. A. Garfield.
“Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.”
I received a letter from a Mr. Hudson, of Detroit, which expressed a fear that General Garfield was in serious danger of assassination, giving particulars. I sent it at once to Garfield, and received from him the following answer, very significant in view of the tragedy that occurred the following summer:
“Mentor, O., November 16, 1880. “My Dear Sir:—The letter of Mr. Hudson, of Detroit, with your indorsement, came duly to hand. I do not think there is any serious danger in the direction to which he refers, though I am receiving what I suppose to be the usual number of threatening letters on that subject. Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; and it is not best to worry about either. I expect to go to Washington before long to close up some household affairs, and I shall hope to see you.
“With kind regard, I am, very truly yours,
“J. A. Garfield.
“Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.”
Immediately after the election of General Garfield, and until the 18th of December, there was a continuous discussion as to who should be the successor to Senator Thurman. This was the senatorship to which Garfield had been elected and now declined to fill. I received many letters from members of the legislature expressing their wish that I should be restored to the Senate, and offering to vote for me. They generally assumed that I would have the choice between remaining in the treasury department under President Garfield and becoming a candidate for the Senate. Among the letters received by me was one from Mr. Thorpe, a member from Ashtabula county, Ohio, and a personal friend. I thought it right to tell him frankly the dilemma in which I was placed by the discussion in the papers. This letter expressed my feelings in regard to the matter and I therefore insert it:
“Washington, D. C., November 15, 1880. “My Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 11th relieves me from some embarrassment. I am very thankful to you for the tender of your services and continued hearty friendship. I will avail myself of it to tell you confidentially the difficulty under which I labor.
“The letter to Dalzell was not intended for publication, but was simply a hurried reply to one of two or three long letters received from him. Still the letter stated in substance my feeling, and he probably intended no wrong but rather thought he would benefit me. Both before and since, I have been overwhelmed with letters remonstrating against my leaving my present position, as if I had any choice.
“As a matter of course, General Garfield must decide this without haste and free from all embarrassment, but in the meantime I am at a loss what to do. I cannot properly say to my correspondents that I would stay in the treasury if invited to do so, nor can I ask gentlemen to commit themselves until they know definitely what I wish. I cannot afford to be a candidate unless I expect to succeed. I believe, from information already received, that I can succeed, but only after a struggle that is distasteful to me, and which I cannot well afford. I can only act upon the assumption that General Garfield will desire to make an entire change in his cabinet, and upon that basis I would gladly return to the Senate as the only position I could hold, or, if there was any doubt about election, I would cheerfully and without discontent retire from public life. I have now at least a dozen unanswered letters on my table from members of the legislature, tendering their services, and stating that I ought to explicitly inform them my wishes, most of them assuming that I have a choice. I intend to answer them generally that, if elected, I would consider it the highest honor and I would then accept and serve. So I say to you: If I enter the canvass I must depend upon my friends without being able to aid them actively, and with every advantage in the possession of Foster. Such a contest, I see, will open up trouble enough in the politics of Ohio, whatever may be the result. With this explicit statement you will understand best how to proceed. I would regard the support of Senator Perkins as of the utmost importance. After awhile I can give you the names of a score at least of others who avow their preference for me.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.
“Hon. F. Thorpe, Geneva, O.”
The letter to Dalzell referred to was hastily and carelessly written, without any expectation of its publication. It was as follows:
“To Hon. J. M. Dalzell, Caldwell, Ohio.
“My Dear Sir:—Your kind note of the 4th is received, for which please accept my thanks. I prefer to do precisely what you recommend, await the judgment of the general assembly of Ohio, unbiased by any expression of my wish in the matter referred to. I do not know what is the desire of General Garfield, but I can see that my election might relieve him from embarrassment and free to do as he thinks best in the formation of his cabinet. Again thanking you for your kind offer, I am very truly yours,
“John Sherman.”
The papers, while taking sides between Foster and myself, exaggerated the danger and importance of the contest and thus unduly excited the public mind, for either of us would have cheerfully acquiesced in the decision of the general assembly. Strong appeals were made to Foster to withdraw, especially after it was known that I would not be Secretary of the Treasury in the incoming administration. No such appeals came to me, nor did I take any part in the controversy, but maintained throughout the position taken in my letter to Mr. Thorpe.
In November, 1880, I was engaged in the preparation of my annual report sent to Congress December 6. The ordinary receipts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, were $333,526,610.98. The total ordinary expenditures were $267,642,957.78, leaving a surplus revenue of $65,883,653.20, which, with an amount drawn from cash balance in treasury, of $8,084,434.21, made a surplus of $73,968,087.41, which sum was applied to the reduction of the public debt. The sinking fund for this year was $37,931,643.55, which, deducted from the amount applied to the redemption of bonds, left an excess of $35,972,973.86 over the amount actually required for the year. Compared with the previous fiscal year, the receipts for 1880 increased $62,629,438.23. The increase of expenditures over the previous year was $25,190,360.48. I estimated that the receipts over expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, would be $50,198,115.52.
During the period from 1874 to 1879 the United States had failed to pay on the public debt $87,317,569.21, that being the deficiency of the sum fixed by law to be paid during those years for sinking fund. Deducting from this sum the amount paid in excess for the fiscal year 1880, there was a balance still due on account of the sinking fund of about $50,000,000. This would be met by the estimated surplus of receipts over expenditures during the fiscal year, 1881, thus making good the whole amount of the sinking fund as required by law.
The estimated revenue over expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1862, including the sinking fund, was $48,000,000.
Upon this favorable statement I recommended to Congress that instead of applying this surplus revenue, accruing after the current fiscal year, to the extinction of the debt, taxes be repealed or modified to the extent of such surplus. A large portion of the surplus of revenue over expenditures was caused by the reduction of the rate of interest and the payment on the principal of the public debt. The reduction of annual interest caused by the refunding since March 1, 1877, was $14,290,453.50, and the saving of annual interest resulting from the payment of the principal of the public debt since that date was $6,144,737.50. The interest was likely to be still further reduced during the following year, to an amount estimated at $12,000,000, by the funding of the bonds. To the extent of this annual saving, amounting to $32,000,000, the public expenditures would be permanently diminished.
In view of this statement, I recommended that all taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws, other than those on bank circulation and on spirits, tobacco and beer, be repealed. I urged that the tax on state banks should be maintained, not for purposes of revenue, but as a check upon the renewal of a system of local state paper money, which, as it would be issued under varying state laws, would necessarily differ as to conditions, terms and security, and could not, from its diversity, be guarded against counterfeiting, and would, at best, have but a limited circulation.
The public debt which became redeemable on and after the 1st of July, 1881, amounted to $687,350,000. I recommended that to redeem these bonds there should be issued treasury notes running from one to ten years, which could be paid off by the application of the sinking fund as they matured. Such treasury notes would have formed a popular security always available to the holder as they could have been readily converted into money when needed for other investment or business. They would have been in such form and denominations as to furnish a convenient investment for the small savings of the people, and fill the place designed by the ten dollar refunding certificates authorized by the act of February 26, 1879. I stated my belief that with the then state of the money market a sufficient amount of treasury notes, bearing an annual interest of three per cent., could be sold to meet a considerable portion of the maturing bonds.
Congress did not pass such a law as I recommended, but the plan adopted and executed by my successor, Mr. Windom, was the best that could have been devised under existing law, resulting in a very large reduction of the amount paid for interest yearly. He allowed the holders of the maturing bonds to retain them at the pleasure of the government, with interest at the rate of three and a half per cent.
I recited the action of the department under the resumption act, but this has already been fully described by me. In respect to the United States notes I said:
“United States notes are now, in form, security, and convenience, the best circulating medium known. The objection is made that they are issued by the government, and that it is not the business of the government to furnish paper money, but only to coin money. The answer is, that the government had to borrow money, and is still in debt. The United States note, to the extent that it is willingly taken by the people, and can, beyond question, be maintained at par in coin, is the least burdensome form of debt. The loss of interest in maintaining the resumption fund, and the cost of printing and engraving the present amount of United States notes, is less than one-half the interest on an equal sum of four per cent. bonds. The public thus saves over seven million dollars of annual interest, and secures a safe and convenient medium of exchange, and has the assurance that a sufficient reserve in coin will be retained in the treasury beyond the temptation of diminution, such as always attends reserves held by banks.”
I expressed the opinion that the existing system of currency, the substantial features of which were a limited amount of United States notes (with or without the legal tender quality), promptly redeemable in coin, with ample reserves in coin and power if necessary to purchase coin with bonds, supplemented by the circulating notes of national banks issued upon conditions that would guarantee their absolute security and prompt redemption, all based on coin of equal value, and generally distributed throughout the country, was the best system ever devised, and more free from objection than any other, combining the only safe standard with convenience for circulation and security and equality of value.
After a statement of the amount of standard silver dollars issued under existing law, I described the measures adopted to facilitate the general distribution and circulation of those coins, and the great expense incurred by the United States in transporting them. With all these efforts it was found difficult to maintain in circulation more than thirty-five per cent. of the amount then coined. While, at special seasons of the year and for special purposes, this coin was in demand, mainly in the south, it returned to the treasury, and its reissue involved an expense for transportation at an average rate of one-third of one per cent. each time. Unlike gold coin or United States notes, it did not, to the same extent, form a part of the permanent circulation, everywhere acceptable, and, when flowing into the treasury, easily paid out with little or no cost of transportation. At a later period, when the amount of silver dollars had largely increased, the department was never able to maintain in circulation more then $60,000,000.
For the reasons stated I earnestly recommended that the further compulsory coinage of the silver dollar be suspended, or, as an alternative, that the number of grains of silver in the dollar be increased so as to make it equal in market value to the gold dollar, and that its coinage be left as other coinage to the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Director of the Mint, to depend upon the demand for it by the public for convenient circulation. After a statement of the great cost of the coinage of these dollars, I recommended that Congress confine its action to the suspension of the coinage of the silver dollar, and await negotiations with foreign powers for the adoption of an international ratio. I expressed the conviction that it was for the interest of the United States, as the chief producer of silver, to recognize the great change that had occurred in the relative market value of silver and gold in the chief marts of the world, to adopt a ratio for coinage based upon market value, and to conform all existing coinage to that ratio, while maintaining the gold eagle of our coinage at its present weight and fineness.
I called attention, also, to the tariff as it then existed. It was a compilation of laws passed during many succeeding years, and to meet the necessities of the government from time to time. These laws furnished the greater part of our revenue, and incidentally protected and diversified home manufactures. The general principle upon which they were founded was believed to be salutary. No marked or sudden change, which would tend to destroy or injure domestic industries built up upon faith in the stability of existing laws, should be made in them. I recommended that ad valorem duties should be converted into specific duties as far as practicable, and that articles which did not compete with domestic industries, and yielded but a small amount of revenue, should be added to the free list. I urged the importance of stability in the rates imposed on spirits, tobacco and fermented liquors. These articles were regarded by all governments as proper subjects of taxation. Any reduction in the rates imposed a heavy loss to the owner of the stock on hand, while an increase operated as a bounty to such owner.
During that year, the excess of exports over imports amounted to $167,683,912. The aggregate exports amounted to $835,638,658, an increase over the previous year of $125,199,217.
The usual statement of the operations of the different bureaus of the department was made, and, in closing my last annual report as Secretary of the Treasury, I said:
“The secretary takes pleasure in bearing testimony to the general fidelity and ability of the officers and employees of this department. As a rule they have, by experience and attention to duty, become almost indispensable to the public service. The larger portion of them have been in the department more than ten years, and several have risen by their efficiency from the lowest-grade clerks to high positions. In some cases their duties are technical and difficult, requiring the utmost accuracy; in others, they must be trusted with great sums, where the slightest ground for suspicion would involve their ruin; in others, they must act judicially upon legal questions affecting large private and public interests, as to which their decisions are practically final. It is a just subject of congratulation that, during the last year, there has been among these officers no instance of fraud, defalcation, or gross neglect of duty. The department is a well organized and well conducted business office, depending mainly for its success upon the integrity and fidelity of the heads of bureaus and chiefs of division. The secretary has, therefore, deemed it both wise and just to retain and reward the services of tried and faithful officers and clerks.
“During the last twenty years the business of this department has been greatly increased, and its efficiency and stability greatly improved. This improvement is due to the continuance during that period of the same general policy and the consequent absence of sweeping changes in the public service; to the fostering of merit by the retention and promotion of trained and capable men; and to the growth of the wholesome conviction in all quarters that training, no less than intelligence, is indispensable to good service. Great harm would come to the public interests should the fruits of this experience be lost, by whatever means the loss occurred. To protect not only the public service, but the people, from such a disaster, the secretary renews the recommendation made in a former report, that provision be made for a tenure of office for a fixed period, for removal only for cause, and for some increase of pay for long and faithful service.”
The chief measure of importance, aside from the current appropriation bills, acted upon during that session of Congress was a bill to facilitate the refunding of the national debt. It was pending without action during the two preceding sessions, but was taken up in the early part of the third session. As the bill was originally reported, by Mr. Fernando Wood, from the committee of ways and means of the House of Representatives, it provided that in lieu of the bonds authorized by the refunding act of July 14, 1870, bearing five, four and a half, and four per cent. interest, bonds bearing interest at the rate of three and a half per cent. to the amount of $500,000,000, redeemable at the pleasure of the United States, and also notes to the amount of $200,000,000, bearing interest at the rate of three and a half per cent., redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after two years and payable in ten years, be issued.
The Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to issue any of these bonds or notes for any of the bonds of the United States, as they became redeemable, par for par. The bill further provided that the three and a half per cents. should be the only bonds receivable as security for national bank circulation.
Had this bill passed, as introduced, any time before the 4th of March, 1881, it would have saved the United States enormous sums of money and would have greatly strengthened the public credit. It was in harmony with the recommendations made by the President and myself in our annual reports. It was called up in the House of Representatives for definite action on the 14th of December, 1880, when those reports were before them. Instead of this action amendments of the wildest character were offered, and the committee which reported the bill acquiesced in radical changes, which made the execution of the law, if passed, practically impossible. The rate of interest was reduced to three per cent., and a provision made that no bonds should be taken as security for bank circulation except the three per cent. bonds provided for by that bill. Discussion was continued in the House and radical amendments were made until the 19th of January, 1881, when the bill, greatly changed, passed the House of Representatives. It was taken up in the Senate on the 15th of February. Mr. Bayard made a very fair statement of the terms and objects of the bill in an elaborate speech, from which I quote the following paragraphs:
“In little more than sixty days from this date a loan of the United States, bearing five per cent. interest, and amounting to $469,651,050, will, at the option of the government, become payable. On the 30th day of June next, two other loans, each bearing six per cent., the first for $145,786,500, and the other $57,787,250, will also mature at the option of the government. These facts are stated in the last report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and will be found on page ten of his report of last December. He has informed us that the surplus revenue accruing prior to the 1st of July, 1881, will amount to about fifty million dollars, and can and will be applied in part to the extinguishment of that debt. Bonds maturing on the 31st of December last were paid out of the accruing revenues. So that there will remain the sum of $637,350,000, to be provided for and funded at the option of the government, at such rate of interest as may be deemed advisable by Congress and can practicably be obtained.
“The sums that we are dealing with are enormous, affecting the welfare of every branch of our country’s industry and of our entire people. The opportunity for reducing the rate of interest upon this enormous sum, and, not only that, but of placing the national debt more under the control of the government in regard to future payments, is now before us. The opportunity for doing this upon favorable terms should not be lost, and the only question before us, as legislators, is how we can best and most practically take advantage of the hour.”
The bill as modified by the committee of the Senate would have enabled the treasury department to enter at once on the refunding of the public debt, and, in the then state of the money market, there would have been no doubt of the ready sale of the bonds and notes provided for and the redemption of the five and six per cent. bonds outstanding. The Senate, however, after long debates, disagreed to the amendments of the committee, and in substance passed the bill as it came from the House. The few amendments made were agreed to by the House, and the bill passed and was sent to the President on the 1st of March. On the 3rd of March it was returned by the President with a statement of his objections to its passage. These were based chiefly on the provision which required the banks to deposit in the treasury, as security for their circulating notes, bonds bearing three per cent. interest, which, in his judgment, was an insufficient security. His message was as follows:
“To the House of Representatives:—Having considered the bill entitled ‘An act to facilitate the refunding of the national debt,’ I am constrained to return it to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following statement of my objections to its passage.
“The imperative necessity for prompt action, and the pressure of public duties in this closing week of my term of office, compel me to refrain from any attempt to make a full and satisfactory presentation of the objections to the bill.
“The importance of the passage, at the present session of Congress, of a suitable measure for the refunding of the national debt, which is about to mature, is generally recognized. It has been urged upon the attention of Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury and in my last annual message. If successfully accomplished, it will secure a large decrease in the annual interest payment of the nation; and I earnestly recommend, if the bill before me shall fail, that another measure for this purpose be adopted before the present Congress adjourns.
“While in my opinion it would be wise to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, to offer, to the public, bonds bearing three and a half per cent. interest in aid of refunding, I should not deem it my duty to interpose my constitutional objection to the passage of the present bill if it did not contain, in its fifth section, provisions which, in my judgment, seriously impair the value and tend to the destruction of the present national banking system of the country. This system has now been in operation almost twenty years. No safer or more beneficial banking system was ever established. Its advantages as a business are free to all who have the necessary capital. It furnishes a currency to the public which, for convenience and the security of the bill-holder, has probably never been equaled by that of any other banking system. Its notes are secured by the deposit with the government of the interest-bearing bonds of the United States.
“The section of the bill before me which relates to the national banking system, and to which objection is made, is not an essential part of a refunding measure. It is as follows:
‘Sec. 5. From and after the 1st day of July, 1881, the three per cent. bonds authorized by the first section of this act shall be the only bonds receivable as security for national bank circulation, or as security for the safekeeping and prompt payment of the public money deposited with such banks; but when any such bonds deposited for the purposes aforesaid shall be designated for purchase or redemption by the Secretary of the Treasury, the banking association depositing the same shall have the right to substitute other issues of the bonds of the United States in lieu thereof: Provided, That no bond upon which interest has ceased shall be accepted or shall be continued on deposit as security for circulation or for the safe-keeping of the public money; and in case bonds so deposited should not be withdrawn, as provided by law, within thirty days after interest has ceased thereon, the banking association depositing the same shall be subject to the liabilities and proceedings on the part of the comptroller provided for in section 5234 of the Revised Statutes of the United States: And provided further, That section 4 of the act of June 20, 1874, entitled: “An act fixing the amount of United States notes, providing for a redistribution of the national bank currency, and for other purposes,” be, and the same is hereby, repealed; and sections 5159 and 5160 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same are hereby, re-enacted.’
“Under this section it is obvious that no additional banks will hereafter be organized, except possibly in a few cities or localities where the prevailing rates of interest in ordinary business are extremely low. No new banks can be organized, and no increase of the capital of existing banks can be obtained, except by the purchase and deposit of three per cent. bonds. No other bonds of the United States can be used for the purpose. The one thousand millions of other bonds recently issued by the United States, and bearing a higher rate of interest than three per cent., and therefore a better security for the bill-holder, cannot, after the 1st of July next, be received as security for bank circulation. This is a radical change in the banking law. It takes from the banks the right they have heretofore had under the law to purchase and deposit, as security for their circulation, any of the bonds issued by the United States, and deprives the bill-holder of the best security which the banks are able to give, by requiring them to deposit bonds having the least value of any bonds issued by the government.
“The average rate of taxation of capital employed in banking is more than double the rate of taxation upon capital employed in other legitimate business. Under these circumstances, to amend the banking law so as to deprive the banks of the privilege of securing their notes by the most valuable bonds issued by the government will, it is believed, in a large part of the country, be a practical prohibition of the organization of new banks, and prevent the existing banks from enlarging their capital. The national banking system, if continued at all, will be a monopoly in the hands of those already engaged in it, who may purchase government bonds bearing a more favorable rate of interest than the three per cent. bonds prior to next July.
“To prevent the further organization of banks is to put in jeopardy the whole system, by taking from it that feature which makes it, as it now is, a banking system free upon the same terms to all who wish to engage in it. Even the existing banks will be in danger of being driven from business by the additional disadvantages to which they will be subjected by this bill. In short, I cannot but regard the fifth section of the bill as a step in the direction of the destruction of the national banking system.
“Our country, after a long period of business depression, has just entered upon a career of unexampled prosperity.
“The withdrawal of the currency from circulation of the national banks, and then enforced winding up of the banks in consequence, would inevitably bring a serious embarrassment and disaster to the business of the country. Banks of issue are essential instruments of modern commerce. If the present efficient and admirable system of banking is broken down, it will inevitably be followed by a recurrence to other and inferior methods of banking. Any measure looking to such a result will be a disturbing element in our financial system. It will destroy confidence and surely check the growing prosperity of the country.
“Believing that a measure for refunding the national debt is not necessarily connected with the national banking law, and that any refunding act would defeat its own object, if it imperiled the national banking system, or seriously impaired its usefulness; and convinced that section 5 of the bill before me would, if it should become a law, work great harm, I herewith return the bill to the House of Representatives for that further consideration which is provided for in the constitution.
“Rutherford B. Hayes.
“Executive mansion, March 3, 1881.”
Preceding this message, during the last week in February, there was a serious disturbance in the money market, especially in connection with the national banks, caused by a fear that the bill would become a law. Appeals were made to me to furnish relief. All I could do was to purchase $10,000,000 of bonds to be paid from an overflowing treasury, but the veto of the President settled the fate of the bill.
CHAPTER XLII. ELECTED TO THE SENATE FOR THE FOURTH TIME. Blaine Appointed Secretary of State—Withdrawal of Governor Foster as a Senatorial Candidate—I Am Again Elected to My Old Position to Succeed Allen G. Thurman—My Visit to Columbus to Return Thanks to the Legislature—Address to Boston Merchants on Finances—Windom Recommended to Succeed Me as Secretary of the Treasury—Personal Characteristics of Garfield—How He Differed from President Hayes —The Latter’s Successful Administration—My One Day out of Office in Over Forty Years—Long Animosity of Don Piatt and His Change of Opinion in 1881—Mahone’s Power in the Senate—Windom’s Success in the Treasury—The Conkling-Platt Controversy with the President Over New York Appointments.
In the latter part of November, 1880, General Garfield came to Washington and called upon Mr. Blaine, who, it was understood, was to be Secretary of State. Garfield came to my house directly from Blaine’s and informed me that he had tendered that office to Blaine and that it was accepted. He said that Blaine thought it would not be politic to continue me as Secretary of the Treasury, as it would be regarded as an unfriendly discrimination by other members of Hayes’ cabinet. I promptly replied that I agreed with the opinion of Blaine, and was a candidate for the Senate. It was then understood that Garfield was committed to Foster for the vacancy in the Senate, but this he denied, and, whatever might have been his preference, I am convinced he took no part in the subsequent contest.
On the 16th of December, Thomas A. Cowgill, speaker of the House of Representatives, of Ohio, wrote a note to Governor Foster advising his withdrawal “for harmony in our counsels and unity in our action.” On the next day, after advising with leading Republicans, Foster, in a manly letter, declined further to be a candidate for Senator.
Prior to the withdrawal of Foster I received a note from General Garfield from Mentor, Ohio, under date of December 15, 1880, in which he said: “I am glad to see that the unpleasant matters between yourself and Governor Foster have been so happily adjusted, and I am quite sure that a little further understanding will remove all dangers of a personal contest, which might disturb the harmony of the party in Ohio.”
I subsequently received the following note from Garfield:
“Mentor, O., December 22, 1880. “My Dear Sir:—Yours of the 20th inst. came duly to hand. I appreciate what you say in reference to personal and Ohio appointments. The case of Swaim is so exceptional that I hope it will not be taken as a precedent for what is to come. I am greatly gratified at the happy turn which the relations between Foster and yourself have taken.
“I will forward my declination of the senatorship in time to reach the general assembly on the first day of its session.
“I hope you will not fail to visit me on your trip to Ohio. Mrs. Garfield joins me in the hope that Mrs. Sherman will accompany you.
“Very truly yours,
“J. A. Garfield.
“Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.”
In response to this and former requests I visited General Garfield at his residence at Mentor, and discussed with him a multitude of subjects that he suggested, among them the selection of his cabinet, and the public questions pending in Congress.
The proceedings in the Republican caucus, on the 11th of January, 1881, soon after the Ohio legislature met, as narrated in the public press at the time, were exceedingly flattering. General Jones, of Delaware, made the nominating speech, reciting at considerable length, and with high praise, my previous public service. Peter Hitchcock, a distinguished member, seconded the nomination with another complimentary speech. It was supposed that Judge W. H. West, a leading lawyer and citizen, would be placed in nomination, but his spokesman, Judge Walker, no doubt with the approval of Judge West, moved that my nomination be made unanimous, which was done. Upon being notified of this I sent the following telegram:
“Washington, D. C., January 11, 1881.
“Hon. J. Scott, Chairman.
“Please convey to the Republican members of the two houses of the general assembly my heartfelt thanks for their unanimous nomination for the position of United States Senator. No words can express my sense of grateful obligation to the people of Ohio for their long continued partiality. I can assure you that, if elected, I will, with diligence and fidelity, do my utmost to discharge the duties assigned me.
“John Sherman.”
On the 18th of January I was duly elected Senator as successor of Allen G. Thurman, who received the Democratic vote.
In accordance with an old custom in Ohio I went to Columbus on the 20th of January to return my thanks to the legislature, and was received in the senate chamber by the two houses. I was escorted to a chair with Governor Foster on my right and Governor Dennison on my left, Governor Foster presiding. I was introduced by Governor Foster in a generous and eloquent speech, closing as follows:
“Now, gentlemen, a year ago at this time we were here present to meet General Garfield, to greet him as United States Senator, and to listen to his words of thanks for the great honor conferred upon him. We are met to-night for the purpose of greeting the Senator elected to-day, and to listen to his words of thanks for the great honor conferred upon him. This gentleman has been in public life twenty-six years. For six years he served as a Member of Congress from the Mansfield district, with credit and with distinction. Thrice elected a United States Senator before, for sixteen years he occupied the position of United States Senator, ever in the front rank of the intellectual giants composing that body. Called hence to be Secretary of the Treasury, this distinguished gentleman has filled that place with honor. He has been at all times the friend of resumption and of the prosperity of the people. To him, perhaps, more than to any other one man, is due the resumption of specie payments and the prosperity of this people to-day. As a great financier he stands as a peer with Hamilton, with Chase. Gentlemen, you have selected wisely and well. I now have the pleasure of presenting John Sherman, Senator-elect from the State of Ohio.”
To this I responded, in part, as follows:
“Gentlemen, Senators, Members of the General Assembly:—My first duty is to return to you my grateful thanks for the high honor you have conferred upon me in selecting me for the fourth time a Member of the Senate of the United States. Four years ago I assumed a somewhat different office. And now, having been honored by you by being transferred to the position formerly occupied by me, I feel very much like a traveler who has made a long journey into a far distant country and who is returning home in safety and honor. The place I now occupy has been one of great embarrassment and difficulty. I have been away from the people of my native state, with but scarce a few fleeting, short visits, and have lost the acquaintances I have had with so many of you, and have not been able to form new acquaintances among you. I find among the members of the general assembly but comparatively few of those whom I knew in the olden times.
“I assumed the duties of the office of which I speak under circumstances of great embarrassment. I was held up before the public for a long time as one who was pursuing a policy that brought woes unnumbered—greater than befell the Greeks between Achilles and Agamemnon. All the evils that fell upon society in the United States during the period, all the grave distress, was simply attributed to me as a fault. I was compelled to say ‘No’ a thousand times where I would gladly have said ‘Yes.’ I was compelled to decline the advice of men honestly given for a good purpose, because in my judgment that advice would not promote the public good. And now, having been elected by you under those adverse circumstances, I feel my heart overflowing with gratitude, and have no words with which to utter my thanks. I am glad, however, of the assurance you have given me by the unanimous nomination of my Republican friends, and by the courtesy, kindness and forbearance of my adversaries.
“I am glad to know and feel the assurance that you now believe that, under the trying circumstances, I did the best I could to advance the common interest of our common country.
“And I am glad to approve the votes that were given by my Democratic fellow-citizens here in the contest yesterday and to-day. If any man could be chosen from the State of Ohio to advocate in the American Senate the principles of the Democratic party, there is no man in Ohio, or in the United States, more deserving of that honor than Allen G. Thurman. For many years he and I served together as representatives of opposing parties. We, each with the vigor and power we could, endeavored to impress our views upon the public, to carry out the line of policy to which our political friends were devoted. And in all that time no words of unkindness, no words of asperity, have passed between us. We never brought Ohio quarrels before the Senate of the United States, and always found that honesty and ability were entirely consistent with gentlemanly courtesy between political opponents.
“And I wish also to return my grateful acknowledgments to Governor Foster for the kindly language with which he has introduced me to you, and to many distinguished citizens of Ohio who, by their kind and generous forbearance, have enabled you, without division, to send a Senator to the Congress of the United States without a quarrel, a contest or a struggle, and I feel under obligations to the gentleman who has introduced me largely for this distinguished honor and courtesy.
“I can only say then, in conclusion, fellow-citizens, that I am glad that the opportunity of the office you have given me will enable me to come back here home to Ohio to cultivate again the relations I had of old. It is one of the happiest thoughts that comes to me in consequence of your election that I will be able to live again among you and to be one of you, and I trust in time to overcome the notion that has sprung up within two or three years that I am a human iceberg, dead to all human sympathies. I hope you will enable me to overcome that difficulty. That you will receive me kindly, and I think I will show you, if you doubt it, that I have a heart to acknowledge gratitude—a heart that feels for others, and willing to alleviate where I can all the evils to which men and women are subject. I again thank you from the bottom of my heart.”
Among the many incidents in my life I recall this as one of the happiest, when the bitterness and strife of political contests were laid aside and kindness and charity took their place. I am glad to say that the same friendly relations that existed between Senator Thurman and myself have always been maintained with each of my colleagues, without distinction of party.
Early in January I had accepted an invitation of the merchants of Boston to attend the annual dinner of their association on the 31st of that month. While the dinner was the stated object, yet I knew that the speeches to be made were the real cause of the meeting. These were to be made by Governor Long, Stewart L. Woodford and others, real orators, while I was expected to talk to them about money, debt and taxes. I met their wishes by a careful statement of the mode of refunding, or, to define the word, the process of reducing the burden of the public debt by reducing the rate of interest. I stated at length the measures executed by Hamilton, Gallatin and others, in paying in full the Revolutionary debt and that created by the War of 1812, and those adopted in recent times. The mode at each period was similar, but the amount of recent refundings was twenty times greater than the national debt at the beginning of the government, and our surplus revenue for that one year just past would have paid the debt of the United States at the close of the Revolutionary War. In all stages of our history we have preserved the public faith by the honest discharge of every obligation. Long, Woodford and others made eloquent speeches, and, on the whole, the “dinner” was a pronounced success.
After my return to Washington, Garfield continued to write me freely, especially about the selection of the Secretary of the Treasury. In a note dated February 14 he gave me the names of a number of prominent men and his impressions about them, but I do not feel at liberty to insert it. In my answer of the date of February 16, after expressing my opinion of those named, I said:
“Since our last conversation in Mentor I have turned this important matter over and over again in my mind, and I drift back pretty nearly to the opinion I then expressed, that, assuming that a western man is to be appointed, my judgment would lead me to select, first, Windom.... He is certainly a man of high character, of pleasant manners, free from any political affiliations that would be offensive to you, on good terms with all, yet a man of decision.”
I knew Garfield well. From his early advent in 1861 in the legislature of Ohio, when I was a candidate for the Senate, to the date of his death, I had every opportunity to study his character. He was a large, well developed, handsome man, with a pleasing address and a natural gift for oratory. Many of his speeches were models of eloquence. These qualities naturally made him popular. But his will power was not equal to his personal magnetism. He easily changed his mind, and honestly veered from one impulse to another. This, I think, will be admitted by his warmest friends. During the trying period between his election and inauguration his opinions wavered, but Blaine, having similar personal qualities, but a stronger will, gained a powerful influence with him. When I proposed to him to be a delegate at large to the Chicago convention, he no doubt meant in good faith to support my nomination. When his own nomination seemed probable he acquiesced in, and perhaps contributed to it, but after his election he was chiefly guided by his brilliant Secretary of State.
There was a striking contrast between the personal qualities of Garfield and Hayes. Hayes was a modest man, but a very able one. He had none of the brilliant qualities of his successor, but his judgment was always sound, and his opinion, when once formed, was stable and consistent. He was a graduate of Kenyon college and the law school at Cambridge. He had held several local offices in Cincinnati, had served with high credit in the Union army, and had attained the rank of major general by conspicuous heroism in battle. He had been twice elected a Member of Congress from Cincinnati and three times as Governor of Ohio, and in 1876 was elected President of the United States. The contest which was ended by his inauguration has already been referred to. During his entire term, our official and personal relations were not only cordial, but as close and intimate as that of brothers could be. I never took an important step in the process of resumption and refunding, though the law vested the execution of these measures in my office, without consulting him. Yet, while expressing his opinion, he said this business must be conducted by me, and that I was responsible.
Early in his administration we formed the habit of taking long drives on each Sunday afternoon, in the environs of Washington. He was a regular attendant with Mrs. Hayes, every Sunday morning, at the Methodist Episcopal church, of which she was a member. This duty being done we felt justified in seeking the seclusion of the country for long talks about current measures and policy. Each of us was prepared with a memorandum of queries. My coachman, who has been with me for twenty years, could neither heed nor hear. We did not invade any of the departments of the government outside of the treasury and his official functions as President. This exchange of opinion was of service to the public, and gave to each of us the benefit of an impartial opinion from the other.
Among the multitude of public men I have met I have known no one who held a higher sense of his duty to his country, and more faithfully discharged that duty, than President Hayes. He came into his great office with the prejudice of a powerful party against him, caused by a close and disputed election. This was unjust to him, for the decision was made by a tribunal created mainly by its representatives. He went out of office at the close of his term with the hearty respect of the American people, and his administration may be placed as among the most beneficial and satisfactory in the history of the republic.
When near the close of his term, he gave the usual dinner to the members of the outgoing and the incoming cabinets. It was purely an official dinner, but Hayes said that there were two gentlemen present who were not in office. We looked around to see who the unhappy two were, and found they were Garfield and myself. Garfield had not yet become President and I had resigned as secretary the day before. This happened to be the only day that I was not in public office since March 4, 1855.
On the 3rd of March I delivered to the President my resignation, as follows:
‘Washington, March 3.
“Hon. R. B. Hayes, President United States.
“My Dear Sir:—Having been elected a Member of the Senate of the United States, I have the honor to resign the office of Secretary of the Treasury, to take effect this day. In thus severing our official relations, I avail myself of the opportunity to express my grateful appreciation and heartfelt thanks for the support and assistance you have uniformly given me in the discharge of the duties of that office. I shall ever cherish with pleasant memories my friendly association with you as a member of your cabinet, and shall follow you in your retirement from your great office with my best wishes and highest regards.
“Very truly your friend,
“John Sherman.”
During my service as Secretary of the Treasury I had been arraigned in every issue of the Sunday “Capital,” a newspaper published in Washington, in the severest terms of denunciation, by Don Piatt, the owner of the paper. He was a brilliant but erratic writer, formerly a member of the Ohio legislature and a native of that state. I believed that his animosity to me grew out of my re-election to the Senate in 1865, when General Schenck, who was warmly supported by Piatt, was my competitor. Schenck and I always maintained friendly relations. He served his district long and faithfully in the House of Representatives, was a brilliant debater, had the power of condensing a statement or argument in the fewest possible words, and uttering them with effective force. Next to Mr. Corwin, and in some respects superior to him, Schenck was ranked as the ablest Member of the House of Representatives from Ohio during his period of active life, from 1840 to his death, at Washington, D. C., March 23, 1890. Schenck freely forgave me for his defeat, but Piatt never did.
At the close of my term as secretary, much to my surprise, Piatt wrote and published in his paper an article, a portion of which I trust I will be pardoned for inserting here:
“When John Sherman took the treasury, in March, 1877, it was plain that the piece de resistance of his administration would be the experiment of the resumption act, which John, as chairman of the Senate finance committee, had elaborated two years before, and which was then just coming upon the threshold of practical test. The question at issue was whether resumption of specie payments, after eighteen years of suspension, could be accomplished through the operation of laws of Congress, which, if not absolutely in conflict with the laws of political economy, were, to every visible appearance, several years in advance of them. Of course, the primary effect of the appreciation of our paper towards par with the standard of coin was the enhancement of the purchasing power of the circulating medium. That made it hard to pay debts which had been contracted on low scales of purchasing power. That which had been bought for a dollar worth sixty cents, must be paid for with a dollar worth eighty, ninety, or a hundred cents, according to the date on which the contract matured. Of course, such a proceedings created an awful squeeze. Many men, struggling under loads of debt, found the weight of their obligations growing upon them faster than their power to meet, and they succumbed.
“For all this John Sherman was blamed. He was named ‘The Wrecker,’ and the maledictions poured upon his head during the years 1877 and 1878 could not be measured. Every day the columns of the press recorded new failures, and every failure added to the directory of John Sherman’s maledictors. But the man persevered. And now, looking back over the record of those two years, with all their stifled ambitions and ruined hopes, the grim resolution with which John, deafening his ears to the cry of distress from every quarter, kept his eye fixed upon the single object of his endeavor, seems hardly human—certainly not humane. And yet there are few reasoning men to be found now ready to deny that it was for the best, and, taken all in all, a benefaction to the country; one of those sad cases, in fact, where it is necessary to be cruel in order to be kind.
“We were not a supporter of John Sherman’s policy at any period of its crucial test. We did not believe that his gigantic experiment could be brought to a successful conclusion. The absurd currency theories which were from time to time set up in antagonism to his policy never impressed us; our disbelief was based upon our fear that the commercial and industrial wreckage, consequent upon an increase of forty per cent. in the purchasing power of money within three years, would be infinitely greater than it turned out to be, and, so being, would overwhelm the country in one common ruin. But we were mistaken. John Sherman was right. And it is but common frankness to say of him, even as one would give the devil his due, that he builded wiser than we knew—possibly wiser than he knew himself. At all events, John builded wisely.
“He took the treasury at a period when it was little more than a great national bank of discount, with rates varying from day to day; the coin standard a commodity of speculation on Wall street; the credit of the government a football in the markets of the world; and our bonds begging favor of European capitalists. He leaves it what it ought to be—a treasury pure and simple, making no discounts, offering no concessions, asking no favors; the board that once speculated in coin as a commodity abolished, doors closed by reason of occupation gone; the credit of our government at the head of the list of Christendom; since we are launching at par a three per cent. consol, which even England, banking house of the universe, has never yet been able to maintain steadily above 97.
“This is no small achievement to stand as the record of four years. It is an achievement that entitles the man who accomplished it to rank as one of the four great American financiers who really deserve the title—Robert Morris, Albert Gallatin, Salmon P. Chase, and John Sherman.
“We take off our hat to John; not because we like him personally, but because we admire the force of character, the power of intellect and the courage of conviction that enabled him to face his difficulties, surmount his obstacles and overcome the resistance he met.
“The treasury he took up in 1877 was a battle ground. The treasury he resigns to his successor in 1881 is a well-ordered machine of red tape and routine, requiring for its future successful administration little else than mediocrity, method and laissez faire. As we said before, we take off our hat to John. He is not a magnetic man like Blaine, not a lovable man like our poor, dear friend Matt. Carpenter, not a brilliant man like our Lamar; not like any of these—warm of temperament, captivating of presence or dazzling of intellectual luminosity; but he is a great man, strong in the cold, steadfast nerve that he inherits from his ancestor, and respectable in the symmetry of an intellect which, like a marble masterpiece, leaves nothing to regret except the thought that its perfection excludes the blemish of a soul. John Sherman will figure creditably in history. Mankind soon forgets the sentimental acrimony of the moment, provoked by the suffering of harsh processes, and remembers only the grand results. Thus John Sherman will figure in history as the man who resumed specie payments; and in that the visiting statesman of 1876 and the wrecker of 1877-78 will be forgotten. We congratulate John upon his translation into the history of success as heartily as if we had been his supporter in the midst of all his tribulations. Bully for John.”
George Bancroft, the eminent historian, lived in Washington for many years during the latter part of his life. His house was always an attractive and hospitable one. I had many interesting conversations with him, mainly on historical subjects. Both of us carefully eschewed politics, for to the end of his life, I think, he always regarded himself as a Democrat. I insert an autograph letter from him, written at the age of eighty-one.
“1623 H Street, } “Washington, D. C., February 22, 1881.} “My Dear Mr. Sherman:—I thank you very much for the complete statement, you were very good to send me, of the time and amounts of payments made to Washington as President. Congratulating you on the high state of the credit of the United States, I remain, ever, dear Mr. Secretary,
“Very truly yours,
“Geo. Bancroft.”
Before closing my recollections of the administration of President Hayes I ought to express my high appreciation of my colleagues in his cabinet. It was throughout his term a happy family. I do not recall a single incident that disturbed the sincere friendship of its members, nor any clashing of opinions that produced discord or contention. Neither interfered with the duties of the other. The true rule was acted upon that the head of each department should submit to the President his view of any important question that arose in his department. If the President wished the opinion of his cabinet on any question, he submitted it to the cabinet but took the responsibility of deciding it after hearing their opinions. It was the habit of each head of a department to present any questions of general interest in his department, but as a rule he decided it with the approbation of the President. Evarts was always genial and witty, McCrary was an excellent Secretary of War. He was sensible, industrious and prudent. Thompson was a charming old gentleman of pleasing manners and address, a good advocate and an eloquent orator, who had filled many positions of honor and trust. The President regretted his resignation, to engage in the abortive scheme of De Lesseps to construct the Panama Canal. Attorney General Devens was a good lawyer and judge and an accomplished gentleman. He frequently assisted me in my resumption and refunding operations, and, fortunately for me, he agreed with me in my opinions as to the legality and expedience of the measures adopted. General Carl Schurz was a brilliant and able man and discharged the duties of Secretary of the Interior with ability. I had known him in the Senate as an admirable and eloquent debater, but in the cabinet he was industrious and practical and heartily supported the policy of the President and was highly esteemed by him. Key, of Tennessee, was selected as a moderate Democrat to represent the south. This was an experiment in cabinet making, cabinets being usually composed of members of the same party as the President, but Key proved to be a good and popular officer. The two vacancies that occurred by the resignations of McCrary and Thompson were acceptably filled by Governor Ramsey, of Minnesota, and Goff, of West Virginia. Each of these gentlemen contributed to the success of Hayes’ administration, and each of the heartily sympathized with, and supported the measures of, the treasury department.
On the 4th day of March, 1881, I attended the special session of the Senate, called by President Hayes, and took the oath prescribed by law. In conformity with the usages of the Senate, I lost my priority on the committee on finance by the interregnum in my service, but was made chairman of the committee on the library, and a member of the committees on finance, rules, and privileges and elections. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, became chairman of the committee on finance, and, by the courtesy of the other members, I was placed next to him on that committee. Our relations since our entrance together, in 1854, into the House of Representatives had been so intimate and cordial that it made no practical difference which of us sat at the head of the table. When I recalled the facts that in both the Senate and House of Representatives I had been chairman of the financial committee, and Mr. Morrill a member, that my service in the treasury department did not impair my fitness as chairman, but rather improved it, and that under precisely the same conditions I had restored to Mr. Fessenden his former position, I felt piqued, but my feelings did not extend to Mr. Morrill, for whom I had the highest respect and confidence, and with whom I rarely differed on any public question. He is now the Nestor of the Senate, wonderfully vigorous in mind and body.
The chief subject of political interest in this session was the attitude of William Mahone, a Senator from Virginia. He had been a distinguished officer in the Confederate army, was a small man physically, but of wonderful vitality, of undoubted courage and tenacity. He had broken from the Democratic party, of which he had been a member, and had been elected a Senator on local issues in Virginia, arising chiefly out of the debt of that state. When he entered the Senate, that body was so equally divided that his vote would determine which party should have the control of its organization. He quickly made his choice. He was viciously assailed by Senator Hill, of Georgia, who, not by name but by plain inference, charged Mahone with disgracing the commission he held. The reply of Mahone was dramatic and magnetic. His long hair, his peculiar dress and person, and his bold and aggressive language, attracted the attention and sympathy of the Senate and the galleries. He opened his brief speech as follows:
“Mr. president, the Senator has assumed not only to be the custodian here of the Democratic party of this nation; but he has dared to assert his right to speak for a constituency that I have the privilege, the proud and honorable privilege on this floor, of representing without his assent, without the assent of such Democracy as he speaks for. I owe them, sir, I owe you [addressing Mr. Hill], and those for whom you undertake to speak, nothing in this chamber. I came here, sir, as a Virginian, to represent my people, not to represent the Democracy for which you stand. I come with as proud a claim to represent that people as you to represent the people of Georgia, won on field where I have vied with Georgians whom I commanded and others in the cause of my people and of their section in the late unhappy contest, but, thank God, for the peace and good of the country that contest is over, and as one of those who engaged in it, and who has neither here nor elsewhere any apology to make for the part taken, I am here by my humble efforts to bring peace to this whole country, peace and good will between the sections, not here as a partisan, not here to represent the Bourbonism which has done so much injury to my section of the country.”
The debate that followed soon settled the position of General Mahone. He acted with the Republican party. During the whole of this session, which extended to May 20, little was done except to debate Virginia politics, of which Mahone was the center. His vote was decisive of nearly every question presented. I took part in the long debate on the election of officers of the Senate, mainly with Senator Bayard. My sympathy was with Mahone, as I felt that, whatever his view of the debt question in Virginia was, he was right on the reconstruction of the south and in opposition to the bitter sectionalism of the Democratic party in that state. In replying to Mr. Bayard I said I agreed with him in the principle that the majority must rule. I claimed, however, that when the action of a minority went beyond a reasonable delay it became revolution and, in a word, was worse than revolution, it was treason; that under the senate rules, and in conformity with them, this government might be as absolutely destroyed as the southern Confederates would have destroyed it if they had succeeded; that the rules were intended to be construed with reason and judgment; that the minority had certain rights to interpose dilatory motions in order to delay and weary out the will of the majority, but when it went beyond that limit it entered upon dangerous ground; that the simple question was whether the Senate should elect its officers by a majority vote or whether the minority should force the retention of those then in office. The session closed without electing officers of the Senate, and was in substance a debating society doing nothing but talk and acting upon presidential appointments.
The cabinet of President Garfield, as finally selected, was a good one and was promptly confirmed. Mr. Blaine, for the head of it, was determined upon early after the election, but the other members were not decided upon until near the inauguration. Mr. Windom certainly proved himself a very able and accomplished Secretary of the Treasury during the short period of his tenure. As I held myself in a large measure responsible for his appointment, I took a great interest in his success. He conferred with me freely about the best mode of refunding the large amount of bonds that became due on or before the 1st of July. Congress having failed to pass any law to provide for the refunding of this debt, he resorted to an ingenious expedient, which answered the purpose of refunding. Under a plan which was his own device there were called in, for absolute payment on July 1, 1881, about $200,000,000 of bonds, mainly the six per cent. bonds of 1861, but permission was given to the holders of the bonds to have them continued at the pleasure of the government, with interest at the rate of three and a half per cent. per annum, provided the holder should so request, and the bonds should be received at the treasury for that purpose on or before the 10th of May, 1881. The plan proved entirely satisfactory. There were presented in due time, for continuance at three and a half per cent., the amount of $178,055,150 of bonds, leaving to be paid off from surplus revenue $24,211,400, for which the treasury had ample resources. Having succeeded in disposing of the six per cent. bonds, he gave notice that the coupon five per cent. bonds of the loans of July 14, 1870, and January 20, 1871, would be paid on August 12, 1881, with a like privilege of continuing the bonds at three and a half per cent. to such of the holders who might present them for that purpose on or before July 1, 1881. At the same time the treasurer offered to receive for continuance any of the uncalled registered bonds of that loan to an amount not exceeding $250,000,000, the remainder of the loan being reserved with a view to its payment from the surplus revenues.
The annual saving in interest by the continuance of these bonds amounted to $10,473,952.25. I heartily approved this plan. In a reported interview of the 14th of April I said:
“I see no difficulty in fully carrying out Secretary Windom’s policy, as far as developed. He has ample means for reducing the interest on the five and six per cent. bonds. He can pay off all those who wish to be paid in money, in strict accordance with the terms of these bonds, leaving the mass of them at three and a half per cent. interest, payable at the pleasure of Congress. This is not only for the public interest, but is on the clear line of his power and duty. Indeed, I think it is better for the country than any refunding plan that would be carried out under a new law. The old securities remain as redeemable bonds, bearing as low a rate of interest as any new bonds would bear, which could be now sold at par, and they are more readily payable with surplus revenue than any new bonds could be. If it should appear next session that a three per cent. bond would sell at par, that can be authorized. Secretary Windom is cautious and careful, and has done the very best for the public that is possible.”
“Do you think the public will be likely to respond largely to his efforts?”
“Yes, I have no doubt about it, unless an unforseen or sudden revulsion occurs.”
Mr. Windom demonstrated his ability, not only in the plan of refunding the debt, but in the general conduct and management of his department.
The administration of Garfield encountered the same difficulty as that of Hayes in the selection of officers in the State of New York. The question was whether appointments in New York should be made by the President or by a Senator from that state. E. A. Merritt, collector of the port of New York, having been nominated for consul general at London, William H. Robertson was nominated to the Senate in his place. When the Senate considered this nomination Senator Conkling and his colleague, Senator Platt, opposed it, not for unfitness, but for the reason that they had not been consulted in this matter, and that the selection was an insult and in violation of pledges given Conkling by the President. When this opposition was known, the President withdrew previous appointments from that state, in order that the Senate might act upon the nomination of collector and definitely determine whether he or the Senators should appoint United States officers in New York. Finding the nomination of Robertson would be confirmed, both Senators resigned on the 16th of May, and made their appeal to the legislature of New York for re-election. If they had been returned to the Senate, the President would have been powerless to appoint anyone in New York without consulting the Senators, practically transferring to them his constitutional power. Fortunately for the country the legislature of New York elected E. C. Lapham and Warner Miller in the places of Conkling and Platt.
How far, if at all, the excitement of this contest led to the assassination of Garfield by Guiteau cannot be known; yet, this tragedy occurring soon after the contest, the popular mind connected the two events, and the horror and detestation of the murder emphasized the rejection of Conkling and Platt.
The action of the President and of the New York legislature contributed to check the interference of Senators in appointments to office, which had grown up, under what is called “the courtesy of the Senate,” to be a serious abuse. The nomination of Stanley Matthews, eminently fitted for the office of justice of the Supreme Court, was confirmed by a majority of only one vote, the objections to him being chiefly as did not relate to his fitness or qualifications for that great office, but grew out of his intimate relations with Hayes.
CHAPTER XLIII. ASSASSINATION OF GARFIELD AND EVENTS FOLLOWING. I Return to Mansfield for a Brief Period of Rest—Selected as Presiding Officer of the Ohio State Convention—My Address to the Delegates Indorsing Garfield and Governor Foster—Kenyon College Confers on Me the Degree of Doctor of Laws—News of the Assassination of the President—How He Differed from Blaine—Visit of General Sherman—Reception by Old Soldiers—My Trip to Yellowstone Park— Speechmaking at Salt Lake City—Visit to Virginia City—Placer Mining in Montana—The Western Hunter Who Was Lost in a “St. Louis Cañon”—Sunday in Yellowstone Park—Geysers in the Upper Basin— Rolling Stones Down the Valley—Return Home—Opening of the Ohio Campaign—Death of Garfield.
After the adjournment of the Senate I went to Mansfield, and enjoyed the comfort and quiet of home life after the turbulence and anxiety of four years of severe labor as Secretary of the Treasury. The state convention was to be held at Cleveland on the 18th of June. There were signs of disaffection growing out of the events of the past year, which threatened to disturb the harmony of the Republican party. I determined to do all I could to allay this, and for that purpose to attend the convention as a delegate and promote, as far as I could, the renomination of Governor Foster. When the convention met I was selected as its president, and in my speech I took care to express my support of Governor Foster and the administration of Garfield.
I said that Governor Foster was entitled to renomination, and I believed would receive it at the hands of the convention, that his able and earnest canvass two years before had laid the foundation for a great victory, culminating in the election of Garfield as President. I called attention to the achievements of the Republican party during the past twenty-five years in war and in peace. I warned the convention that there was no room in Ohio, or in this country, for a “boss,” or a leader who commands and dictates, and said: “The man who aspires to it had better make his will beforehand.” I congratulated the convention upon the auspicious opening of the administration of President Garfield and said:
“We know office-seeking is undoubtedly the proper pursuit of mankind. There may be some disappointments, because there are fewer places to fill than men willing to fill them. But, in the main, the general principles and policy of this administration are in harmony with the aspirations of the Republican party. The financial policy of the last administration has been supplemented by the reduction of the rate of interest on $500,000,000 of the public securities from five and six per cent. to three and a half per cent. This wise measure has been carefully and most skillfully managed by Secretary Windom, an Ohio boy.... They are saving $15,000,000 a year, and now the debt which frightened brave men fifteen years ago has melted away like snow before a summer sun, no longer frightening the timid. And now the tax on whisky will pay the interest on the public debt.
“The people of Ohio are satisfied with the administration, I believe, as it now stands. I believe I can say, in advance of the resolution that has been, or that will be, offered, that President Garfield has the emphatic approval of the Republicans of Ohio in the course he has pursued thus far. Let him further advance the public credit; let him punish all who do wrong; let him give us an administration pure, simple and republican, worthy of a nation like ours, and we will send him our approval twice over again. But, we have something to do in this task. We have got to emphasize our approval by indorsing this administration in the election of the Republican ticket this fall. This is no child’s play. We know of the good work of the Republican party, that it has a powerful constituency behind it, we dare not do anything wrong, or they will push us from our positions, if we do not behave ourselves. Let us, then, do our part; work as Republicans of Ohio know how to work, and victory will perch upon our banners.”
The proceedings of the convention, from beginning to end, were conducted without any serious division or excitement. The threatened outbreak against Foster did not occur. Upon the close of my speech I announced that the first business in order was the nomination of a candidate for governor. Foster was nominated by acclamation, without a dissenting voice. The rest of the ticket was composed of popular candidates, and an exceptionally good platform was adopted.
In the latter part of June, I attended alumni day of Kenyon college, in company with ex-President Hayes and many leading men of Ohio. Delano Hall, the gift of Columbus Delano, and Hubbard Hall were dedicated with appropriate services, conducted by Bishop Bedell and President Bodine. On this occasion the degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred upon me, and I told the faculty how earnestly I had wished to graduate in their college, and why I could not do so. Frank Hurd and Mr. Hayes, both graduates, made interesting addresses. This college was founded mainly upon liberal contributions to Bishop Chase, by Lord Kenyon and other Englishmen. Its governing power was the Episcopal church. It has had many vicissitudes of prosperity and depression, but has never realized the hopes of its founders. It is one of the colleges of Ohio, excellent in their way, but if their limited resources had been combined in one great university, free from sectarian influence, the result would, in my opinion, have been much better for the youth of Ohio.
During this period I was busy putting my country house in order. I was literally “repairing the fences.” The absence, during four years, of Mrs. Sherman and myself made a great change in the condition of my house, grounds and farm. The work of restoration was a pleasant one, and I was relieved from appeals for appointments, from the infinite details of an exacting office, and still more from the grave responsibility of dealing with vast sums, in which, however careful I might be, and free from fault, I was subject to imputations and innuendoes by every writer who disapproved of my policy.
I was arranging for a trip to Yellowstone Park, was receiving visitors from abroad daily, and mixing with my neighbors and fellow-townsmen, congratulating myself upon a period of rest and recreation, when, on the 2nd of July, I received from General Sherman the announcement, by telegram, that Garfield had been shot by Guiteau, and that the wound was dangerous, and perhaps fatal. The full details of this crime were soon given. I started to go to Washington, but returned when advised that I could be of no service, but continued to receive from General Sherman frequent bulletins. The position of the fatal bullet could not be ascertained, and Garfield lingered in suffering until the 19th of September, when he died.
The death of Garfield, by the hand of a half crazy crank, created a profound impression throughout the civilized world. To rise to such a height as he had attained, and then to become the victim of such a wretch, was a calamity that excited profound sympathy for the President, and unusual detestation for the murderer. The personal qualities of Garfield have been already mentioned. After his untimely death his enemies became silent. At this distance of time we can properly fix his place in the calendar of those who have gone before. In many respects, Garfield was like Blaine, but in his personal intercourse with men, and in the power of will, he was not the equal of Blaine, while, in style of oratory, in imagery and expression, he was superior to him. Both were eminent in their day and generation. They were my juniors about eight years, yet they lived long enough to permanently stamp their names upon the history of the country.
On the 20th of July General Sherman arrived at Mansfield as my visitor. There was much curiosity to see him, especially by soldiers who had served under his command. I invited them to call at my house. On the evening of the 21st a large procession of soldiers and citizens, headed by the American band, marched to my grounds. The general and I met them at the portico, when Colonel Fink stepped forward and made a brief speech, saying:
“General Sherman:—We, the old soldiers of the war for the Union, of Richland county and its surroundings, together with our citizens, have come to-day to pay our respects to you.
“We come, with feelings of profound regard, to see and welcome you, our great strategic war chief, and the hero fo the glorious ‘March to the sea.’
“We greet you as the general and leader of all the armies of our country; we greet you as the gallant defender of the flag; we greet you as the brother of our beloved Senator; we greet you as an Ohio man, but, above all, we have come to greet and honor you for your worth; the man that you are.”
General Sherman replied briefly, and as this is the first speech I ever heard him make I insert it here. He said:
“Fellow-Soldiers of the late war and Fellow-Citizens:—It gives me pleasure to meet you here to-night, in this beautiful grove; in this inclosure, at my own brother’s home. I am glad to meet you, his neighbors and his friends. The situation is a novel one to me, and I am deeply moved by it. As I look over you I do not recognize the faces that I used to know, and when riding about your city to-day, I only found some of the names I then knew—your Hedges, your Parkers, and your Purdys; for the rest I had to go to your cemetery, over yonder, and read their names on the tombstones. But you have them still among you in their children and their grandchildren.
“I cannot distinguish to-night who are and who are not soldiers, but let me say to you, soldiers, I am very glad to meet you again, after so many years, in this time of peace, when yet the recollection of the hardships of war is a bond of comradeship among us. We fought, not for ourselves alone, but for those who are to come after us. The dear old flag we carried through the storms of many battles, ready to die, if need be, that it might still wave over the government of our fathers.
“But this is not the time nor place to recount the events of the past. I could not now do the subject justice if I should try. I am not accustomed to addressing mixed audiences. My brother here knows how to do that better than I, and he understands you better. But I want to say to you: Teach your children to honor the flag, to respect the laws, and love and understand our institutions, and our glorious country will be safe with them.
“My friends, I heartily appreciate this splendid tribute of your friendship and respect. I thank you. Good night.”
At the conclusion of General Sherman’s speech he was cheered vociferously, after which calls were made for me. I made a few remarks and announced that the general would be glad to take them all by the hand, and as he did so they passed into the dining-room, where refreshments awaited them. The greetings and hand-shaking lasted over an hour. In the meantime the “soldier boys” and others were enjoying the good cheer within.
On the 22nd of July General Sherman, with Colonel Bacon, left for Clyde, Ohio, and I at the same time started for Chicago, there to be joined by Justice Strong, late of the Supreme Court, who had recently retired at the age of 70, the artist Bierstadt, and Alfred M. Hoyt, of New York, for a trip to Yellowstone Park. We had arranged for this trip months before. Our plan was a simple one, to go at our convenience by the Union Pacific, the only railroad route then open, to Salt Lake City, and thence to Virginia City, thence through the Yellowstone Park, and by another route to return to Virginia City, and thence home. We were to take the usual route and means of conveyance until we arrived at Virginia City. From there we were to have an escort, to and through the park, of ten United States soldiers from Fort Ellis.
The party met at Chicago and proceeded to Ogden and Salt Lake City. At the latter place we casually met several gentlemen of our acquaintance, especially General Harrison, Eli Murray, Governor of the Territory of Utah, and General McCook, who commanded the post in Salt Lake City. We spent a day or two in visiting the post and city, and found a great improvement since my former visit. In the evening we were serenaded by a band from the post, and several gentlemen were called out for speeches by the gathering crowd. I had been met during my stay there by many people who claimed to hail from Ohio, so that I began to think it was quite an Ohio settlement. In the few remarks I made at the serenade I eulogized Ohio and spoke of the number of Ohio people I had met in that city. General McCook was called out, and as he was from Ohio he had something to say for that state. General Harrison was called upon, and he said that while he lived in Indiana he was born in Ohio and was proud of it. General Murray was next called for and he said that while he was born in Kentucky he lived so close to Ohio that he could throw a stone into the state. So much had been said about Ohio that Judge Strong took offense. They called upon him to address the crowd from the balcony, but he would not. Finally, upon my urging him to speak, he rushed forward and said: “I want you to understand distinctly that I am not from Ohio, I was not born in Ohio, I never lived in Ohio, and don’t want to hear anything more about Ohio!” This was vociferously cheered, and the old gentleman closed with very proper remarks about love for the Union instead of for the state.
Since that time I have visited Salt Lake City and have always been impressed with the great value of that region, not only for its mineral wealth, but for the possibility of great agricultural development with proper irrigation.
During our stay we bathed in Salt Lake. The water was so impregnated with salt that our bodies floated upon the surface and there was no danger of drowning. The history of Salt Lake City, which owes its existence and wonderful development and prosperity to Brigham young, is like an improbable romance. I have already mentioned Young, having met him on my former visit with Thomas A. Scott. In the nine years that had elapsed the city had nearly doubled its population. Pure water was flowing in all the streets and the city looked fresh and clean. The air, at an elevation of 4,000 feet above the sea, was exhilarating. From Salt Lake City we returned to Ogden, and on, or about, the 1st of August took passage on the Utah Northern railroad. Our route lay along the Beaver River, passing Eagle Rock, thence through Beaver Cañon into Idaho, thence through a mountainous range, at about an elevation of 6,800 feet, into Montana as far as the frontier town of Dillon. There we left the cars and took wagons to Virginia City, Montana, where we were to meet our military escort and arrange for horses and mules to carry us and our camp outfit into the park.
Our drive from Dillon to Virginia City was very picturesque, skirting the Ruby mountains and crossing the Stinking Water River. Virginia City was at one time the center and thriving business place of the large population that was drawn to that valley by the very rich placer gold mines there, discovered between 1865 and 1870. It is estimated that $90,000,000 of gold was taken from that stream that runs through a valley about eighteen miles long. The city had many substantial buildings, a large brick courthouse, five churches, many large business stores, dwellings and hotels. At the time we were there the placer mining had been abandoned, except by some Chinamen who were washing over the tailings and making good wages at it; and the population had been reduced from 20,000 people to 1,400. Here we spent Sunday. It was a gala day for the saloons, ranchmen and cowboys, typical of how Sunday is observed in all these mining and ranch towns. We met here, as everywhere in Montana, wandering gold-seekers who explored from mountain to valley in search of the precious metal, often making exaggerated statements in regard to the undeveloped wealth not yet discovered, with stories about gold which were never realized. It was the common belief that the gold found in the placer mines must have been washed from the mountains near by, and seekers for gold were looking for the source of the gold field in such mountains, but it was never discovered. Mines were discovered in other parts of Montana, but none about Virginia City.
On Monday we met Lieutenant Swigert with a dozen troopers from Fort Ellis, who, by orders from the war department, were to escort us through Yellowstone Park. Here we obtained horses and mules for our own use and for carrying our packs, camp traps, etc. When all was ready we started for our camping in the wilderness. Our first day’s march was about twenty miles, when we went into camp. We proceeded each day about this same rate, following along the valley of the Madison River until we reached the park. When we were there the park was truly a wilderness, with no evidences of civilization. Game was very abundant. Elk, deer, antelope and bear were plentiful, and we had no difficulty in getting all the fresh meat we wanted.
Among our employees was a man by the name of Beam, a typical hunter. He had spent most of his life in the mountains. He started out every morning in advance of us and was always sure to be at the agreed camping ground when he arrived. I asked him at one time if he was not afraid of being lost. He said no, he could not be lost for he could go to the top of any hill or mountain and determine his course. He said he had never been lost but once, and that was in St. Louis; when he went out from the hotel he was in a “cañon” and he could not tell which way to go.
We arrived in the lower geyser basin on Saturday. The next day (Sunday) was bright and beautiful. We knew that our revered companion, Justice Strong, was a religious man and we felt that he would have scruples about traveling on Sunday. Still, we wished to move on that afternoon to the upper geyser basin, but were at a loss how to approach him with the Sunday question. It was left to me to confer with him. Before doing so I arranged to have everything in order for a proper observance of the Sabbath day. I found after inquiry that there was no Bible in the large party, but that the officer in command of the troops had an Episcopal prayer book. I went with that to Justice Strong and suggested that we should have religious services, to which he readily assented. I gave him the prayer book and he carefully marked out a selection of scripture and prayers, saying that he was not familiar with the book, but it contained ample material for a proper religious service. We gathered all the soldiers, wagoners and cowboys, including the hunter, belonging to our party. Justice Strong was furnished a box to sit on in front of his tent, and the rest of us stood or lay in scattered groups on the ground around him. He read from the prayer book the passages he had selected, making together a most impressive and interesting service. Many of those who gathered around him had not shared in religious services for years, and were duly impressed with them. After this was over and we had taken dinner, I suggested to him that there were so many horses that the teamsters complained that the grass was not sufficient for them to remain there all day, and that I thought it would be well for us to move to the upper geyser basin a few miles away, to which he at once assented. I throughly sympathized with his feelings in this matter, but thought that under the circumstances our action was excusable and he doubtless saw through the scheme.
During our visit to the geysers in the upper basin, we encamped near “Old Faithful.” From this camp we could reach, by an easy walk, nearly all the grand geysers of this wonderful basin. I have sometimes undertaken to describe these geysers, but never could convey my idea of their grandeur. Bierstadt made a sketch of “Old Faithful,” showing Mr. Hoyt and myself in the foreground, with the geyser in full action. He subsequently expanded this picture into a painting, which I now own and greatly prize.
We resumed our march, passing by Sulphur Mountain, the Devil’s Caldron, mud geysers, the “paint pots,” and through this marvelous land, to the shores of Yellowstone Lake. We were amazed at the beautiful scenery that stretched before us. This large lake is in the midst of snow-clad mountains; its only supply of water is from the melting snows and ice that feed the upper Yellowstone River. Its elevation is 7,741 feet above the sea. The ranges and peaks of snow-clad mountains surrounding the lake, the silence and majesty of the scene, were awe-inspiring—the only life apparent being the flocks of pelicans. We fished successfully in this mountain lake, but of the fishes caught many were spoiled by worms that had eaten into and remained in them.
We visited the great falls of the Yellowstone, the immense and wonderful cañon so often described and illustrated. We remained encamped near this cañon a whole day, and amused ourselves chiefly in exploring its wonderful depths and in rolling stones from projecting points down into the valley. They generally bounded from point to point until we could hear them dashing into the waters far below.
Our march down the valley of the Yellowstone was very interesting. The military escort and Justice Strong did not pass over Mount Washburn, but went by a nearer and easier route along the valley to the next camping ground. Bierstadt, Hoyt and I, with a guide, rode on horseback to the top of Mount Washburn, a long, difficult and somewhat dangerous feat, but we were amply repaid by the splendid view before us. We crossed the mountain at an elevation of 12,000 feet, in the region of perpetual snow. From its summit one of the grandest and most extensive views of mountain scenery lay before and around us, range after range of snowpeaks stretching away for one hundred miles. To the south was the valley of Wind River and Stinking Water, and encircling these, the Shoshone and Wind River ranges with their lines of perpetual snow, the Bear Tooth Mountain and Pilot Knob and Index Peak, the great landmarks of the Rockies. The ascent was fatiguing and almost exhausting. We remained on the mountain two or three hours for needed rest. When we arrived in the camp about sundown I was so fatigued that I was utterly unable to dismount from my horse, and was lifted bodily from it by the soldiers.
We continued our journey through grassy parks until we reached Lower Falls. From there we continued until we arrived at Mammoth Hot Springs, where there was a house, the first sign of civilization we had seen since we began our journeyings in the park. From here we took our way to Fort Ellis and Bozeman, where we left our escort and horses and mules. We returned from here to Virginia City, and at Dillon took cars for Ogden and thence for home, where I arrived about the 25th of August.
During my absence in the Yellowstone Park we had frequent bulletins in respect to President Garfield, sometimes hopeful but generally despondent. When I returned it was generally supposed that he could not recover, but might linger for weeks or months. The public sympathy excited for him suspended by common consent all political meetings. As the Ohio election was to occur on the second Tuesday of October, George K. Nash, chairman of the Republican state committee, having charge of the canvass, made a number of appointments for several gentlemen during September. Among them was one for me to speak in Mansfield, on the 17th of that month, in aid of the election of Foster and the Republican ticket. Preparations were made and the meeting was actually convened on the afternoon of that day, but, as the bulletins from Elberton indicated that Garfield might die at any moment, I declined to speak. More favorable advices coming, however, I was urged by the committee to speak to Wooster on Monday evening, September 19, and consented with some hesitation. In opening my speech I referred to the condition of the President and my reluctance to speak; I said:
“Fellow-Citizens:—I am requested by the Republican state committee to make a political speech to you to-night, in opening here the usual discussion that precedes the election of a governor and other state officers. If I felt at liberty to be guided by my own feelings, I would, in view of the present condition of the President of the United States, forego all political discussion at this time.
“The President is the victim of a crime committed without excuse or palliation, in a time of profound peace and prosperity, not aimed at him as an individual, but at him as the President of the United States. It was a political crime, made with the view of changing, by assassination, the President chosen by you. It has excited, throughout the civilized world, the most profound horror. The President has suffered for more than two months, and is still suffering, from wounds inflicted by an assassin. His life still hangs by a thread. The anxious inquiry comes up morning, noon and night, from a whole people, with fervid, earnest prayers for his recovery.
“Under the shadow of this misfortune, I do not feel like speaking, and I know you do not feel like hearing a political wrangle. It is but just to say that the members of all parties, with scarce an exception, Democrats as well as Republicans, share in sympathy with the President and his family, and in detestation of the crime and the criminal, and the evidence of this sympathy tends to make political dispute irksome and out of place.”
I then entered into a general discussion of the issues of the campaign. Soon after the close of my speech I received intelligence of the death of Garfield, and at once revoked all my appointments, and by common consent both parties withdrew their meetings. Thus mine was the only speech made in the campaign. I immediately went to Washington with ex-President Hayes to attend the funeral, and accompanied the committee to the burial at Cleveland. The sympathy for Garfield in his sad fate was universal and sincere. The inauguration of President Arthur immediately followed, and with it an entire change of the cabinet.
CHAPTER XLIV. BEGINNING OF ARTHUR’S ADMINISTRATION. Special Session of the Senate Convened by the President—Abuse of Me by Newspapers and Discharged Employees—Charges Concerning Disbursement of the Contingent Fund—My Resolution in the Senate— Secretary Windom’s Letter Accompanying the Meline Report—Investigation and Complete Exoneration—Arthur’s Message to Congress in December —Joint Resolutions on the Death of Garfield—Blaine’s Tribute to His Former Chief—Credit of the United States at “High Water Mark” —Bill Introduced Providing for the Issuing of Three per Cent. Bonds—Corporate Existence of National Banks Extended—Bill to Reduce Internal Revenue Taxes—Tax on Playing Cards—Democratic Victory in Ohio.
On the 23rd of September, 1881, President Arthur convened the Senate to meet in special session on the 10th of October. Mr. Bayard was elected its president pro tempore. On the 13th of October, when the Senate was full, David Davis, of Illinois, was elected president pro tempore, and the usual thanks were given to Mr. Bayard, as the retiring president pro tempore, for the dignity and impartiality with which he had discharged the duties of his office.
At this period of my life I was the object of more abuse and vituperation than ever before or since. The fact that the new administration of Arthur was not friendly to me was no doubt the partial cause of this abuse. The intense bitterness manifested by certain papers, and by discharged employees, indicated the origin of most of the petty charges against me. One of these employees stated that he had been detailed for work on a house built by me in 1880. This was easily answered by the fact that the house was built under contract with a leading builder and the cost was paid to him. I neither knew the man nor ever heard of him since.
I was blamed for certain irregularities in the disbursement of the contingent fund of the treasury, although the accounts of that fund were by law approved by the chief clerk of the department and were settled by the accounting officers without ever coming under my supervision, and the disbursement had been made by a custodian who was in the department before I entered it. My wife was more annoyed than I with the petty charges which she knew were false, but which I did not dignify by denying.
Mr. Windom, soon after his appointment as secretary, directed an inquiry to be made by officers of the treasury department into these abuses and it was charged that he, at my request, had suppressed this inquiry. The “Commercial Advertiser,” on the 11th of October, alleged that I was as much shocked by the disclosures as my successor, Mr. Windom; that I did not want any further publicity given to them, and was desirous that Mr. Windom should not allow the report to get into the public prints. I, therefore, on the 14th of October, offered in the Senate this resolution:
“Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such report.”
In offering the resolution, after reading the article in the “Commercial Advertiser,” I said:
“The writer of this paragraph is very much mistaken in supposing that I have in any way sought or wished to withhold from the public the report referred to. I neither have nor will I oppose or delay any investigation of the treasury department while I was its chief officer. The only wish I have is to see that every officer accused of improper conduct shall have a fair chance to defend himself, and then he must stand or fall according to the rectitude or wrong of his conduct.
“The only doubt I have in calling for this report now is the fact that Mr. Windom did not order its publication lest injustice might be done to worthy and faithful officers who had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or answer charges made against them. I have no doubt that he either has given or will give them this opportunity. At all events the Senate can do so. I, therefore, offer this resolution and hope the Senate will promptly pass it.”
Mr. Edmunds objected to the resolution as being unnecessary, and under the rules of the Senate it went over. I called it up on the 18th of October, when Mr. Farley, of California, asked that it be postponed a few days. On the 22nd I again called it up, when Mr. Farley stated that he could not see what Congress had to do with the report of such a commission appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and asked me for an explanation. In reply I said:
“I stated, on introducing this resolution, that the investigation was one of a character not usually communicated to Congress, but that certain public prints had contained unfounded imputations against several officers of the government, and that there was something in the report which reflected on a Member of this body formerly a cabinet officer. Under the circumstances, as I was plainly the person referred to, having been Secretary of the Treasury at the time stated, I deemed it my right, as well as my duty to my fellow-Senators, to call out this information. If the statements contained in the papers be true, they are proper matters for the Senate to examine in every sense.
“Mr. president, I have been accustomed to newspaper abuse all my life and very rarely notice it. This is probably the first time in my political life that I have ever read to this body a newspaper attack upon me or upon anyone else; but when any paper or any man impugns in the slightest degree my official integrity I intend to have it investigated, and I wish it tested not only by the law but by the strictest rules of personal honor.
“For this reason, when this imputation is made by a leading and prominent paper, that there is on the files of the treasury department a document which reflects upon me, I think it right that it should be published to the world, and then the Senate can investigate it with the power to send for persons and papers. That is the only reason why I offered the resolution, and not so much in my own defense as in defense of those accused in this document. If the accusation is true it is the duty of the Senate to examine into the matter.”
After some further discussion the resolution was adopted, and on the same day Mr. Windom transmitted the report of James F. Meline, and other officers of the treasury department, made to the department during the recess of the Senate. His letter is as follows:
“Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary,}
“Washington, D. C., October 22, 1881. }
“Sir:—I am in receipt of the resolution of the Senate of the 21st
instant, as follows:
‘Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such report.’
“In reply thereto I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the report called for, with the accompanying statements of Mr. J. K. Upton and J. T. Power, who occupied the position of chief clerk and ex officio superintendent of the treasury building for the period covered by the report.
“Soon after assuming the duties of Secretary of the Treasury my attention was called to alleged abuses in the disbursement of the contingent fund of the department, which was under the immediate charge of a custodian, and the general supervision of the chief clerk of the department, and I appointed a committee to look into the matter, as has been the custom of the department in such cases. The law, somewhat conflicting in its terms in relation to the relative duties of these two officers, will be found fully set forth in the report. On considering this report I am convinced that certain irregularities and abuses existed in this branch of the service, and as I had some doubts as to the legality of the appointment of a custodian I abolished that office June 18, 1881, and by general order of July 1, 1881, reorganized the office.
“A copy of this order is herewith transmitted, from which it will appear that all the changes necessary to a complete and thorough correction of the irregularities and abuses referred to have been adopted.
“It was my intention, as my more pressing public duties would permit, to have pursued this general policy in other branches of the treasury, by the appointment of competent committees to collect the necessary data on which to base proper action to secure economy and promote the best interests of the public service, but the assassination of the President suspended further action in this direction.
“Very respectfully,
“William Windom, Secretary.
“Hon. David Davis, President of the Senate.”
On the 26th I offered a resolution as follows:
“Resolved, That the committee on appropriations of the Senate be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to investigate the accounts for the expenditure of the appropriations for contingent or other expenses of the several executive departments, including the methods of making such disbursements, the character and disposition of the purchases made, and the employment of labor paid from such appropriations, and to report on the subject at as early a day as practicable, and whether any further legislation is necessary to secure the proper disbursement of such appropriations; and that the committee have leave to send for persons and papers, and have leave to sit during the recess of the Senate.”
This led to a thorough investigation into the disbursement of the contingent fund of the treasury department, the report of which, accompanied by the testimony, covering over 1,200 printed pages, was submitted to the Senate on the 15th of March, 1882. This examination was chiefly conducted by Francis M. Cockrell, of Missouri, a Senator distinguished for his fairness and thoroughness. The report was concurred in unanimously by the committee on appropriations. It showed that certain irregularities had entered into the management of the fund and that certain improper entries had been made in the account, but that only a trifling loss had resulted to the government therefrom.
I was before the committee and stated that I never had any knowledge of any wrongdoing in the matter until it had been brought out by the investigation. The report fairly and fully relieved me from the false accusations made against me. It said: “Touching the statements of Senator Sherman, that he had no knowledge of its irregularities, etc., established by the evidence, no witness states that Mr. Sherman knew that any funds of the treasury department were ever used for his individual benefit or otherwise misapplied.”
I could not have asked for a more favorable ending of the matter.
At the close of the examination the committee addressed to the head of each department of Arthur’s administration an inquiry whether the laws then in force provided ample safeguards for the faithful expenditure of its contingent appropriation, and each of them replied that no change in existing law was necessary. The committee concurred in the views of the heads of the departments, and suggested that they keep a constant supervision over the acts of their subordinates; that the storekeeper of the treasury department should be required to give a bond, and that careful inventories of the property of each department should be made, and that annual reports of the expenditures from the contingent fund should be made by each department at the commencement of each regular session. While this investigation imposed a severe labor upon the committee on appropriations, it had a beneficial effect in securing a more careful control over the contingent expenses of the departments, and it silenced the imputations and innuendoes aimed at me.
In regard to these accusations, I no doubt exhibited more resentment and gave them more importance than they deserved. I felt that, as Secretary of the Treasury, I had rendered the country valuable service, that I had dealt with vast sums without receiving the slightest benefit, and at the close was humiliated by charges of petty larceny. If I had recalled the experience of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson and Blaine, and many others, under like accusations, I would have been content with answering as Washington and Jackson did, or by silent indifference, but my temperament led me to defy and combat with my accusers, however formidable or insignificant they might be.
The annual message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 6th of December, was a creditable, businesslike statement of the condition of the government. It commenced with a very proper announcement of the appalling calamity which had fallen upon the American people by the untimely death of President Garfield. He said:
“The memory of his exalted character, of his noble achievements, and of his patriotic life, will be treasured forever as a sacred possession of the whole people.
“The announcement of his death drew from foreign governments and peoples tributes of sympathy and sorrow which history will record as signal tokens of the kinship of nations and the federation of mankind.”
Our friendly relations with foreign nations were fully described, and the operations of the different departments of the government during the past year were clearly and emphatically stated. In closing he called attention to the second article of the constitution, in the fifth clause of its first section, that “in case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President,” and asked that Congress should define “what is the intendment of the constitution in its specification of ‘inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office,’ as one of the contingencies which calls for the Vice President to the exercise of presidential functions? Is the inability limited in its nature to long continued intellectual incapacity, or has it a broader import? What must be its extent and duration? How must its existence be established?”
These and other questions connected with the subject were not acted upon by Congress, as it could not foresee the conditions of the inabilities in advance of their occurrence. He closed with the following sentence:
“Deeply impressed with the gravity of the responsibilities which have so unexpectedly devolved upon me, it will be my constant purpose to co-operate with you in such measures as will promote the glory of the country and the prosperity of its people.”
At the regular meeting of the House of Representatives, on the 5th of December, 1881, J. Warren Keifer was elected speaker by a small majority. Both Houses were almost equally divided on partisan lines.
Early in the session, on the motion of William McKinley, the House passed the following resolution:
“Resolved, That a committee of one Member from each state represented in this House be appointed on the part of the House to join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to consider and report by what token of respect and affection it may be proper for the Congress of the United States to express the deep sensibility of the nation to the event of the decease of their late President, James Abram Garfield; and that so much of the message of the President as refers to that melancholy event be referred to said committee.”
On the same day, on my motion, a similar resolution, limiting the committee to eight, passed the Senate. The committees were duly appointed. On the 21st of December the two Houses, upon the report of the two committees, adopted the following concurrent preamble and resolutions:
“Whereas, The melancholy event of the violent and tragic death of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, having occurred during the recess of Congress, and the two Houses sharing in the general grief and desiring to manifest their sensibility upon the occasion of the public bereavement: Therefore,
“Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the two Houses of Congress will assemble in the hall of the House of Representatives on a day and hour to be fixed and announced by the joint committee, and that in the presence of the two Houses there assembled an address upon the life and character of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, be pronounced by Hon. James G. Blaine; and that the president of the Senate pro tempore and the speaker of the House of Representatives be requested to invite the President and ex-Presidents, of the United States, the heads of the several departments, the judges of the Supreme Court, the representatives of the foreign governments near this government, the governors of the several states, the general of the army and the admiral of the navy, and such officers of the army and have as have received the thanks of Congress who may then be at the seat of government, to be present on this occasion.
“And be it further resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to Mrs. Lucretia R. Garfield, and to assure her of the profound sympathy of the two Houses of Congress for her deep personal affliction and of their sincere condolence for the late national bereavement.”
On the 27th of February, 1882, Mr. Blaine, in response to the resolution of the two Houses, delivered an address, in the hall of House of Representatives, on the life and character of President Garfield, worthy of the occasion, of the distinguished audience before him, and of his reputation as an orator. From the beginning to the end it was elevated in tone, eloquent in the highest sense of that word, and warm in expression of his affection for the friend he eulogized. His delineation of Garfield as a soldier, an orator, and a man, in all the relations of life, was without exaggeration, but was tinged with his personal friendship and love. He described him on the 2nd of July, the morning of his wounding, as a contented and happy man, not in an ordinary degree, but joyfully, almost boyishly, happy. “Great in life, he was surpassingly great in death.” He pictured the long lingering illness that followed that fatal wound, the patience of the sufferer, the unfaltering front with which he faced death, and his simple resignation to the divine decree. His peroration rose to the full measure of highest oratory. It was as follows:
“As the end drew near, his early craving for the sea returned. The stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital of pain, and he begged to be taken from its prison walls, from its oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and its hopelessness. Gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer to the longer-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as God should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of its manifold voices. With wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to the cooling breeze, he looked out wistfully upon the ocean’s changing wonders; on its far sails, whitening in the morning light; on its restless waves, rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening, arching low to the horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars. Let us think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt and parting soul may know. Let us believe that in the silence of the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a further shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the eternal morning.”
Blaine died January 27, 1893. Who now living could pronounce such a eulogy?
The following resolutions were adopted by both Houses of Congress:
“Resolved (the Senate concurring), That the thanks of Congress be presented to the Hon. James G. Blaine, for the appropriate memorial address delivered by him on the life and services of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, in the Representatives’ Hall, before both Houses of Congress and their invited guests, on the 27th day of February, 1882; and that he be requested to furnish a copy for publication.
“Resolved, That the chairman of the joint committee appointed to make the necessary arrangements to carry into effect the resolutions of this Congress, in relation to the memorial exercises in honor of James Abram Garfield, be requested to communicate to Mr. Blaine the foregoing resolution, receive his answer thereto, and present the same to both Houses of Congress.”
At the time of the commencement of this session the credit of the United States had reached high-water mark. It was apparent that, with judicious management, a three per cent. bond of the United States could be sold at par. On the first day of the session, December 5, 1881, I introduced a bill to provide for the issue of three per cent. bonds. It was referred to the committee on finance, and on the 15th of December, by direction of that committee, I reported the bill with certain amendments, and gave notice that I was directed to seek the action of the Senate upon it immediately after the holidays. It was taken up for consideration on the 11th of January, and, much to my surprise, met with opposition from those who a year before had favored a similar bill. They said it was a mere expedient on my part, that President Hayes had, at my request, vetoed a similar bill; but I was able to truly answer that the veto of President Hayes was not against the three per cent. bond, but against the compulsory provision that no other than three per cent. bonds should be deposited in the treasury as security for the circulating notes of, and deposits with, national banks; that President Hayes, in fact, approved of the three per cent. bond.
I made a speech in support of this measure on the 26th of January, reviewing our financial condition, with many details in respect to our different loans, and closed as follows:
“I say now, as I said at the commencement, that the passage of this bill seems to me a matter of public duty. I care nothing for it personally. I have been taunted with my inconsistency. I feel like the Senator from Kentucky about an argument of that kind. If I did not sometimes change my mind I should consider myself a blockhead or a fool. But in this matter, fortunately, I have not changed my mind. In 1866 I anticipated the time when we could sell three per cent. bonds and said that was a part of the funding scheme, and so continued, year in and year out, as I could show Senators, that that was the ultima thule, the highest point of credit to which I looked in these refunding operations. I believed last year it could not be done, because I did not believe the state of the money market would justify the attempt, and, besides that, the great mass of the indebtedness was so large that it might prevent the sale of three per cent. bonds at par. Therefore, I wanted a three and a half per cent. bill then. But then we secured the three and a half in spite of Congress, by the operations of the treasury department and the consent of the bondholders, now we ought to do a little better.
“Let Congress do now what it proposed to do last year, offer to the people a three per cent. bond. If they do not take it no harm is done, no expense is incurred, no commissions are paid, no advantage is taken. If they do take it, they enable you to pay off more rapidly still your three and a half per cent. bonds. There was no express and no implied obligation made by the Senator from Minnesota, as he will himself say, that the people of the United States have the right to pay every dollar of these three and a half per cent. bonds. He had no power to make such an intimation even, nor has he made it, as he states himself. We are not restrained by any sense of duty, we have the right to take advantage of our improved credit, of our advanced credit, and make the best bargain we can for the people of the United States, and the doctrine is not ‘let well enough alone,’ but always to advance.
“We are advancing in credit, in population, in strength, in power, in reason. The work of to-day is not the work of to-morrow; it is but the preparation for the future. And, sir, if I had my way in regard to these matters I certainly would repeal taxes; I would fortify ourselves in Congress by reducing this large surplus revenue; I would regulate, by wise and separate laws, fully and fairly considered, all the subjects embraced in these amendments as separate and distinct measures, pass this bill which, to the extent it goes and to the extent it is successful, will be beneficial to the people.”
The debate upon the bill and upon amendments to it continued until the 3rd of February, when it passed the Senate by the decided vote of 38 yeas, 18 nays.
The bill was referred to the committee of ways and means, but the House, instead of passing a separate bill, accomplished the same object by section 11 of the national bank act of July 12, 1882, by which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to receive at the treasury any bonds of the United States bearing three and a half per cent. interest, and to issue in exchange therefor an equal amount of registered bonds of the United States bearing interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum.
Mr. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of December 4, 1882, stated that on July 1, 1882, the amount of three and a half per cent. bonds outstanding was $449,324,000, and that under the section referred to he had exchanged to the date of his report $280,394,750 of three per cent. bonds for a like amount of three and a half per cent. bonds, thus reducing the annual interest charge by reason of these exchanges $1,401,973.75.
By his report of 1883, it was shown that the total amount of such exchanges was $305,581,250, making an annual saving of interest, effected by these exchanges, of $1,527,906.25. These bonds were subsequently paid from time to time by surplus revenue.
The whole process of refunding was perhaps as favorable a financial transaction as has ever been executed in any country in the world.
A revision of the tariff was greatly needed, but the only measure adopted at that session was an act to provide for the appointment of a commission to investigate the question of the tariff. I made a speech on this bill in which I advocated the appointment of a commission. I said:
“Mr. president, I have called attention to these defects in the present tariff, nearly all of which have grown out of amendments that have been ingrafted on the Morrill tariff, by the confusion caused by the difference between ad valorem and specific duties, by the great fall in prices, by important changes in the mode of manufacturing, by, you may say, the revolution in trade and prices that has occurred in the last twenty years, during which these laws have existed. Therefore, coming back to the first question stated by me, how best to get at a revision of the tariff, I say the quickest way is the best way.
“Now, it does seem to me, with due deference to the opinion of the Senator from Kentucky, that the quickest mode of revision is by a commission. At the beginning of this session I believed it was better to do it through the committees of the two Houses; but the committee on ways and means of the House of Representatives alone has the power to report a bill, and until then we in the Senate are as helpless as children in this matter. The committee on ways and means have declared in favor of a commission, and have reported a bill to that effect; and they are the only power in this government that can report a tariff bill under the rules of the House. The House is the only body that can originate it under the constitution. As they have decided in favor of a commission, why should we insist upon it that they shall do the work themselves?
“Besides, half the session has passed away, and the committee on ways and means is burdened with other duties. We know that as the session approaches an end, they probably cannot devote time to the general tariff question.
“If they will give us a bill about sugar and these other items, it is all we can reasonably ask them to do. When Congress adjourns, you cannot expect the committee on ways and means, or any other committee of Congress, to devote all their recess to public business. Elections are coming off for Members of Congress, and they will look after the elections. They must have a little rest. Therefore, the idea of waiting for the committees of Congress to act, is preposterous in my judgment. It is too late. If the committee had commenced on the first Monday of December, they might by this time probably had prepared a bill. They have made no such preparation, and, therefore, it is utterly idle to wait.
“I think, then, and I submit it to the good, cool sense and judgment of my friend from Kentucky, that the better way is as early as possible to organize a commission; let it be constituted, as I have no doubt the President will take care to constitute it, of fair and impartial men. They will be fresh at least. Let them frame a bill with the aid of officers of the treasury department, so that by the next session we may have a general revision of the tariff.
“Upon the main question there appears to be no substantial difference of opinion. We agree that the tariff should be revised and the taxes be reduced. The only pertinent question involved in this bill is whether it is best to organize a commission of experts, not Members of Congress, to examine the whole subject and to report such facts and information to Congress as the commission can gather, or whether the proposed revision should be made directly, without the delay of a commission, by the aid of committees of Congress and the officers of the government familiar with the workings of the customs laws. It does seem to me that to decide this question we need no long arguments about protection or free trade, watchwords of opposing schools of political economy, nor does it seem to me that the political bearings of the tariff question are involved when we all agree that the tariff ought to be revised, and are now only finding out the best way to get at it.
“Whenever a tariff bill is reported to us we will have full time to discuss the theoretical and political aspects of the subject, and no doubt the arguments already made will be repeated and amplified. I prophesy that then we will have a strange mingling of political elements, and a striking evidence of the changes of interest and principle on this subject in different parts of the country, caused by the revolution of the industry of our people by the abolition of slavery during the Civil War. The only mitigation of my desire for a prompt revision of the tariff is the confidence I have that delay and discussion will make the sectional revolution more thorough and universal, and leave the tariff question a purely business and not a political or sectional issue.”
The nine commissioners appointed by President Arthur were well selected, and they were, under the law, required to report on that subject to the following session of Congress.
It became necessary at this session to extend the corporate existence of national banks. By the terms of the original national banking act, banks organized under it continued for but twenty years, which would expire within two years. A bill for the extension of the time was introduced and a long discussion followed about silver, certificates of deposit, clearing house certificates and other financial matters. There was but little if any opposition to the extension of national banks and the bill passed. It was approved July 12, 1882.
The most important financial measure passed by this Congress was the bill to reduce internal revenue taxes, reported March 29, 1882, by William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, from the committee of ways and means. After a debate extending to June 27, a motion to recommit was rejected and the bill passed the House. It was sent to the Senate and reported with amendments by Mr. Morrill, from the committee on finance, July 6. On July 11 it was recommitted to the committee on finance and immediately reported back with amendments, which consisted of a change in the tariff duties on sugar and an increase of the duties on cotton, ties and a few other things. It was not a general revision of the tariff. Mr. Beck antagonized the amendments proposed by the committee and sought to delay the passage of the bill. I replied to him as follows:
“If this Congress shall adjourn, whether the weather be hot or cold, without a reduction of the taxes now imposed upon the people, it will have been derelict in its highest duty. There is no sentiment in this country stronger now than that Congress has neglected its duty thus far in not repealing taxes that are obnoxious to the people and unnecessary for the public uses; and if we should still neglect that duty we should be properly held responsible by our constituents.”
In the course of the long debate Mr. Vance, of North Carolina, who was the acknowledged wit of the Senate, moved to except playing cards from the general repeal of stamp taxes. I objected to keeping up the system of stamp taxes and said:
“If Senators want to insist on a piece of what I call demagogism, by keeping a small stamp tax on playing cards, I am perfectly willing that they should do so. If it is desired now to show our virtuous indignation against card-playing, to single out this tax, which probably yields but three or four thousand dollars a year— to show our virtuous indignation against people who play cards and against card-playing, let it be done in the name of Heaven. Let us keep this as a monument of our virtue and intelligence and the horror of the Senate of the United States against playing whist and euchre. I hope that no such vote will be given.”
Mr. Vance replied in his peculiarly humorous way, and concluded by saying: “I have no doubt that not a men in the United States, but who, when he ‘stands pat’ with three jacks, or draws to two aces, will glorify the name of the Senator from Ohio; and if there is gratitude in human nature, I expect the see the next edition of playing cards bearing a fullsized portrait of the Senator from Ohio as the distinguishing mark of the ‘yerker.’”
The Senate was equally divided on this question of retaining the tax on playing cards, the vote being 28 for and 28 against. As there was not a majority in favor of the amendment of Mr. Vance it was rejected and the tax was repealed.
Mr. Beck undertook to amend the bill by a general revision and reduction of the tariff duties in long schedules introduced by him. I took an active part in the discussion of this bill in the hope that by it we might secure a logical and desirable revenue law. No final action was taken on it before the adjournment of Congress on the 8th of August, after an eight months’ session, and it went over to the next session.
After the long and wearisome session I returned to Mansfield. The congressional canvass in Ohio was then in full operation. The failure of Congress to pass the bill relieving the people from the burden of internal taxes no longer required, the shadow of the murder of Garfield, the dislike and prejudice against Arthur’s administration, the temporary stringency in money matters, the liquor or license question, the Sunday observance, and the discontent of German Republicans, greatly weakened the Republican party in the state and foreboded defeat. R. A. Horr was the Republican candidate for Congress in the district in which I reside, and on the 17th of August he spoke at Mansfield. I also made a brief speech covering the chief subjects under discussion. I explained the causes of the failure to pass the revenue reduction bill, blaming it, as a matter of course, on the Democratic party, but assured my hearers that it would pass at the next session, and that the surplus revenue would not be wasted, but would be applied to the reduction of the public debt, and to increase pensions to Union soldiers, their widows and orphans. The opposition to the immigration of Chinese into this country was then strong. I could only promise that Congress would do all it could to exclude them consistently with treaty stipulations. I favored the proper observance of the Sabbath day, claiming that it was a day of rest and should not be desecrated, but each congregation and each citizen should be at liberty to observe it in any way, consistent with good order and noninterference with others. Touching on the liquor question, I said that many of our young men were brought to disgrace and crime by indulgence in intoxicating liquors, and I therefore believed in regulating the evil. Why should all other business be suspended, and saloons only be open? I was in favor of a law imposing a large tax on all dealers in liquor, which would tend to prevent its use. I believed in a policy that would protect our own laborers from undue competition with foreign labor, and would increase and develop our home industries. This position was chiefly a defensive one, and experience has proven that it is not a safe one. The Republican party is stronger when it is aggressive.
On the 31st of August I attended the state fair as usual, and on the morning of that day made a full and formal political address covering both state and national interests. I quote a few passages on the liquor question, then the leading subject of state policy. I said:
“All laws are a restraint upon liberty. We surrender some of our natural rights for the security of the rest. The only question is, where is the boundary between rights reserved and those given up? And the only answer is, wherever the general good will be promoted by the surrender. In a republic the personal liberty of the citizen to do what he wishes should not be restricted, except when it is clear that it is for the interest of the public at large. There are three forms of legislative restriction: Prohibition, regulation and taxation, of which taxation is the mildest. We prohibit crime, we regulate and restrain houses of bad fame. We tax whisky and beer. I see no hardship in such restraints upon liberty. They are all not only for the public good, but for the good of those affected. If certain social enjoyments are prolific of vice and crime they must give way, or submit to restraints or taxation.
“I know it is extremely difficult to define the line between social habits and enjoyments perfectly innocent and proper and those that are injurious to all concerned. It is in this that the danger lies, for the law ought never to interfere with social happiness and innocent enjoyments. The fault of Americans is that they are not social enough. I have seen on the banks of the Rhine, and in Berlin, old and young men, women, children of all conditions of social life, listening to music, playing their games and drinking their beer, doing no wrong and meaning none. I have seen in the villages of France the young people dancing gayly, with all the animation of youth and innocence, while the old people, looking on, were chatting and joking and drinking their native wines, and I could see no wrong in all this.
“But there were other scenes in these and other countries: Ginshops and haunts of vice where the hand of authority was seen and felt. What I contend for is that the lawmaking power shall be authorized to make the distinction between innocent and harmful amusements and the places and habits of life which eventually lead to intemperance, vice and crime. Surely we can leave to our general assembly, chosen by the people and constantly responsible to them, the framing of such wise regulations, distinction and taxes as will discriminate between enjoyment and vicious places of resort.
“It is a reproach to our legislative capacity to allow free whisky to be sold, untaxed and without regulation, at tens of thousands of groggeries and saloons, lest some law should be passed to restrain the liberty of the citizen. What we want is a wise, discriminating tax law on the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and judicious legislation to restrain, as far as practicable, the acknowledged evils that flow from this unlimited traffic.”
This speech expressed my convictions in respect to temperance, and how far this and kindred subjects should be regulated by legislative authority. This was a delicate subject, but I believe the opinions expressed by me were generally entertained by the people of Ohio and would have been fully acted upon by the legislature but for revenue restrictions in the constitution of Ohio.
After I closed Governor Foster and Speaker Keifer spoke briefly. The general canvass then continued over the state until the election. As the only state officers to be elected were the secretary of state, a supreme judge and a member of the board of public works, the chief interest centered in the liquor question and in the election of Members of Congress in doubtful districts. I spoke in several districts, especially in Elyria, Warren, Wauseon, Tiffin and Zanesville. I spent several days in Cincinnati, socially, and in speaking in different parts of the city. The result of the election was that James W. Newman, the Democratic candidate for secretary of state, received a majority of 19,000 over Charles Townsend, the Republican candidate. This was heralded as a Democratic victory. In one sense this was true, but it was properly attributed by the Republicans to the opposition to prohibition. It grew out of the demand of a portion of our people for free whisky and no Sunday. THey were opposed to the liquor law, and believed it went too far, and voted the Democratic ticket.
A few days after the election I went with two friends to Lawrence, Kansas, arriving about the 15th of October. I have always retained a kindly feeling for the people of that state since I shared in the events of its early history. With each visit I have marked the rapid growth of the state and the intense politics that divided its people into several parties. This was the natural outgrowth of conditions and events before the Civil War. As usual I was called upon to make a speech in Lawrence, which, in view of our recent defeat in Ohio, was not a pleasant task. However, I accepted, and spoke at the opera house, chiefly on the early history of Kansas and the struggle in that territory and state, which resulted in transforming the United States from a confederacy of hostile states into a powerful republic founded upon the principles of universal liberty and perpetual union.
From Lawrence we went into Texas, and for the first time traversed that magnificent state, going from Denison to Laredo on the Rio Grande, stopping on the way at Austin and San Antonio. On the route I met Senator Richard Coke and his former colleague, Samuel B. Maxey. I have studied the history of Texas and its vast undeveloped resources, and anticipated its growth in wealth and population. It is destined to be, if not the first, among the first, of the great states of the Union. We returned via Texarkana to St. Louis and thence home.
CHAPTER XLV. STEPS TOWARDS MUCH NEEDED TARIFF LEGISLATION. Necessity of Relief from Unnecessary Taxation—Views of the President as Presented to Congress in December, 1882—Views of the Tariff Commission Appointed by the President—Great Changes Made by the Senate—Regret That I Did Not Defeat the Bill—Wherein Many Sections Were Defective or Unjust—Bill to Regulate and Improve the Civil Service—A Mandatory Provision That Should be Added to the Existing Law—Further Talk of Nominating Me for Governor of Ohio—Reasons Why I Could Not Accept—Selected as Chairman of the State Convention —Refusal to Be Nominated—J. B. Foraker Nominated by Acclamation —His Career—Issues of the Campaign—My Trip to Montana—Resuming the Canvass—Hoadley Elected Governor—Retirement of Gen. Sherman.
The President was able to present, in his annual message to Congress on the 4th of December, 1882, a very favorable statement of the condition of the United States during the preceding year. He recalled the attention of Congress to the recommendation in his previous message on the importance of relieving the industry and enterprise of the country from the pressure of unnecessary taxation, and to the fact that the public revenues had far exceeded the expenditures, and, unless checked by appropriate legislation, such excess would continue to increase from year to year. The surplus revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, amounted to $100,000,000, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, it amounted to more than $145,000,000. This was applied to the payment of the public debt. He renewed the expression of his conviction that such rapid extinguishment of the national indebtedness as was taking place was by no means a cause for congratulation, but rather for serious apprehension. He therefore urged upon Congress the policy of diminishing the revenue by reducing taxation. He then stated at length his opinion of the reductions that ought to be made. He felt justified in recommending the abolition of all internal taxes except those upon tobacco in its various forms, and upon distilled spirits and fermented liquors. The message was a clear and comprehensive statement of the existing tariff system, and the unequal distribution of both its burdens and its benefits. He called attention to the creation of the tariff commission, and to the report of that commission as to the condition and prospects of the various commercial, manufacturing, agricultural, mining and other interests of the country, and recommended an enlargement of the free list, so as to include within it numerous articles which yielded inconsiderable revenue, a simplification of the complex and inconsistent schedule of duties upon certain manufactures, particularly those of cotton, iron and steel, and a substantial reduction of the duties upon those and various other articles. The subsequent action of Congress did not, in my opinion, conform to this, in some respects, wise recommendation of the President. In his closing paragraph he stated:
“The closing year has been replete with blessings for which we owe to the Giver of all good our reverent acknowledgment. For the uninterrupted harmony of our foreign relations, for the decay of sectional animosities, for the exuberance of our harvests and the triumphs of our mining and manufacturing industries, for the prevalence of health, the spread of intelligence and the conservation of the public credit, for the growth of the country in all the elements of national greatness—for these and countless other blessings—we should rejoice and be glad. I trust that under the inspiration of this great prosperity our counsels may be harmonious, and that the dictates of prudence, patriotism, justice and economy may lead to the adoption of measures in which the Congress and the Executive may heartily unite.”
The report of the Secretary of the Treasury emphasized and elaborated the recommendations of the President.
The real cause of the delay of the Senate at the previous session, in acting upon the internal revenue bill, was the desire to await the action of the tariff commission appointed under the act approved May 15, 1882. To secure a comprehensive scheme of taxation it was necessary to include in a revenue bill duties on imported goods as well as taxes on internal productions. The members of the tariff commission appointed by the President, and who signed the report, were John L. Hayes, Henry W. Oliver, A. M. Garland, J. A. Ambler, Robert P. Porter, J. W. H. Underwood, Alexander R. Boteler, and Duncan F. Kenner. These gentlemen were of high standing, representing different parts of the country, of both political parties, and notably familiar with our internal and external commerce and productions. In their report they said:
“In performance of the duty devolved upon them, all the members of the commission have aimed, and, as they believe, with success, to divest themselves of political bias, sectional prejudice, or considerations of personal interest. It is their desire that their recommendations shall serve no particular party, class, section, or school of political economy.”
They transmitted their report to the speaker of the House of Representatives on the 4th of December, 1882. It was a clear and business-like statement of their action, accompanied with schedules of duties on imported goods recommended by them, with suggested amendments to existing customs laws, with testimony taken by them, and with tables and reports covering, in all, over 2,500 printed pages. It was by far the most comprehensive exposition of our customs laws and rates of duty that, so far as I know, had been published. It was quickly printed for the use of the finance committee of the Senate, before whom the bill to reduce internal revenue taxation was pending. If the committee had embodied, in this bill, the recommendations of the tariff commission, including the schedules without amendment or change, the tariff would have been settled for many years. Unfortunately this was not done, but the schedules prescribing the rates of duty and their classification were so radically changed by the committee that the scheme of the tariff commission was practically defeated. Many persons wishing to advance their particular industries appeared before the committee and succeeded in having their views adopted. The Democratic members seemed to take little interest in the proceedings, as they were opposed to the adoption of the tariff as a part of the bill. I did all I could to prevent these changes, was very much discouraged by the action of the committee, and doubted the propriety of voting for the bill with the tariff provisions as proposed by the committee and adopted by the Senate. I have always regretted that I did not defeat the bill, which I could readily have done by voting with the Democrats against the adoption of the conference report, which passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 32, nays 30. However, the propriety and necessity of a reduction of internal taxes proposed by the bill were so urgent that I did not feel justified in denying relief from burdensome and unnecessary taxes on account of provisions in the bill that I did not approve. With great reluctance I voted for it.
One reduction made by the committee against my most strenuous efforts was by a change in the classification and rates of the duty on wool. When I returned to Ohio I was violently assailed by the Democratic newspapers for voting for a bill that reduced the existing duty on wool about twenty per cent., and I had much difficulty in explaining to my constituents that I opposed the reduction, but, when the Senate refused to adopt by view, did not feel justified, on account of my opposition to this one item, in voting against the bill as a whole. The conference report was agreed to by the House of Representatives on the 2nd of March, and the bill was approved by the President on the 3rd.
I did not conceal my opposition to the tariff sections of the revenue bill. I expressed it in debate, in interviews and in letters. When the bill was reported to the Senate it was met by two kinds of opposition, one the blind party opposition of free traders, led by Senators Beck and Vance, the other (much more dangerous), the conflict of selfish and local interests, mainly on the part of manufacturers, who regarded all articles which they purchased as raw material, on which they wished the lowest possible rate of duty, or none at all, and their work, as the finished article, on which they wished the highest rate of duty. In other words, what they had to buy they called raw material to be admitted without protection, and what they had to sell they wanted protection. It was a combination of the two kinds of opposition that made the trouble.
The Democratic Senators, with a few exceptions, voted steadily and blindly for any reduction of duty proposed; but they alone could not carry their amendments, and only did so when re-enforced by Republican Senators, who, influenced by local interest, could reduce any duty at their pleasure. In this way, often by a majority of one, amendments were adopted that destroyed the harmony of the bill. In this way iron ore, pig iron, scrap iron and wool were sacrificed in the Senate. They were classed as raw materials for manufactures and not as manufactures. For selfish and local reasons tin plates, cotton, ties and iron and steel rods for wire were put at exceptionally low rates, and thus were stricken from the list of articles that could be manufactured in this country. This local and selfish appeal was the great defect of the tariff bill. I do not hesitate to say that the iron and wool sections of the bill, as it passed the Senate, were unjust, incongruous and absurd. They would have reduced the iron and steel industries of the United States to their condition before the war, and have closed up two-thirds of the furnaces and rolling mills in this country. They were somewhat changed in the committee of conference, but if they had not been, the only alternative to the manufacturers would have been to close up or largely reduce the wages of labor.
Another mistake made in the Senate was to strike out all the carefully prepared legislative provisions simplifying the mode of collecting customs duties, and the provisions for the trial of customs cases. The tariff commission proposed to repeal the ad valorem duty on wool, and leave on it only the specific duty of ten and twelve cents a pound. The chairman of the tariff commission was himself the president or agent of the woolen manufacturers and made the report. The manufacturers of woolens, however, were dissatisfied, and demanded an entire change in the classification of woolens, and, on some important grades, a large increase of rates, but insisted upon a reduction of the duty on wool.
I hoped when the bill passed the Senate that a conference committee would amend it, but, unfortunately Senators Bayard and Beck withdrew from the conference and the Senate was represented by Senators Morrill, Aldrich and Sherman. My colleagues on the conference were part of the majority in the Senate, and favored the bill, and the House conferees seemed concerned chiefly in getting some bill of relief, some reduction of taxes, before the close of the session.
On the 13th of March, 1883, in reply to a question of a correspondent whether I had any objection to having my views reported, I said:
“No, sir; the contest is now over, and I see no reason why the merits and demerits of the law should not be stated. I worked at it with the finance committee for three months, to the exclusion of other business. Taken as a whole, I think the law will do a great deal of good and some harm. The great body of it is wise and just, but it contains some serious defects. The metallic and wool schedules are unequal and unjust. The great merit of the bill is that it reduces taxes. I would not have voted for it, if any other way had been open to reduce taxes.
“Was there any urgent necessity for reducing taxes?”
“Yes. The demand for a reduction of taxes was general, and, in respect to some taxes, pressing and imperative. The failure of Congress to reduce taxes was one of the chief causes of the defeat of the Republican party last fall, though it was not really the fault of our party. The bill was talked to death by Democratic Senators. The taxes levied by the United States are not oppressive, but they are excessive. They tempt extravagance. We could not go home without reducing the internal taxes. What I want you to emphasize is, that the tariff sections could not have passed in their present shape but for their connection with the internal revenue sections. We could not separate them; therefore, though I voted against the tariff sections of the Senate bill, I felt constrained to vote for the bill as a whole.”
“Is not the bill, as it passed, substantially the bill of the tariff commission?”
“No, sir; the tariff commission had nothing to do with internal taxes. The internal revenue sections were in the House bill of last session, and were then amended by the Senate. That bill gave the Senate jurisdiction of the subject. It was only under cover of amendment to that bill that the Senate could pass a tariff. At the beginning of this session, the finance committee of the Senate had before it the tariff commission report, which was an admirable and harmonious plan for a complete law fixing the rates of duty on all kinds of imported merchandise, and, what was better, an admirable revision of the laws for the collection of duties and for the trial of customs cases. If the committee had adopted this report, and even had reduced the rates of duty proposed by the commission, but preserved the harmony and symmetry of the plan, we would have had a better tariff law than has existed in this country. But, instead of this, the committee unduly reduced the duties on iron and steel, and raised the duties on cotton and woolen manufactures, in some cases higher than the old tariff. The committee restored nearly all the inequalities and incongruities of the old tariff, and yielded to local demands and local interests to an extent that destroyed all symmetry or harmony. But still the bill reported to the Senate was a passable tariff except as to iron and wool; but it was not in any respect an improvement on the tariff commission report.”
Senator Morrill, in a long letter to the New York “Tribune” of the date of April 28, 1883, made a reply to my objections to the tariff amendment, but it did not change my opinion, and now, after the lapse of many years, I am still of the same opinion. The tariff act of 1883 laid the foundation for all the tariff complications since that time.
During this session a bill to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States was reported by my colleague, Mr. Pendleton, and was made the subject of an interesting debate in the Senate, which continued most of the month of December, 1882. It was referred to the committee on reform in the civil service in the House of Representatives, was promptly reported, and, after a brief debate, passed that body and was approved by the President. This important measure provided for a nonpartisan civil service commission composed of three persons, and defined their duties. It withdrew from party politics the great body of the employees of the government. Though not always wisely executed it has been the basis of reforms in the civil service, and, with some amendments to promote its efficiency, is now in successful operation.
The tendency of all parties is to include under civil service rules all employments in the executive branch of the government, except those that, by the constitution, are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. If to this should be added an imperative provision of law forbidding any Member of Congress from applying for the appointment of any person to an executive office, the abuses of the old system would be corrected and the separate departments of the government would be independent of each other. My experience as an executive officer convinced me that such a mandatory provision would not only break up the “spoils system,” but would relieve the President and heads of departments, as well as Members of Congress, from much of the friction that often disturbs them in the discharge of their separate duties.
Before I returned home in the spring of 1883, the nomination of a candidate for governor was being canvassed in the press and among the people of Ohio. My name, among others, was mentioned, but I did not take any interest in the suggestion of my nomination, supposing it was a passing thought that, upon reflection, would be abandoned. No one could then foresee how the legislature to be elected in the fall would stand politically, and my friends would hardly risk the loss of a Republican Senator, through my resignation, to compliment me with an election as governor.
I returned to Ohio early in April, and, as usual, paid my respects to the general assembly, then in session at Columbus. I was kindly received and expressed my thanks as follows:
“Gentlemen of the general assembly, I thank you for this hearty reception. In this house of speechmakers I will be pardoned for not making an address. You are the representatives of the people, and to you I owe my first allegiance, doing as best I can the will of the people of Ohio and of the United States, without respect to party, creed or condition. In the closing hours of your session you are too much engaged for me to indulge in any remarks, and so I bid you good-bye. Again, gentlemen, I return my warmest thanks.”
I was received in the same manner in the senate. I found a much stronger feeling in favor of my nomination for governor than I expected. I therefore stated definitely that I could not be a candidate, and a few days afterwards, in reply to an editor who was entitled to a frank answer, as to whether my name was to be at the head of the state ticket, I said:
“I am not a candidate, never have been, and could not accept the gubernatorial nomination under any circumstances. It is out of the question. There was a manifest disposition at one time to run me nolens volens, but my friends now understand my position fully, and will not press the point. It is as though the possibility had never been suggested, and the less said about it the better.”
This declaration was variously regarded by the newspapers; by one as a proclamation of a panic, by another as a doubt of success, by another as a selfish desire to hold on to a better office, neither of which was true. While I did not wish the nomination, I would have felt it my duty to accept it if the convention had determined that my acceptance was necessary for success. Upon my return to Mansfield in May, in an interview with a reporter, I mentioned several able men in the state who were well qualified for that office. I spoke of Judge Foraker as one who would make an acceptable candidate. I did not then know him personally, but from what I had heard of him I preferred him to any other person named. He was young, active, eloquent and would make a good canvass. At that time there was a movement to push the nomination of Thurman and Sherman as competing candidates. The state convention was approaching and I had been invited to attend. I went to Columbus on the 5th of June. All sorts of rumors were being circulated. The general trend of them was thus stated by a leading Republican journal:
“The question is being quietly discussed by a number of prominent Republicans, and the movement promises to assume such proportions before the day of the convention, that it will result in the nomination of Senator Sherman for governor. It has been stated that Mr. Sherman would not accept, yet one of the most prominent of Ohio Republicans says, with emphasis: ‘Mr. John Sherman has been honored for the last thirty years by the Republican party, and he could not afford to decline the nomination, and he would not.’ The great interest manifested throughout the country in Ohio, is such that it is deemed wise, owing to existing circumstances, to insist on the nomination of Mr. Sherman, thereby avoiding all contest in the convention, and giving a national prominence to the campaign. Should this be done, as it is now believed that it will be, the nomination of ex-Senator Thurman, by the Democrats, would be a foregone conclusion.”
As the delegates arrived it was apparent that there was a general desire that I should be nominated, and several delegations came to my room to urge me to accept. Among others who came to me were Messrs. Jones, Johnson and Fassett, of the Mahoning county delegation. After some general conversation they said that in order that they might act with a full knowledge of the situation, and with reference to the best interests of the party, they desired to ask me if I was or would be a candidate for the nomination of governor. I answered directly, and plainly, that I was not a candidate; would not and could not become one. I said I was sorry that matters had shaped themselves as they had, as I was put in the position of refusing to obey the call of my party, that I believed it was the place of every man to take any responsibility that could be put upon him, but that, in my case, my duty was in another direction, that I thought my place then was in the Senate, and that the possible danger of a Democratic successor there ought to be avoided.
The convention met on the morning after my arrival, and I was selected as chairman. I was not aware until I arrived in Columbus that I was to preside over the convention, but, as customary on taking the chair, I made an address thanking the convention for the honor conferred upon me, briefly reviewed the history of the Republican party, spoke of the tariff, the liquor and other questions which would have to be met in the canvass, and appealed to all present to unite and use their utmost endeavors for success.
Notwithstanding my repeated statements that I could not accept the nomination, J. M. Dalzell arose from the ranks of the delegation from his district, in the rear part of the hall, and, mounting his seat, made an enthusiastic speech nominating me for governor. I declined in the following words:
“Gentlemen of the Convention:—I have not been insensible to the desire of many gentlemen and personal friends to put my name in nomination for governor. But let me say frankly but firmly that I cannot be your candidate. In order that I may not be misunderstood, I desire your attention for a few moments, to state my reasons for declining the nomination. I have been under so many obligations to the Republican party of Ohio, that, if this was merely a matter of personal interest or feeling, I would say ‘yes!’ But, I cannot accept this nomination. First, because you have charged me with the duty of a Member of the Senate of the United States; and I could not surrender that, with my sense of what is just, not only to the people of Ohio, but to the people of the United States. And I will say that that view is shared by many of my associates in the Senate. They deprecate any movement of this kind on account of the condition of affairs there. But, aside from that, there is one consideration that would prevent me from becoming a candidate now. When early applied to on this subject, I stated to the gentlemen whose names were mentioned to come before this convention, that I was not a candidate and would not be a candidate. I could not accept your nomination without a feeling of personal dishonor, and that you certainly do not wish to bring upon me. Although all of you, my Republican friends, would know I was sincere in that declaration, yet the censorious world at large would say that I had not acted a manly part; I could not bear an imputation of that kind. So that, even if the nomination were presented to me with a unanimous feeling in this convention, yet I would feel bound, by a feeling of personal honor, which is the higher law, especially among Republicans, to decline.”
The convention then nominated Joseph R. Foraker for governor by acclamation. He was introduced to the convention and made a long and pleasant address. His speech was well received and he was often interrupted with cheers. He was then about thirty-seven years old, and was but little known throughout the state, but his appearance, manner, and address satisfied the convention and he was at once recognized as a man of ability, who would take and hold a prominent place in the political history of the state. He had enlisted as a boy at Camp Dennison at the early age of sixteen, and rapidly rose through the military grades until, at Mission Ridge, he commanded two companies and led them over the ridge into the enemy’s works, being the first man of his regiment over the ridge. He was with Sherman on his celebrated march to the sea. My brother spoke of him in the highest terms of praise. After the war he entered college at Delaware, rapidly advanced through college and completed his study of law, and at an early age was elected to a five years’ term as a judge of the superior court of Cincinnati. He is now in the meridian of his intellectual strength, and will, in all human probability, attain higher distinction.
The rest of the ticket was soon completed by the nomination of strong candidates for each of the offices to be filled at that election.
From the beginning of this canvass it was known that the result was doubtful, not only on national issues, but, on the recent legislation in Ohio, on the much mooted liquor question.
The “Scott” law imposed a tax on dealers in liquors and beer, and also proposed two temperance amendments which were submitted to the people. The constitution of Ohio declares that “no license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be grated in this state, but the general assembly may, by law, provide against evils resulting therefrom.”
As to the status of the legislation in Ohio in 1883, I said during this canvass that, under this provision, the legislature of Ohio for thirty years had, from time to time, passed laws to prevent the evils that arose from the sale of intoxicating liquors, but without effect. The constitution so limited the powers of the general assembly that it could only pass prohibitory and punitive laws. It could not regulate by money license the sale of liquors. Both parties joined in this kind of legislation, but it was safe to say that all the laws on the subject were substantially nullified by popular opinion, or by inability in cities and large towns to enforce them. Thus, in Ohio, we had, for more than thirty years, free whisky, without restraint, without taxation, to a degree that probably did not exist in any other state of the Union, or any other Christian or civilized country. Two years before, the Republican party, in convention at Cleveland, declared itself in favor of an amendment to the constitution which would give the general assembly full legislative power over the traffic, free from the restraint of the old constitution. The legislature, instead of acting upon this proposition, postponed it, and passed what was known as the Pond bill. The supreme court declared that law unconstitutional, as being within the meaning of the inhibition of the constitution. Thus, at the previous election, the Republican party appeared before the people of the state when they were discontented alike with the action of the general assembly and of Congress for its failure to reduce taxes, and so we were badly beaten by the staying from the polls of 70,000 Republican voters.
The causes of this defeat were apparent to every intelligent man. The general assembly, however, at the next session, met the temperance question in a different spirit. It submitted to the people two proposed amendments to the constitution, one providing for full legislative control over the traffic in spirits, and the other providing for the absolute prohibition of the traffic. Pending the action of the people on these two amendments, the legislature provided by a law, called the Scott law, for a tax of $200 annually on the sale of spirituous liquors and $100 on the sale of beer. This law was held to be constitutional by the supreme court of Ohio. This action of the legislature had been approved by the Republican state convention.
Upon the question thus presented there was a division of opinion in the Republican party. On the one hand, a large body of Republicans, mostly Germans in the large cities, regarded this legislation as an attempt to interfere with their habit of drinking beer, which they regarded as a harmless beverage. On the other hand, the disciples of total abstinence were opposed to the “Scott” law as a license to sell and drink intoxicating liquors, which license, they alleged, was wrong and against public policy. They were for prohibition outright; they regarded the tax law as a covenant with hell, and nominated a ticket to represent their principles. The Democratic party occupied a position of opposition to every proposition about the liquor laws. They placed in nomination, as their candidate for governor, George H. Hoadley, an eminent lawyer, and able speaker and a man of good character and standing. He had been an earnest Republican during and since the war, but had followed the wake of Chase, and joined the Democratic party.
The tariff issue also entered into this canvass. The farmers of Ohio complained that the duty on wool had been reduced, while the duties on woolen goods were increased; that protection was given to the manufacturer and denied to the farmer. A great outcry was made by Democratic orators and newspapers in farming communities against this injustice, and I was selected as the leader and author of it. Handbills were freely demonstrated by the Democratic committee in public places, denouncing me as the wicked destroyer of the sheep industry of Ohio farmers. I replied that it was true that in the recent tariff act there was a reduction of the duty on wool of about two cents a pound, but that I had opposed it, and did all I could to prevent it, but it was carried by the united vote of the Democratic party in both Houses, aided by a few Republican Senators and Members from New England. I denounced the hypocrisy of those who assailed me, whose representatives voted for even a greater reduction, and some of them for free wool. To all this they answered: “Did you not vote for the bill on its passage?” I had to say yes, but gave the reasons why, as already stated. No doubt, in spite of the unfairness of this accusation, it had some adverse influence on the election.
This canvass was in many respects a peculiar one. Foraker was active and spoke in nearly every county in the state, and gave general satisfaction, but Hoadley was equally able and, having been until recently a Republican, could not be held responsible for the course of the Democratic party during and since the war. Both the candidates for governor being from Cincinnati, the struggle there was more intense than usual, and was made to turn on the liquor question more than on general politics. When I was asked about the German vote, I said:
“The Germans are, generally speaking, good Republicans, and are really a temperate people. They have always claimed to be willing to pay a tax on the sale of beer and other kinds of liquor. The Scott bill is very moderate—more so than the bills that are being passed in other states. If they mean what they say, I don’t think there will be any trouble about electing our ticket.”
Immediately after the convention, in company with my townsmen, George F. Carpenter, Henry C. Hedges and M. Hammond, I started on a trip to Helena, Montana. The object was simply recreation and sight-seeing. We stopped on the way at Chicago, St. Paul and other points. Everywhere we went we met interviewers who wanted to know about the Ohio convention and politics in general, but I preferred to talk about the great northwest. Interviews were sought by reporters and were fully given and printed in local papers. Hedges and Carpenter were intelligent gentlemen interested, like myself, in Chicago and St. Paul, and more familiar than I was with the local geography of Wisconsin and Minnesota. With their assistance I became conversant with the topography and productions of these states. I was especially impressed with the growth of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I had purchased, in connection with Mr. Cullen, some years before, forty acres of land adjoining St. Paul. Upon my arrival on this trip he showed me the land, worth then more thousands than the hundreds we paid for it. This was but a specimen of the abnormal growth of these sister cities, destined, in some not far distant day, to be a single city. From St. Paul, we went to Helena, then the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad, and the newly made capital of Montana. This was the second time I had visited this territory, now a state. I studied, as well as I could, its wonderful resources, both mineral and agricultural. It is properly named Montana. Its mountains are not only filled with minerals of every grade from gold to iron, but they contain, more than any other part of the country, the freaks of nature and in bolder form, such as geysers, sink pots, mountain lakes, deep ravines, and they are surrounded by vast valleys and plains, the native home of the buffalo, now the feeding ground of vast droves of horses, herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep.
The strangely varied surface of the different states of the Union would, in case of war with any power, enable us, from our own soil and from the riches buried under it, to support and maintain our population. Already more than nine-tenths of the articles needed for life and luxury in the United States are the product of the industry of our countrymen. The remaining tenth consists mainly of tea, coffee and other tropical or semi-tropical productions, the products of nations with whom we can have no occasion for war. Articles of luxury and virtu are mainly the production of European nations.
Our partial state of isolation is our greatest strength, our varied resources and productions are our greatest wealth, and unity in national matters, independence in local matters, are the central ideas of our system of government.
On our return we stopped for a day at Bismarck, Dakota, then a scattered village, but already putting on airs as the prospective capital. We passed through St. Paul, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids and Detroit on our way to Mansfield. This trip, leisurely taken, occupied about one month.
During the remainder of the summer, until the canvass commenced, I had a period of rest and recuperation. It was interrupted only by the necessity of making some preparation for the canvass, which it was understood was to commence on the 25th of August. I carefully dictated my opening speech, which was delivered at Findlay on that day to a large audience. It was printed and circulated, but most of the points discussed have been settled by the march of time. Some of them it may be of interest to recall. I contrasted the condition of Findlay then to Findlay when I first saw it, but if the contrast was to be made now it would be more striking. I described the formation and history of parties as they then existed, and assumed that as Hoadley, who had been an Abolitionist or Republican and a supporter of the war, was then the Democratic candidate for governor, and that as Ewing and Bookwalter, the latest Democratic candidates for governor, had also been Republicans, we could assume this as a confession that the measures of the Republican party were right. I said: “All these distinguished and able gentlemen have been Republican partisans, as I have; and Judge Hoadley has, I think, been rather more free in his denunciation of the Democratic party than I have. To the extent, therefore, of acquiescence in the great issues that have divided us in the past, the Democratic party concedes that we were right.”
I then presented the liquor question and the Scott law. I defended the tax imposed by this law as a wise tax, the principle of which had been adopted in most of the states and in the chief countries of Europe. Hoadley, instead of meeting this argument fairly, attacked the proposed amendments to the constitution prohibiting the sale of spirits and beer as a part of the creed of the Republican party, instead of a mere reference to the people of a disputed policy. This was the display of the skill of the trained lawyer to evade the real issue of the “Scott” bill. He treated the reduction of the duty on wool with the same dexterity, charging it upon the Republican party, when he knew that every Democratic vote had been cast for it, and for even a greater reduction, and that nearly every Republican vote had been cast against it. The entire canvass of Hoadley was an ingenious evasion of the real issues, and in its want of frankness and fairness was in marked contrast with the speeches of Foraker.
After the Findlay meeting I went to Cincinnati and attended the harvest home festival in Green township, and read an address on the life and work of A. J. Downing, a noted horticulturalist and writer on rural architecture. I have always been interested in such subjects and was conversant with Downing’s writings and works, especially with his improvement of the public parks in and about Washington. He was employed by the President of the United States in 1851, to lay out and superintend the improvement of the extensive public grounds between the capitol and the executive mansion at Washington, commonly known as the “Mall.” This important work was entered upon by him, with the utmost enthusiasm. Elaborate plans of the Mall and other public squares were made by him, walks and drives laid out; the place for each tree, with its kind and variety determined, and the work of planning mainly executed. He, with an artist’s eye, saw the then unadorned beauties of the location of the capital; the broad sweep of the Potomac, the valley and the plain environed by its rim of varied hills, broken here and there by glens and ravines. He spoke of it with enthusiasm, and no doubt, above other hopes, wished, by his skill, to aid in making the city of Washington as magnificent in its views and surroundings as any city in Europe. But man proposes and God disposes. It was not to be the good fortune of Mr. Downing to complete his magnificent plans for converting the filthy, waste commons of the capital into gardens of delight; but they have been executed by others, and have contributed largely to making Washington what he wished it to be, a beautiful city, parked and planted with specimens of every American tree worthy of propagation, and becoming adorned with the best models of architecture, not only of public edifices, fitted for the great offices of the nation, but of many elegant private houses.
I had been invited by the Lincoln club, of Cincinnati, to attend a reception at their clubhouse on the evening of the 1st of September. It is a political as well as a social club, and I was expected to make a political speech. I did so, and was followed by Foraker and H. L. Morey. The usual “refreshments” were not forgotten. I take this occasion to express my hearty approval of the organization and maintenance of political clubs in every city containing 10,000 or more inhabitants. The Republicans of Cincinnati have for many years maintained two notable organizations, the Lincoln and the Blaine clubs, which have been places of social intercourse, as well as centers for political discussion. Both have had a beneficial influence, not only in instructing their members on political topics, but in disseminating sound opinion throughout the state.
During this visit I was elected a member of the Chamber of Commerce in Cincinnati. I regarded this as an honor, and returned to its members my sincere thanks. Although I have not been engaged in commercial pursuits, yet in my public duties I have often been called upon to act upon commercial questions and interests. I have habitually, in my annual visits to that city, visited the chamber of commerce, and said a few words on the topic of the times in which its members were interested, but never on politics. Every diversity of opinion was there represented.
Cincinnati, situated on the north bank of the Ohio River, with Kentucky on the other side, and Indiana near by, with a large part of its population of German birth or descent, with every variety of race, creed and color, is thoroughly a cosmopolitan city, subject to sudden outbreaks and notable changes. At the time of my visit it was especially disturbed by the agitation of the temperance question. In discussing this, I took the same position as at Findlay, and found but little objection to it, but the opinions expressed by speakers in other parts of the state in favor of prohibition had, as the election proved, a very bad effect upon the Republican ticket.
On the 6th of September I attended the state fair at Columbus. It was estimated that there were at least 40,000 people on the ground that day. It has been the habit to gather around the headquarters and press any public man who appeared to make a speech. Governor Foster and I were together. Mr. Cowden, the president of the fair, introduced Foster and he made a brief address. I was then introduced and said:
“Ladies and Gentlemen:—It has been my good fortune to be able to visit the state fair for many years in succession, but, from the great multitude of people, and the vast concourse before me, I should say that Ohio is rapidly pressing onward in the march of progress. The gray beards I see before me, and I am among them now, remind me of the time when we were boys together; when, after a season’s weary labor, we were compelled to utilize our surplus crops to pay our taxes.”
I contrasted the early days of Ohio with its condition then, and closed as follows:
“But this is no time for speechmaking, nor the occasion for further remarks. We have come out to show ourselves, and you do not desire speeches, but you do most want to see the horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, and the implements that make the life of a farmer easier. This is a progress that I love to see. My countrymen, you are crowned with blessings. Enjoy them freely and gratefully, returning thanks to the Giver of all good gifts. This is a free land, and the agricultural masses are the freest, the noblest, and the best of all our race. Enjoy your privileges to the highest point, and be worthy followers of the great race of pioneers who came before you.”
During the remainder of this canvass I spoke nearly every week day until the election, and in most of the congressional districts of the state. Some of these speeches were reported and circulated as campaign documents. As the election day approached the interest increased, and the meetings grew to be immense gatherings. This was notably so at Toledo, Dayton, Portsmouth, Cleveland, Circleville and Zanesville. I believed the Republican state ticket would be elected, but feared that the prohibition amendment would prevent the election of a Republican legislature. The result of the election for governor was Hoadley 359,693, Foraker 347,164, and the general assembly elected contained a majority of Democrats in each branch. Henry B. Payne was, on the meeting of the legislature, elected Senator in the place then held by Geo. H. Pendleton.
After the election I went to New York and was met everywhere with inquiries as to the causes of Republican defeat in Ohio. I said the Republicans were defeated because of the prohibition question and the law reducing the tariff on wool; that many Germans feared an invasion of their rights and an interference with their habits, and the farmers objected to the discrimination made by our tariff against their industries.
On the 1st of November, 1883, General Sherman relinquished command of the army, with the same simplicity and lack of display which had characterized his official life at army headquarters. He wrote the following brief order:
“Headquarters of the Army, }
“Washington, November 1, 1883.}
“General Orders No. 77.
“By and with the consent of the President, as contained in General Orders No. 71, of October 16, 1883, the undersigned relinquishes command of the army of the United States.
“In thus severing relations which have hitherto existed between us, he thanks all officers and men for their fidelity to the high trust imposed on them during his official life, and will, in his retirement, watch with parental solicitude their progress upward in the noble profession to which they have devoted their lives.
“W. T. Sherman, General.
“Official: R. C. Drum, Adjutant General.”
He then rose from his desk, gave his seat to Sheridan, who at once issued his orders assuming his new duties, and the transfer was completed. I know that when the bill for the retirement of officers at a specified age was pending, there was a strong desire in the Senate to except General Sherman from the operation of the law, but the general, who was absent on the plains, telegraphed me not to allow an exception to be made in his favor, insisting that it would be a discrimination against other officers of high merit. Thereupon the Senate reluctantly yielded, but with a provision that he should retain his salary as general, notwithstanding his retirement.
At this period mention was again made in the newspapers of my name as the nominee of the Republican party for President in the next year. I promptly declared that I was not a candidate and had no purpose or desire to enter into the contest. This discussion of my name continued until the decision of the national convention, but I took no part or lot in it, made no requests of anyone to support my nomination, and took no steps, directly or indirectly, to promote it.
CHAPTER XLVI. EFFECT OF THE MARINE NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER FAILURES. Continued Prosperity of the Nation—Arthur’s Report to Congress— Resolution to Inquire into Election Outrages in Virginia and Mississippi—Reports of the Investigating Committee—Financial Questions Discussed During the Session—Duties and Privileges of Senators—Failure of the Marine National Bank and of Grant and Ward in New York—Followed By a Panic in Which Other Institutions Are Wrecked—Timely Assistance from the New York Clearing House—Debate in the Senate on the National Bank System—Dedication of the John Marshall Statue at Washington—Defeat of Ingalls’ Arrears of Pensions Amendment to Bill to Grant Pensions to Soldiers and Sailors of the Mexican War—The Senate Listens to the Reading of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.
The message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 4th of December, 1883, presented a condition of remarkable prosperity in the United States. We were at peace and harmony with all nations. The surplus revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, amounted to $134,178,756.96, all of which was applied to the reduction of the public debt. It was estimated that the surplus revenue for the then fiscal year would be $85,000,000, and for the next fiscal year $60,000,000. The President called the attention of Congress to the revenue act of July, 1883, which had reduced the receipts of the government fifty or sixty million dollars. While he had no doubt that still further reductions might be wisely made, he did not advise at that session a large diminution of the national revenues. The whole tenor of the message was conservative and hopeful.
During this session, upon representations made to me and after full reflection, I felt compelled, by a sense of public duty, to institute an inquiry into events connected with recent elections held in the States of Virginia and Mississippi. I did so with extreme reluctance, for I did not care to assume the labor of such an investigation. On the 23rd of January, 1884, I introduced a preamble setting out in detail the general charges made as to events currently reported in the public press prior to the election in November, 1883, in Danville, Virginia, and Copiah county, Mississippi, with the following resolution:
“Resolved, That the committee on privileges and elections be, and is hereby, instructed to inquire into all the circumstances of, and connected with, the said alleged events, and into the condition of the constitutional rights and securities before named of the people of Virginia and Mississippi, and that it report, by bill or otherwise, as soon as may be; and that it have the power to send for persons and papers, and to sit during the sittings of the Senate, and that it may employ a stenographer or stenographers.”
On the 29th of January I called up the resolution, and made the following remarks explaining why I introduced the resolution and requested an investigation:
“Since the beginning of the present session, I have felt that the recent events in the States of Virginia and Mississippi were of such importance as to demand a full and impartial investigation of the causes which led to them, of the real facts involved, and of the proper constitutional remedy to prevent their recurrence, and, if necessary, to further secure to all American citizens freedom of speech in the open assertion of their political opinions and in the peaceful exercise of their right to vote.
“Now that sufficient time has elapsed to allay to some extent the excitement caused by these events, I hope the Senate will make this investigation, so that our citizens in every state may understand how far the national government will protect them in the enjoyment of their rights, or, if it is helpless or listless, that, no longer relying upon the barren declarations of the constitution, each man for himself may appeal to the right of self-defense, or to the boasted American right of migration to more friendly regions.
“The allegations in this resolution as to the Danville riot, or massacre, are founded upon statements in the public prints, supported by the oaths of witnesses, and their substantial truth is also verified by the published statement of a Member of this body, a Senator from the State of Virginia.
“The allegations as to Mississippi are founded upon copious narratives in the public prints, the proceedings of public meetings, and the actions and failure to act of officers of the state government, including governors, judges, courts, and juries.
“I have not deemed it proper, at this stage of the investigation, if it is to be made, to enter into the details of the facts, although I have before me a voluminous collection of all these various statements published in the papers of different political parties and from different persons.
“If these statements are true, then in both these states there have been organized conspiracies to subvert the freedom of elections, accompanied by murder and violence in many forms. The crimes depicted are not ordinary crimes, common in all societies where the criminal falls under the ban of public justice, and is pursued by the officers of the law, tried, convicted, or acquitted; but the crimes here alleged are that a prevailing majority subverts by violence the highest constitutional rights and privileges of citizens, and cannot, from their nature, be inquired of or punished by ordinary tribunals. If they are true, then in those communities the members of our party and one race have no rights which the prevailing party is bound to respect.
“It is not well to assume these allegations to be true without the fullest investigation and inquiry by the legislative power, for, if true, the gravest questions of public policy arise that we have been called upon to consider since the close of the Civil War. I have no desire to open up sectional questions or renew old strifes, but would be glad to turn my back upon the past and devote myself to questions of peace, development, and progress. Still, if these allegations are true, it would be a cowardly shrinking from the gravest public duty to allow such events to deepen into precedents which would subvert the foundation of republican institutions and convert our elections into organized crimes. I do not say these allegations are true, but they come to us with such apparent seeming of truth that we are bound to ascertain their truth or falsehood by the most careful and impartial inquiry.
“If the events at Danville were the results of a chance outbreak or riot between opposing parties or different races of men, they may properly be left to be dealt with by the local authorities; but if the riot and massacre were part of machinery, devised by a party to deter another party, or a race, from the freedom of elections, or the free and open expression of political opinions, then they constitute a crime against the national government, the highest duty of which is to maintain, at every hazard, the equal rights and privileges of citizens.
“If the events in Copiah county, Mississippi (which is a large and populous county containing twenty-seven thousand inhabitants, and evidently a very productive county), were merely lawless invasions of individual rights, then, though they involved murder as well as other crimes, they should be left to local authority, and if justice cannot be administered by the courts, and the citizen is without remedy from lawless violence, then he must fall back upon his right of self-defense, or, failing in that, he must seek a home where his rights will be respected and observed. But if these individual crimes involve the greater one of an organized conspiracy of a party, or a race, to deprive another party or race of citizens of the enjoyment of their unquestioned rights, accompanied with overt acts, with physical power sufficient to accomplish their purpose, then it becomes a national question which must be dealt with by the national government.
“The war emancipated and made citizens of five million people who had been slaves. This was a national act, and whether wisely or imprudently done it must be respected by the people of all the states. If sought to be reversed in any degree by the people of any locality it is the duty of the national government to make their act respected by all its citizens. It is not now a question as to the right to stop at an inn, or to ride in a car, or to cross a bridge, but it is whether the people of any community can, by organized fraud, terror, or violence, prevent a party or a race of citizens from voting at an election, or the expression of opinions, or deny to them the equal protection of the law. No court has ever denied the power of the national government to protect its citizens in their essential rights as freemen. No man should be allowed to hold a seat in either House of Congress whose election was secured by crimes such as are depicted here.
“Nor is it sufficient to say that the elections referred to were not national elections in the sense that they did not involve the election of a President or a Member of Congress. While the power of Congress over the election of Senators, Representatives, and the President extends to making and altering laws and regulations passed by the respective states, and therefore is fuller than in respect to state elections, yet the constitution provides that ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;’ that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;’ that ‘No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;’ and that ‘The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’ It was also declared that ‘Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.’ Power is also given to Congress to enforce the recent amendments by appropriate legislation.
“If the essential rights of citizenship are overthrown by a state or by the people of a state, with the sanction of the local authorities within the limits of a state, then Congress, as the legislative power of the United States, is bound to provide additional safeguards, and should exhaust all the powers of the United States government to maintain these essential rights of citizenship within the limits of all the states, in as full and complete a manner as it will guard and protect the unquestioned rights of citizens of the United States within the domains of the most powerful nations of the world. Surely a citizen of the United States has as much right in any one of the states as he would have in a foreign land, however remote or however powerful its government may be. Protection at home in the secure enjoyment of the rights of person and property is the foundation of all human government, without which its forms are a mockery and with which mere forms of government become a matter of indifference. Protection goes with allegiance, and allegiance ceases to be a duty when protection is denied.
“I can appreciate the great change that has occurred in the southern states, the natural antagonisms which would raise by the emancipated slaves mingling in the same community with their former masters, with equal civil and political rights with those who had held them as slaves; I can pardon the prejudices of race, of caste, and even of local ties; and the American people have, I think, waited with great forbearance, waited patiently for the time when constitutional rights would be respected without regard to race, or color, or creed, or party. If the time has come, as alleged in the papers before me, when members of the Republican party, through whose agency largely the existence of the government has been maintained intact over the broad extent of our country, cannot express their free opinions, cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, are murdered at the ballot box without fear on the part of their murderers of punishment, and driven from their homes by outrage and terror, and that white and black alike are subject to ostracism and injustice, and as a party are disfranchised in large portions of the regions where in war they asserted and maintained the powers of the national government, then indeed is patient inquiry demanded, and a full, open, and manly assertion that the rights and equalities of citizens shall be maintained and enforced at every hazard.
“If the Copiah resolutions are the creed of the Democratic party in the south, then indeed the war is a failure, and we must expect again the fierce sectional excitement, deepened by injury and disappointment. Written in the light of the events alleged to have transpired in the presence of the men who wrote and adopted these resolutions, they seem to me the very germ of despotism and barbarity, and yet I am assured by a gentleman friendly to them that they are the creed of nine-tenths of the party in power in Mississippi. I should like to know—it is right that we should learn—the groundwork of opinions so utterly repugnant to republican institutions.
“In this investigation I would seek every palliation or excuse for the conduct of the people complained of. I would give to their motives and to the natural feelings of mankind in their situation the most charitable construction. I would give to them all political power they ever enjoyed, and, without unkindness, or pains, or penalties, or even reproaches, I would extend to them every right, favor, or facility, that is enjoyed by any citizen in any part of our country; but when this concession is made to them I would demand that in the states under their control the freedom and equality of rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution and the laws to all citizens, white or black, native or naturalized, poor or rich, ignorant or learned, Republican or Democrat, shall be secured by the state government, or, if not, that their rights and privileges shall be asserted and maintained by the national government. Upon this issue I would appeal to every generous-minded man, to every lover of his country, to everyone who wishes to enjoy his own rights by his own fireside, free from embarrassment, to stand by those who, yielding to others the protection of the laws in the enjoyment of equal rights, will demand the same for themselves and for their associates.”
General Mahone made a long and interesting speech in respect to the Danville election.
The resolution was adopted by a party vote, yeas 33, nays 29. As the investigation ordered embraced two distinct series of events, they were separately considered and reported upon by the committee on privileges and elections. Mr. Hoar was chairman of the committee. I was a member of the committee and assumed the chief work in the examination of witnesses as to the events in Danville. Mr. Lapham prepared the majority report, and Mr. Vance the report of the minority. These reports, with the testimony taken, were printed in a document containing 1,300 pages. The Copiah county matter was referred to another sub-committee. As no affirmative action was taken on these reports, I do not care to recite at any length either the report or the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that the allegations made in the preamble of the resolution were substantially sustained by the testimony. There was a deliberate effort on the part of the Democrats at Danville, and in other parts of Virginia, to prevent the negroes from voting, and preceding the November election this movement was organized by the formation of clubs, and every means were adopted to intimidate and suppress the Republican vote. A letter, called the Danville circular, was prepared and issued to the southwest valley of Virginia, containing the most inflammatory language, evidently intended to deter the negroes from voting.
The incidents connected with the Danville massacre preceding the election were very fully stated in the report, and established clearly that the massacre was planned at a Democratic meeting at the opera house, at which five hundred or more had assembled. A scuffle grew out of a pretended quarrel between Noel and Lawson, two white men, and revolvers were drawn and warning given to the colored men to stand back or they would every one of them be killed. A colored policeman endeavored to separate the two men who were fighting, and soon after there was a general firing from pistols and guns by white men at the negroes, the number of shots being variously estimated at from 75 to 250. The negroes fled. There was no evidence that the negroes fired a shot until after the whites fired a general volley at them, and the weight of the evidence was that very few had any weapons, that they had gathered there in their working clothes as they had come out of the factories, of all ages and both sexes, unquestionably from curiosity and not with any view of violence or preparation for it. The whites, on the contrary, were generally armed, were expecting an outbreak and obviously seeking a pretext for resorting to violence. Many of the whites emptied their revolvers and the evidence showed that Captain Graves reloaded his. There was conflicting evidence as to the negroes having arms. Only one was shown to have exhibited any before the firing, and the colored witnesses and many of the whites, including some of the policemen, said they saw no arms in the hands of the colored men except the one named, and there was no reliable evidence that he fired. There was no evidence to be relied upon that any of the colored men fired, except some witnesses stated that the colored men, as they were running, fired over their shoulders. The evidence tended to show that the violence was premeditated, with the avowed purpose of intimidation.
I do not follow this investigation further, as no doubt the condition of affairs which led to it is now changed. The result was the murder of four unoffending colored men and the wounding of many others. The evidence seemed entirely clear that it was the consummation of a deliberate purpose, for which the Democratic clubs had fully prepared.
I believe that the investigation, while it led to no important measure, had a good effect, not only in Danville, but throughout the south. The problem of the two races living together in the same community with equal political rights is a difficult one, and has come to be regarded by men of all parties as one that can only be settled by each state or community for itself. It is impossible for a government like ours, with limited powers, to undertake the protection of life and property in any of the states except where resistance is made to national authority. All the signs indicate that a better feeling now exists between the two races, and their common interests will lead both to divide on questions of public policy, without regard to race or color.
Among the bills passed on this Congress was one introduced by Mr. Blair, of New Hampshire, and chiefly advocated by him, to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common schools. It provided for the appropriation of $120,000,000 to be distributed among the states upon the basis of illiteracy, $15,000,000 for the current fiscal year, and a smaller sum each year for fifteen years, until the total sum was exhausted. The apportionment proposed would have given to the southern states $11,318,394 out of the $15,000,000. The money was not to be disbursed by the United States, but was to be placed in the hands of state authorities. The object designed of diminishing illiteracy in the south, especially among the freedmen, was no doubt a laudable one, but the measure proposed was so radical and burdensome, and so unequal in its apportionment among the states, that I assumed it would be defeated, but it passed the Senate by a large majority. The advocates of a strict construction of the constitution voted for it in spite of their theories. The bill, however, was defeated in the House of Representatives.
An interesting debate arose between Mr. Beck and myself, during this session, upon the question of the sinking fund, which he seemed to regard as a part of the public debt. It is, in fact, only a treasury statement of the debt to be paid each year, and the amount actually paid. In 1862, when the war was flagrant, Congress provided that one per cent. of the principal of the public debt should be paid each year as a “sinking fund.” While the United States was borrowing large sums and issuing its bonds, it was folly to pay outstanding bonds, and this was not done until 1868, when the treasury was receiving more money than it disbursed. In the meantime, the treasury charged to the “sinking fund,” annually, the sum of one per cent. of the amount of outstanding securities of the United States. When the receipts exceeded expenditures, so much of the balance on hand as was not needed was applied to the purchase of bonds, and such bonds were canceled and the amount paid was placed to the credit of this fund. In the general prosperity that followed, and until 1873, the sums thus credited increased so that the amount of bonds paid was equal to, if not in excess of, the annual charge against that fund, and the amount charged against it prior to 1868. When the financial panic of 1873 occurred, the revenues fell off so that they were insufficient to meet current expenditures. This prevented any credits to the sinking fund until 1878, when the pendulum swung the other way, and the fund was rapidly diminished by the bonds purchased from the surplus revenue, and credited to the fund, so that when Mr. Beck interrogated me I was able to say that the sinking fund had to its credit a considerable sum; in other words, the United States had paid its debt more rapidly than it had agreed to pay it. The term “sinking fund,” as applied to the national accounts, is a misleading phrase. It is a mere statement whether we have or have not paid one per centum of the public debt each year. There is no actual fund of the kind in existence for national purposes.
Another financial question was presented at this session and before and since. The national banking act, when it passed in 1863, provided that the circulating notes of national banks should be issued for only ninety per cent. of the amount of United States bonds deposited in the treasury for their security. At that time bonds were worth in the market about fifty per cent. in coin, or par in United States notes. Soon after the war, bonds advanced far above par in coin and have been worth thirty per cent. premium. Yet, in spite of this, Congress has repeatedly refused to allow notes to be issued by national banks, to the par value of bonds deposited on security, thus limiting the amount of bank notes unreasonably. I introduced a bill early at this session to correct this. It passed the Senate, but was ignored in the House. The same result has happened at nearly every Congress since, even when the bonds were so high as to deter the issue of bank notes when they were greatly needed.
During this session a delicate question arose whether a Senator could refuse to vote when his name was called, and he was present in the Senate. The Senate being so closely divided a few Senators might, by refusing to answer to their names, suspend the business of the Senate when a quorum was present. Mr. Bayard and myself agreed that such a practice would be a breach of public duty, which the Senate might punish. Senators may retire from the Chamber, but the Senate can compel their attendance. If a case should arise where a Senator, being present, and not paired, should, without good reason, refuse to vote, he should be censured. The increase in the number of Senators makes this question one of importance, but I hope the time will never come when it practically shall arise.
The Senate is properly a very conservative body, and never yields a custom until it is demonstrated to be an abuse. The committee on appropriations is a very important one. It is always composed of experienced Senators, who are careful in making appropriations, but there are appropriations which ought not to be referred to them. Their chief duty is performed in the closing days of the session, when all business is hurried, and they have little time to enter into details. They are entirely familiar with the great appropriations for the support of the government, and can best judge in respect to them, but there are other appropriations which ought to be passed upon by committees specially appointed for specific duties, like that of the District of Columbia. No reason can be given why these appropriations should not be acted upon by such committees. It is true that the appropriation committee ought to simply report such sums as are necessary to carry into execution existing laws. That is their function, according to the rules, and that function they can perform very well in regard to such expenditures; but the expenditures of the government for the District, rivers and harbors, fortifications, pensions, and certain other objects, are not defined or regulated by law. In the case of the District of Columbia, a few officers named in the appropriation bill are provided for by law, but the great body of the expenditures is for streets, alleys and public improvement, nine-tenths of all the appropriations made for the District being, in their nature, new items not fixed by existing law.
On the 6th of May, 1884, the country was startled by the failure of the Marine National Bank of New York, an institution that had been in high credit and standing. The circumstances connected with the failure excited a great deal of interest and profound surprise. Immediately in connection with the failure of this bank the banking firm of Grant & Ward, in the city of New York, failed for a large amount. Their business was complicated with that of the Marine National Bank, and disclosures were made which not only aroused indignation but almost created a panic in the city of New York.
Almost contemporaneous with this the insolvency of the Second National Bank of New York, for a very large sum, became public, and the alleged gross misconduct of the president of that bank, John C. Eno, became a matter of public notoriety. Steps were taken by the officers and stockholders of the bank, including the father of the president, to relieve it from bankruptcy.
Also, and in connection with the failure of the Marine National Bank, there were disclosed financial operations of a strange and extraordinary character of the president of that bank, James D. Fish. All these events coming together caused much excitement and disturbance in New York. They led to a great fall of securities, to a want of confidence, and to a general run, as it is called, upon banks and banking institutions, including the savings banks. It appeared as if there were to be a general panic, a financial revulsion, and wide-reaching distress.
At that time also, and in connection with the other events, came the temporary suspension of the Metropolitan National Bank, one of the oldest, largest, and in former times considered among the best, of all the banks in the city of New York. This was partly caused by rumors and stories of large railroad operations and indebtedness of Mr. Seney, the president of the bank, which resulted in a gradual drawing upon the bank.
At once the Secretary of the Treasury did what he could to relieve the money market, by prepaying bonds which had been called in the process of the payment of the public debt; but the principal relief given to the market at that time was the action of the Clearing House Association of New York, by the issue of over $24,000,000 of clearing house certificates. This was purely a defensive operation adopted by the associated banks of New York, fifteen of which are state institutions and the balance national banks.
All that was done in New York to prevent a panic was done by the banks themselves. The government of the United States had no lot or parcel in it except so far as the Secretary of the Treasury prepaid bonds that had already been called, a transaction which has been done a hundred times. So far as the government was concerned it had nothing to do with these banks; the measures of relief were furnished by the banks themselves.
This condition of financial affairs led to a long debate in the Senate, commencing on the 17th of June, on the merits and demerits of the system of national banks, and especially of the clearing house of the city of New York. The comptroller of the currency had taken active and efficient measures to protect the interests of the United States. He was called before the committee on finance and gave a full statement of these measures. It was apparent that the temporary panic grew out of the reckless and criminal conduct of a few men and not from defects in the national bank system or the clearing house. The debate that followed, in the Senate, was mainly between Morgan, Beck and myself. I stated fully the methods of conducting the business of the clearing house, a corporation of the State of New York, and closed as follows:
“As the prosecution against John C. Eno is now pending in Canada, a foreign country, as a matter of course no one can state what will be the result of it. We only know that proper legal proceedings are now being urged to have an extradition, and if he is brought within the jurisdiction of the courts as a matter of course the prosecution can then be pushed. So with James D. Fish. Indictments have been had and are now pending against him for a violation, not only of the national banking act, but I believe also for a violation of the state law; and the same is to be said of Ferdinand Ward. These three persons are the only ones who have been charged with fraudulent and illegal transactions leading to these financial disasters. The Metropolitan bank, thanks to the agency and the aid that was given in a trying time, in now going on and doing business as of old, no doubt having met with large losses.
“It is a matter of satisfaction that with the single exception of the Marine Bank, of New York, no national bank has been overwhelmed by this disaster. It is true that the Second National Bank was bankrupted by the crimes and wrongs of John C. Eno, but his father, with a sensitive pride not to allow innocent persons to suffer from the misconduct of his son, with a spirit really worthy of commendation, here or anywhere else, threw a large sum of money into the maelstrom and saved not only the credit of the bank and advanced his own credit, but to some extent, as far as he could at least, expiated the fault, the folly, and the crime of his son. The Metropolitan Bank is relieved from its embarrassments by its associate banks. The losses caused by the speculations of its president did not entirely fall upon the bank. That bank, now relived from the pressure of unexpected demands, is pursuing its even tenor. It seems to me that all these facts taken together show the strength and confidence that may well be reposed in the national banking system. The law cannot entirely prevent fraud and crime, but it has guarded the public from the results of such offense far better than any previous system.”
On the 10th of May, 1884, which happened to be my birthday, the statue of John Marshall, formerly Chief Justice of the United States, was dedicated. This is a bronze statue in a sitting posture, erected by the bar of Philadelphia and the Congress of the United States. A fund had been collected shortly after the death of Marshall, but it was insufficient to erect a suitable monument, and it was placed in the hands of trustees and invested as “The Marshall Memorial Fund.” On the death of the last of the trustees, Peter McCall, it was found that the fund had, by honest stewardship, increased sevenfold its original amount. This sum, with an equal amount appropriated by Congress, was applied to the erection of a statue to the memory of Chief Justice Marshall, to be placed in a suitable reservation in the city of Washington. The artist who executed this work was W. W. Story, a son of the late Justice Story of the Supreme Court. I was chairman of the joint committee on the library and presided on the occasion. Chief Justice Waite delivered an appropriate address. He was followed by William Henry Rawle, of Philadelphia, in an eloquent oration, closing as follows:
“And for what in his life he did for us, let there be lasting memory. He and the men of his time have passed away; other generations have succeeded them; other phases of our country’s growth have come and gone; other trials, greater a hundredfold than he or they could possibly have imagined, have jeoparded the nation’s life; but still that which they wrought remains to us, secured by the same means, enforced by the same authority, dearer far for all that is past, and holding together a great, a united and happy people. And all largely because he whose figure is now before us has, above and beyond all others, taught the people of the United States, in words of absolute authority, what was the constitution which they ordained, ‘in order to form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.’
“Wherefore, with all gratitude, with fitting ceremony and circumstance; in the presence of the highest in the land; in the presence of those who make, of those who execute, and of those who interpret, the laws; in the presence of those descendants in whose veins flows Marshall’s blood, have the bar and the Congress of the United States here set up this semblance of his living form, in perpetual memory of the honor, the reverence and the love which the people of this country bear to the great chief justice.”
During this session Mr. Ingalls offered to a House bill granting a pension to soldiers and sailors of the Mexican War, the following amendment:
“That all pensions which have been or which may hereafter be granted in consequence of death occurring from a cause which originated in the service since the 4th day of March, 1861, or in consequence of wounds or injuries received or disease contracted since that date in the service and in the line of duty, shall commence from the death or discharge of the person on whose account the claim has been or is hereafter granted, if the disability occurred prior to discharge, and if such disability occurred after the discharge, then from the date of actual disability, or from the termination of the right of the party having prior title to such pension.”
I opposed this sweeping provision with much reluctance, as I have always favored the granting of the most liberal pensions consistent with the public interests. I said:
“I regret very much to oppose any proposition that is favored by the Union soldiers of the American army; and I perhaps should feel some hesitation in doing it, only that I know very well that the soldiers themselves, like all other citizens, are divided in opinion as to this measure.
“This proposition repeals all restrictions as to time upon applications to be made for arrears of pensions, and extends to all persons back to the war or date of discharge or disability, not only of those who have heretofore applied, but of those who may hereafter apply. It removes absolutely all restrictions upon the applications for arrears of pensions. And if this only involved ten or even twenty million dollars, I might still hesitate, because I have always, since the close of the war, voted for every measure that has been offered in good faith for the benefit of the Union soldiers. My heart, my feelings are all with them. I appreciate the value of their services, the enormous benefits they have conferred upon the people of the America for generations yet unborn, and I hesitate therefore to oppose any wish that they may express through their organs.
“This measure involves an immense sum of money. That alone would not be conclusive. But here is a motion made by a Senator, without the report or sanction of any committee of this body, to put upon the people of the United States a great demand, ranging anywhere up to $246,000,000, a proposition so indefinite in character that the commissioner of pensions is utterly unable to give us any approximate estimate, but gives his guess as near as he can. He says that this proposition will involve the expenditure of $246,000,000.”
Mr. Ingalls made a sturdy effort for his amendment, and quoted a declaration of the Republican national convention in favor of arrears of pensions, to which I replied that, when I remembered that the platform of the last Republican convention had been made up in a few hours, on a sweltering hot day, by forty-two men hastily called together, most of whom never saw each other before, I did not think it ought to be taken as a guide for Senators in the performance of their public duties.
After full discussion the amendment was rejected.
My position was highly commended by the public press and by many distinguished soldiers, including Governor Foraker, who wrote me, saying: “It may be some gratification to you to know that your course, in regard to the pension bill, meets with the earnest approval of all right-minded men in this part of the state.”
On the 3rd of July the following resolution was adopted by the Senate on my motion:
“Resolved, That the Senate will meet at the usual hour on Friday, the 4th day of July instant, and, after the reading of the journal and before other business is done, the secretary of the Senate shall read the Declaration of American Independence.”
On introducing the resolution, I said:
“Never till during our Civil War, so far as the records show or as is known or is recollected, did Congress meet on the 4th of July. During the Civil War we did meet habitually on the 4th of July, but it was only on the ground that those who had control then believed that the business then requiring attention was proper to be done on the 4th of July. We have only met once since on the 4th of July, and that was in 1870, at a time of great political excitement. An effort was made to adjourn when the Senate met that day, but the session was continued—a long, exciting, and unpleasant session—on the 4th of July, 1870.
“I do not doubt that to-morrow it will be well to sit, because the committees of conference are carrying on their business and I have no objection to sitting; but I think we ought to recognize, by common consent, the importance of the day and the fact that it is a national anniversary celebrated all over the United States, by reading that immortal paper which is the foundation of American independence.”
Congress adjourned July 7, 1884.
CHAPTER XLVII. MY PARTICIPATION IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884. Again Talked of as a Republican Candidate for the Presidency—I Have no Desire for the Nomination—Blaine the Natural Candidate of the Party—My Belief that Arthur Would be Defeated if Nominated— Speech at Washington, D. C., for Blaine and Logan—Opening of the Ohio Campaign at Ashland—Success of the Republican State Ticket in October—Speeches in Boston, Springfield, Mass., New York and Brooklyn—Address to Business Men in Faneuil Hall—Success of the National Democratic Ticket—Arthur’s Annual Message to Congress— Secretary McCulloch’s Recommendations Concerning the Further Coinage of Silver Dollars—Statement of My Views at This Time—Statue to the Memory of General Lafayette—Controversy Between General Sherman and Jefferson Davis.
On the 3rd of June, 1884, during the session of Congress, the national Republican convention to nominate Republican candidates for President and Vice President, was held at Chicago. Prior to that time the papers had been full of the merits and demerits of candidates, and my name was mentioned among them. I had early announced, in interviews and letters, that I was not a candidate. The following statement was generally published in Ohio:
“I am in no sense a candidate, and would not make an effort for the nomination. I would not even express my opinion as to who should be delegates from my own district or what their action should be. Four years ago I thought it best to be a candidate. I believed that the logic of events at that time justified such action. The reasons I need not state. Now there is no such condition and I would not enter a contest even for the indorsement of my own constituency. Many of my friends write me complaining letters because I refuse to make such an issue. Believing that the convention, when it meets, should be free, uninstructed, and in shape to do the very best thing for the whole party, I have counseled by friends to that end. A united and enthusiastic party is more important than one man, and hence I am for bending every energy to the first purpose, and am not a candidate.”
I had not expressed the slightest desire to make such a contest. When approached by personal friends I dissuaded them from using my name as a candidate. I neither asked nor sought anyone to be a delegate. When the convention met, the Ohio delegation was divided between Blaine and myself, and this necessarily prevented any considerable support of me outside of the state. I was not sorry for it. I regarded the nomination of Blaine as the natural result under the circumstances.
The strength of Arthur, his principal competitor, grew out of his power and patronage as President. He was a gentleman of pleasing manners, but I thought unequal to the great office he held. He had never been distinguished in political life. The only office he had held of any importance was that of collector of the port of New York, from which he was removed for good causes already stated. His nomination as Vice President was the whim of Roscoe Conkling to strike at President Hayes. If nominated he would surely have been defeated. In the then condition of political affairs it is not certain that any Republican would have been elected.
The weakness of the nomination of Blaine was the strong opposition to him in the State of New York. The selection by the Democratic convention of Grover Cleveland as the candidate for President, and of Thomas A. Hendricks for Vice President, was made in view of the necessity of carrying the two doubtful States of New York and Indiana, which it was well understood would determine the election.
I promptly took an active part in support of the Republican ticket. A meeting to ratify the nomination of James G. Blaine and John A. Logan was held at Washington, D. C., on the 19th of June, at which I made a speech, which, as reported, was as follows:
“It is one of the curious customs of American politics that when anybody is nominated for office, his competitors are the first to be called upon to vouch for the wisdom of the choice. Perhaps that is the reason I am called upon now. Though I did not consider myself as much of a candidate, I am ready to accept, approve and ratify the action of the Chicago convention. I will support the nomination of Blaine and Logan as heartily as I have done those of Fremont and Lincoln and Grant and Hayes and Garfield. And this I would do, fellow-citizens, even if they were less worthy than I know them to be of the distinguished honor proposed for them. I would do it for my own honor. I have no patience with any man who, for himself or any other person, would take his chances for success in a political convention, and when disappointed would seek to thwart the action of the convention. Political conventions are indispensable in a republican government, for it is only by such agencies, that opposing theories can be brought to the popular judgment. These can only be presented by candidates chosen as standard bearers of a flag, or a cause, or a party.
“That Blaine and Logan have been fairly nominated by the free choice of our 800 delegates, representing the Republicans of every state, county and district in the broad extent of our great country, is admitted by every man whose voice has been heard. They are not ‘dark horses.’ Their names are known to fame; the evil and good that men could say of them have been said with a license that is a shame to free discussion. Traveling in peace and in war through the memorable events of a quarter of a century, they have kept their place in the busy jostling of political life well in the foreground. And now they have been selected from among millions of their countrymen to represent—not themselves, but the Republican party of the United States.
“They represent the American Union, one and indivisible, snatched by war from the perils of secession and disunion. They represent a strong national government, able, I trust, in time, not only to protect our citizens from foreign tyranny, but from local cruelty, intolerance, and oppression.
“They represent that party in the country which would scorn to obtain or hold power by depriving, by crime and fraud, more than a million of men of their equal rights as citizens. They represent a party that would give to the laboring men of our country the protection of our revenue laws against undue competition with foreign labor.
“They represent the power, the achievements, and the aspirations of the Republican party that now for twenty-four years has been greatly trusted by the people, and in return has greatly advanced your country in strength and wealth, intelligence, courage and hope, and in the respect and wonder of mankind.
“Fellow Republicans, we are about to enter into no holiday contest. You have to meet the same forces and principles that opposed the Union army in war; that opposed the abolition of slavery; that sought to impair the public credit; that resisted the resumption of specie payment. They are recruited here and there by a deserter from our ranks, but meanwhile a generation of younger men are coming to the front, in the south as well as in the north. They have been educated amidst memorable events with patriotic ardor, love of country, pride in its strength and power. They are now determined to overthrow the narrow Bourbon sectionalism of the Democratic party. They live in the mountains and plains of the west. They breathe the fresh air of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. They are the hardy, liberty-loving laborers of every state.
“They come from the fatherland, they come from old Ireland. They are the active spirits, native and naturalized, of a generation of free men who never felt the incubus of slavery, and who wish only as Americans to make stronger and plant deeper the principles of the Republican party. It is to these men we who have grown old in this conflict wish now to hand over the banner we have borne. Let them take it and advance it to higher honors. Let them spread the influence of our republican institutions north and south, until the whole continent of America shall be a brotherhood of republics.
“Let them assert the rights of American citizenship, so that they will be respected as were the rights of citizens of the Roman republic. Let them deal with this most difficult and subtle problem of social politics so as to secure to the man who labors his just share of the fruits of his labor. Let them improve even upon the protective policy we have pursued, so as to diversify our industries and plant in all parts of our country the workshops of millions of well-paid contented citizens. Let them do what we have not been able to do since the war—restore our commerce to every port and protect it under our flag in every sea.
“My countrymen, I regret to say it, you cannot accomplish any of these great objects of national desire through the agency of the Democratic party. It cannot be made an instrument of progress and reform. Its traditions, its history for twenty-five years, and its composition, forbid it. You may punish us for our shortcomings by its success, but you will punish yourselves as well and stay the progress of your country. A party that with seventy majority in the House cannot pass a bill on any subject of party politics, great or small, is not fit to govern the country.
“Every advance, every reform, every improvement, the protection of your labor, the building of your navy, the assertion of your rights as a free man, the maintenance of good money—a good dollar, good in every land, worth a dollar in gold—all these objects of desire must await the movements of the Republican party. It may be slow, but if you turn to the Democratic party you will always find it watching and waiting, good, steady citizens of the olden time, grounded on the resolutions of ’98 and the ‘times before the wah.’
“It is said that Blaine is bold and aggressive; that he will obstruct the business interests of the country. I would like to try such a President. He might shake off some of the cobwebs of diplomacy and invite the attention of mankind to the existence of this country. There will always be conservatism enough in Congress, and inertness enough in the Democratic party, to hold in check even as brilliant a man as James G. Blaine. What we want now is an American policy broad enough to embrace the continent, conservative enough to protect the rights of every man, poor as well as rich, and brave enough to do what is right, whatever stands in the way. We want protection to American citizens and protection to American laborers, a free vote and a fair count, an assertion of all the powers of the government in doing what is right. It is because I believe that the administration of Blaine and Logan will give us such a policy, and that I know the Democratic party is not capable of it, that I invoke your aid and promise you mine to secure the election of the Republican ticket.”
Upon the adjournment of Congress, I took an active part in the campaign, commencing with a speech at Ashland, Ohio, on the 30th of August, and from that time until the close of the canvass I spoke daily. The meetings of both parties were largely attended, notably those at Springfield, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.
After the October election in Ohio, which resulted in the success of the Republican ticket, I engaged in the canvass in other states, speaking in many places, among others in Faneuil Hall, Boston, in Springfield, Massachusetts, in Chickering Hall, New York, and in the Brooklyn Grand Opera House.
I felt greater timidity in speaking in Faneuil Hall than anywhere else. The time, place, and manner of the meeting were so novel, that a strong impression was made upon my mind. In the middle of the day, when the streets were crowded, I was conducted up a narrow, spiral passageway that led directly to a low platform on one side of the hall, where were the officers of the meeting, and there I faced an audience of men with their hats and overcoats on, all standing closely packed, with no room for any more. It was a meeting of business men of marked intelligence, who had no time to waste, and whose countenances expressed the demand, “Say what you have to say, and say it quickly.” I was deeply impressed with the historical associations of the place, recalling the Revolutionary scenes that had occurred there, and Daniel Webster and the great men whose voices had been heard within its walls. I condensed my speech into less than an hour, and, I believe, gave the assemblage satisfaction. I was followed by brief addresses from Theodore Roosevelt and others, and then the meeting quietly dispersed.
While in Springfield, I heard of the unfortunate remark of Dr. Burchard to Blaine about “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion,” and felt that the effect would be to offend a considerable portion of the Irish voters, who had been very friendly to Blaine. After that incident, I met Mr. Blaine at the Chickering Hall meeting, and went with him to Brooklyn, where we spoke together at the Academy of Music.
The election, a few days afterward, resulted in the success of the Democratic ticket. The electoral vote of New York was cast for Cleveland and Hendricks. It was believed at the time that this result was produced by fraudulent voting in New York city, but the returns were formal, and there was no way in which the election could be contested.
Congress met on the 1st of December, 1884. President Arthur promptly sent his message to each House. He congratulated the country upon the quiet acquiescence in the result of an election where it had been determined with a slight preponderance. Our relations with foreign nations had been friendly and cordial. The revenues of the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, had been $348,519,869.92. The expenditures for the same period, including the sinking fund, were $290,916,473.83, leaving a surplus of $57,603,396.09. He recommended the immediate suspension of the coinage of silver dollars and of the issuance of silver certificates, a further reduction of internal taxes and customs duties, and that national banks be allowed to issue circulating notes to the par amount of bonds deposited for their security. He closed with these words:
“As the time draws nigh when I am to retire from the public service, I cannot refrain from expressing to Members of the national legislature, with whom I have been brought into personal and official intercourse, my sincere appreciation of their unfailing courtesy, and of their harmonious co-operation with the Executive in so many measures calculated to promote the best interests of the nation.
“And to my fellow-citizens generally, I acknowledge a deep sense of obligation for the support which they have accorded me in my administration of the executive department of this government.”
Hugh McCulloch, upon the death of Mr. Folger, had become Secretary of the Treasury. His report contained the usual statements in regard to government receipts and expenditures and the public debt, but the chief subject discussed was the coinage of silver dollars. He said:
“There are some financial dangers ahead which can only be avoided by changes in our financial legislation. The most imminent of these dangers, and the only one to which I now ask the attention of Congress, arises from the continued coinage of silver and the increasing representation of it by silver certificates. I believe that the world is not in a condition, and never will be, for the demonetization of one-third of its metallic money; that both gold and silver are absolutely necessary for a circulating medium; and that neither can be disused without materially increasing the burden of debt, nor even temporarily degraded by artificial means without injurious effect upon home and international trade. But I also believe that gold and silver can only be made to maintain their comparative value by the joint action of commercial nations. Not only is there now no joint action taken by these nations to place and keep silver on an equality with gold, according to existing standards, but it has been by the treatment it has received from European nations greatly lessened in commercial value.
“After giving the subject careful consideration, I have been forced to the conclusion that unless both the coinage of silver dollars and the issue of silver certificates are suspended, there is danger that silver, and not gold, may become our metallic standard. This danger may not be imminent, but it is of so serious a character that there ought not to be delay in providing against it. Not only would the national credit be seriously impaired if the government should be under the necessity of using silver dollars or certificates in payment of gold obligations, but business of all kinds would be greatly disturbed; not only so, but gold would at once cease to be a circulating medium, and severe contraction would be the result.”
The first important subject considered by the Senate was the coinage of silver dollars and the consequent issue of silver certificates. The debate was founded upon a resolution offered by Senator Hill, of Colorado, against the views expressed by the President in his message and by Secretary McCulloch in his report.
On the 15th of December I made a speech covering, as I thought, the silver question, not only of the past but of the probable results in the future. The amount of silver dollars then in the treasury was $184,730,829, and of silver certificates outstanding $131,556,531. These certificates were maintained at par in gold by being received for customs duties. They were redeemable in silver dollars, but were in fact never presented for redemption. The silver dollars could only be used in the redemption of certificates or by issue in payment of current liabilities. With the utmost exertions to put the silver dollars in circulation only fifty million could be used in this way. To have forced more into circulation would have excited a doubt whether any of our paper money could be maintained at par with gold.
When urged to express a remedy for this condition I said that if I had the power to dictate a law I would ascertain by the best means the exact market value of the two metals, and then put into each silver dollar as many grains of standard silver as would be equal in market value to 25.8 grains of standard gold. I said that if the price of silver fell the coin would still circulate upon the fiat of the government. If silver advanced in relative value the amount of silver in the coin could, at stated periods, be decreased. Bimetallism could only exist where the market value of the two metals approached the coinage value, or where a strong government, with a good credit, received and paid out coins of each metal at parity with each other. The only way to prevent a variation in the value of the two metals, and the exportation of the dearer metal, would be, by an international agreement between commercial nations, to adopt a common ratio somewhat similar in substance to that of the Latin Union, each nation to receive as current money the coins of the other and each to redeem its own coins in gold.
Mr. Beck replied to my argument, and the debate between us continued during two or three days. The weakness of the silver advocates was that they were not content with the coinage of more silver coin than ever before, but were determined that the holder of silver in any form might deposit it in the mint and have it coined into dollars for his benefit at the ratio of sixteen to one, when its market value had then fallen so that twenty ounces of silver were worth but one ounce in gold, and since has fallen in value so that thirty ounces of silver are worth but one ounce in gold.
With free coinage in these conditions no gold coins would be minted and all the money of the United States would be reduced in value to the sole silver standard, and gold would be hoarded and exported. This debate has been continued from that date to this, not only in Congress, but in every schoolhouse in the United States, and in all the commercial nations of the world. I shall have occasion hereafter to recur to it.
On the 18th of December I reported, from the joint committee on the library, an amendment to an appropriation bill providing for the construction of a statue to the memory of General Lafayette, in the following words:
“That the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representative do appoint a joint committee of three Senators and three Representatives, with authority to contract for and erect a statue to the memory of General Lafayette and his compatriots; and said statue shall be placed in a suitable public reservation in the city of Washington, to be designated by said joint committee.”
The amendment was agreed to by both Houses. The result was the erection, on the southeast corner of Lafayette Square in Washington, of the most beautiful and artistic bronze monument in that city.
A somewhat sharp and combative controversy had taken place in the newspapers between General Sherman and Jefferson Davis, in regard to the position of the latter on the rights of the Confederate states in the spring of 1865. General Sherman, in a letter to me dated December 4, 1884, published in the “Sherman Letters,” narrated his remarks at a meeting of the Frank Blair Post, G. A. R., No. 1, in St. Louis, in which he said that he had noticed the tendency to gloss over old names and facts by speaking of the Rebellion as a war of secession, while in fact it was a conspiracy up to the firing on Fort Sumter, and a rebellion afterwards. He described the conspiracy between Slidell, Benjamin and Davis, and the seizure of the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge, and other acts of war, and then said:
“I had seen a letter of Mr. Davis showing that he was not sincere in his doctrine of secession, for when some of the states of the Confederacy, in 1865, talked of ‘a separate state action,’ another name for ‘secession,’ he stated that he, as president of the Confederacy, would resist it, even if he had to turn Lee’s army against it. I did see such a letter, or its copy, in a captured letter book at Raleigh, just about as the war was closing.”
Davis called for the production of the identical letter. General Sherman said he could not enter into a statement of the controversy, but he believed the truth of his statement could be established, and that he would collect evidence to make good his statement. I replied to his letter as follows:
“United States Senate, } “Washington, D. C., December 10, 1884.} “Dear Brother:—... I can see how naturally you spoke of Jeff. Davis as you did, and you did not say a word more than he deserved. Still, he scarcely deserves to be brought into notice. He was not only a conspirator, but a traitor. His reply was a specimen of impotent rage. It is scarcely worth your notice, nor should you dignify it by a direct rejoinder. A clear, strong statement of the historical facts that justified the use of the word ‘conspirator,’ which you know very well how to write, is all the notice required. Do not attempt to fortify it by an affidavit, as some of the papers say you intend to do, but your statement of the letters seen by you, and the historical facts known by you, are enough. I have had occasion, since your letter was received, to speak to several Senators about the matter, and they all agree with me that you ought to avoid placing the controversy on letters which cannot now be produced. The records have been pretty well sifted by friendly rebels, and under the new administration it is likely their further publication will be edited by men who will gladly shield Davis at the expense of a Union soldier. The letter of Stephens to Johnson is an extraordinary one. Its publication will be a bombshell in the Confederate camp. I will deliver the copy to Colonel Scott to-morrow. One or two paragraphs from it go far to sustain your stated opinion of Jeff. Davis....
“Very affectionately yours,
“John Sherman.”
This controversy came before the Senate by a resolution offered by Senator Hawley, calling upon the President to communicate to the Senate an historical statement concerning the public policy of the executive department of the Confederate states during the late War of the Rebellion, reported to have been lately filed in the war department by General William T. Sherman. Upon this resolution a somewhat acrimonious debate occurred, participated in by Senators Harris, Hawley, Vest, George, Ingalls and others. During the debate I felt constrained, on account of my relationship with General Sherman, to give his version of the controversy between himself and Jefferson Davis.
I disliked the introduction of such a controversy twenty years after the war was over, but still, as the matter was before us, I entered at considerable length into a history of the controversy, and expressed my decided opinion that General Sherman was entirely justified in denouncing Davis and his associates, before the Civil War commenced, as conspirators and traitors. I closed my remarks as follows:
“I am sorry this debate has sprung up. I was in hope, with the Senator from Connecticut, who introduced the resolution, that these papers would be published, and nothing more would be said about them here, but let the people determine the issue and let this matter go down in history. But, sir, whenever, in my presence, in a public assemblage, Jefferson Davis shall be treated as a patriot, I must enter my solemn protest. Whenever the motives and causes of the war, the beginning and end of which I have seen, are brought into question, I must stand, as I have always stood, upon the firm conviction that it was a causeless rebellion, made with bad motives, and that all men who led in that movement were traitors to their country.”
Senator Lamar answered my speech with some heat, and closed as follows:
“One other thing. We, of the south, have surrendered upon all the questions which divided the two sides in that controversy. We have given up the right of the people to secede from the Union; we have given up the right of each state to judge for itself of the infractions of the constitution and the mode of redress; we have given up the right to control our own domestic institutions. We fought for all these, and we lost in that controversy; but no man shall, in my presence, call Jefferson Davis a traitor, without my responding with a stern and emphatic denial.”
Senator Vest closed the debate in a few remarks, and the subject-matter was displaced by the regular order. While I regretted this debate, I believed that the speeches made by the Republican Senators properly defined the Rebellion as, first, a conspiracy; second, treason; third, a rebellion subdued by force, finally followed by the most generous treatment of those engaged in the Rebellion that is found in the history of mankind.
During this session there was a very full debate upon the subject of regulating interstate commerce, in which I participated. The contest was between what was known as the Reagan bill, which passed the House of Representatives, and the Senate bill. I expressed the opinion that the Senate bill was better than the Reagan bill, and, although much popular favor had been enlisted from time to time in favor of the Reagan bill, because it grappled with and dealt with the railroad corporations, the Senate bill did more; it not only grappled with them, but laid a broad and deep foundation for an admirable system of railroad law, which should govern all the railroads of the country.
CHAPTER XLVIII. DEDICATION OF THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT. Resolution of Senator Morrill Providing for Appropriate Dedicatory Ceremonies—I Am Made Chairman of the Commission—Robert C. Winthrop’s Letter Stating His Inability to Attend the Exercises—Letters of Regret from General Grant and John G. Whittier—Unfavorable Weather for the Dedication—My Address as Presiding Officer—The President’s Acceptance of the Monument for the Nation—Mr. Winthrop’s Address Read in the House by John D. Long—Inauguration of the First Democratic President Since Buchanan’s Time—Visit to Cincinnati and Address on the Election Frauds—Respects to the Ohio Legislature —A Trip to the West and Southwest—Address on American Independence.
On the 13th of May, 1884, the President approved the following joint resolution, introduced by Mr. Morrill, from the committee on public buildings and grounds:
“Whereas, The shaft of the Washington monument is approaching completion, and it is proper that it should be dedicated with appropriate ceremonies, calculated to perpetuate the fame of the illustrious man who was ‘first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen:’ Therefore,
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a commission to consist of five Senators appointed by the president of the Senate, eight Representatives appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, three members of the Washington Monument Society, and the United States engineer in charge of the work be, and the same is hereby, created, with full powers to make arrangements for,—
“First. The dedication of the monument to the name and memory of George Washington, by the President of the United States, with appropriate ceremonies.
“Second. A procession from the monument to the capitol, escorted by regular and volunteer corps, the Washington Monument Society, representatives of cities, states, and organizations which have contributed blocks of stone, and such bodies of citizens as may desire to appear.
“Third. An oration in the hall of the House of Representatives, on the twenty-second day of February, anno Domini eighteen hundred and eighty-five, by the Honorable Robert C. Winthrop, who delivered the oration at the laying of the corner stone of the monument in eighteen hundred and forty-eight, with music by the Marine Band.
“Fourth. Salutes of one hundred guns from the navy yard, the artillery headquarters, and such men-of-war as can be anchored in the Potomac.”
I was chairman of the commission appointed under this resolution, and, in compliance with it, invited Mr. Winthrop to deliver the oration. He expressed his deep sense of the honor conferred upon him, but had a doubt whether he ought not to decline on account of his failing health. Mr. Morrill and I strongly insisted upon his acceptance and he eventually consented, though not without misgivings which were unhappily justified.
A short time before the day appointed for the dedication I received from him the following autograph letter, which is interesting, not only on account of the eminence of its author, but of the important event about to be celebrated:
“90 Marlborough Street, Boston, February 13, 1885. “Hon. John Sherman, Chairman, etc.
“Dear Senator Sherman:—It is with deep regret that I find myself compelled to abandon all further hope of being at the dedication of the Washington monument on the 21st instant. I have been looking forward to the possibility of being able to run on at the last moment, and to pronounce a few sentences of my oration before handing it to Governor Long, who has so kindly consented to read it. But my recovery from dangerous illness has been slower than I anticipated, and my physician concurs with my family in forbidding me from any attempt to leave home at present.
“I need not assure the commissioners how great a disappointment it is to me to be deprived of the privilege of being present on this most interesting occasion. I am sure of their sympathy without asking for it.
“Please present my respectful apologies to your associates, and believe me,
“With great regard, very faithfully yours,
“Robt. C. Winthrop.
“P. S.—This is the first letter I have attempted to write with my
own pen since my illness.”
Among the numerous regrets received by the commission was the following:
“Oak Knoll, Danvers, Mass., Second Month 8, 1885. “Hon. John Sherman, Chairman of Committee.
“Dear Friend:—The state of my health will scarcely permit me to avail myself of the invitation of the commission to attend the ceremonies of the dedication of the Washington monument.
“In common with my fellow-citizens I rejoice at the successful completion of this majestic testimonial of the reverence and affection which the people of the United States, irrespective of party, section, or race, cherish for the ‘Father of his Country.’ Grand, however, and imposing as that testimonial may seem, it is, after all, but an inadequate outward representation of that mightier monument, unseen and immeasurable, builded of the living stones of a nation’s love and gratitude, the hearts of forty millions of people. But the world has not outlived its need of picture writing and symbolism, and the great object lesson of the Washington monument will doubtless prove a large factor in the moral and political education of present and future generations. Let us hope that it will be a warning as well as a benediction; and that while its sunlit altitude may fitly symbolize the truth that ‘righteousness exalteth a nation,’ its shadow falling on the dome of the capitol may be a daily remainder that ‘sin is a reproach to any people.’ Surely it will not have been reared in vain if, on the day of its dedication, its mighty shaft shall serve to lift heavenward the voice of a united people that the principles for which the fathers toiled and suffered shall be maintained inviolate by their children.
“With sincere respect, I am thy friend,
“John G. Whittier.”
Another letter, received about two weeks earlier from General Grant, seems to me worthy of a reproduction. It is as follows:
“New York City, January 27, 1885.
“Hon. John Sherman.
“Dear Sir:—I regret very much that my physical condition prevents me from accepting the invitation of the commissioners, appointed by Congress to provide suitable ceremonies for the dedication of the Washington monument, to be present to witness the same on the 21st of February next. My throat still requires the attention of the physician daily, though I am encouraged to believe that it is improving.
“Very respectfully yours,
“U. S. Grant.”
An engraved card of invitation was sent to a great number of civil and military organizations throughout the United States, the regents of Mount Vernon, relatives of General Washington and other distinguished persons.
The commission invited Lieutenant General Sheridan to act as marshal of the day, with an aid-de-camp from each state and territory. This invitation was accepted, and arrangements were made for a procession from the monument to the capitol and proceedings there after the dedication by the President.
The joint resolution prescribed that the monument be dedicated “to the name and memory of George Washington, by the President of the United States, with appropriate ceremonies” on the 22nd of February. The day selected was among the coldest of the year. The ground was covered with snow and a high keen wind was blowing. I was directed to preside over the proceedings at the base of the monument, and in the performance of this duty made the following address:
“The commission authorized by the two Houses of Congress to provide suitable ceremonies for the dedication of the Washington monument, direct me to preside and announce the order of ceremonies deemed proper on this occasion.
“I need not say anything to impress upon you the dignity of the event you have met to celebrate. The monument speaks for itself— simple in form, admirable in proportions, composed of enduring marble and granite, resting upon foundations broad and deep, it rises into the skies higher than any work of human art. It is the most imposing, costly and appropriate monument ever erected in the honor of one man.
“It had its origin in the profound conviction of the people, irrespective of party, creed or race, not only of this country, but of all civilized countries, that the name and fame of Washington should be perpetuated by the most imposing testimonial of a nation’s gratitude to its hero, statesman and father. This universal sentiment took form in a movement of private citizens, associated under the name of the Washington National Monument Association, who, on the 31st day of January, 1848, secured, from Congress, an act authorizing them to erect the proposed monument on this ground, selected, as the most appropriate site, by the President of the United States. Its corner stone was laid on the 4th day of July, 1848, by the Masonic fraternity, with imposing ceremonies, in the presence of the chief officer of the government and a multitude of citizens. It was partially erected by the National Monument Association, with means furnished by the voluntary contributions of the people of the United States.
“On the 5th day of July, 1876, one hundred years after the declaration of American Independence, Congress, in the name of the people of the United States, formally assumed and directed the completion of the monument. Since then the foundation has been strengthened, the shaft has been steadily advanced, and the now completed structure stands before you.
“It is a fit memorial of the greatest character in human history. It looks down upon scenes most loved by him on earth, the most conspicuous object in a landscape full of objects deeply interesting to the American people. All eyes turn to it, and all hearts feel the inspiration of its beauty, symmetry and grandeur. Strong as it is, it will not endure so long as the memory of him in whose honor it was built, but while it stands it will be the evidence to many succeeding generations of the love and reverence of this generation for the name and fame of George Washington, ’first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen’— more even than this, the prototype of purity, manhood and patriotism for all lands and for all time. Without further preface, I proceed to discharge the duty assigned me.”
After prayer by the Rev. Henderson Suter, Dr. James C. Welling read an address which had been prepared by W. W. Corcoran, first vice president of the Washington National Monument Society, giving a detailed history of the structure in its various stages. Washington having been a Freemason, appropriate Masonic ceremonies were performed, the address being delivered by Grand Master Myron M. Parker. Colonel Thomas L. Casey, of the engineer corps, United States army, the chief engineer and architect of the monument, then formally delivered the structure to the President of the United States, in an address describing the work done by him on it. President Arthur received the monument with the following well-chosen words:
“Fellow-Countrymen:—Before the dawn of the century whose eventful years will soon have faded into the past, when death had but lately robbed this republic of its most beloved and illustrious citizen, the Congress of the United States pledged the faith of the nation that in this city, bearing his honored name, and then, as now, the seat of the general government, a monument should be erected ‘to commemorate the great events of his military and political life.’
“The stately column that stretches heavenward from the plain whereon we stand bears witness to all who behold it that the covenant which our fathers made, their children have fulfilled.
“In the completion of this great work of patriotic endeavor there is abundant cause for national rejoicing; for while this structure shall endure it shall be to all mankind a steadfast token of the affectionate and reverent regard in which this people continue to hold the memory of Washington. Well may he ever keep the foremost place in the hearts of his countrymen.
“The faith that never faltered, the wisdom that was broader and deeper than any learning taught in schools, the courage that shrank from no peril and was dismayed by no defeat, the loyalty that kept all selfish purpose subordinate to the demands of patriotism and honor, the sagacity that displayed itself in camp and cabinet alike, and, above all, that harmonious union of moral and intellectual qualities which has never found its parallel among men; these are the attributes of character which the intelligent thought of this century ascribes to the grandest figure of the last.
“But other and more eloquent lips than mine will to-day rehearse to you the story of his noble life and its glorious achievements.
“To myself has been assigned a simpler and more formal duty, in fulfillment of which I do now, as President of the United States, and in behalf of the people, receive this monument from the hands of its builder, and declare it dedicated from this time forth to the immortal name and memory of George Washington.”
The exercises at the monument concluded, General Sheridan and his aids formed the procession, consisting of regular and state troops, the Masonic fraternity, Grand Army posts, and other organizations, with the invited guests, in carriages, and proceeded to the capitol, while the cannon at the navy yard, at the artillery headquarters and at Fort Meyer fired minute guns.
As previously arranged, the address of Mr. Winthrop, which has ever since been regarded as equal to the occasion, was read by John D. Long, in the hall of the House of Representatives, before a most distinguished audience, embracing all the principal officers of the government and the invited guests. John W. Daniel, of Virginia, also delivered an eloquent oration.
Thus the Congress celebrated the completion of monuments in enduring form to two of the greatest men in American history—Washington and Marshall.
The Congress expired by limitation March 4, 1885.
On the same day, there was inaugurated the first Democratic President of the United States since the time of James Buchanan. The election of Cleveland, though not disputed, turned upon a very narrow majority in New York, and the practical exclusion of the majority of the legal voters in several of the southern states. This naturally led to the inquiry, “What will you do about it?” My answer was that we must quietly acquiesce in the result of the official returns and give to Mr. Cleveland such fair treatment as we asked for Hayes. I said that we should confirm his appointments made in pursuance of the law and custom. I was a member of the committee that conducted him to the stand where he was inaugurated. I heard his inaugural address, carefully studied it, and felt sure that if he faithfully observed the policy he defined, the bitterness of party strife would be greatly diminished. He carefully avoided contested questions of public policy, and especially omitted all reference to the substantial overthrow of the political rights of a majority of the legal voters in many of the southern states, by which alone he was elected.
The usual call for an executive session at the close of a presidential term was issued by President Arthur, and the Senate met on the 4th of March, Vice President Hendricks presiding. But little business of general interest was done during that session except action on presidential appointments, few in number, which were confirmed without objection. The Senate adjourned on the 2nd of April.
Soon after I went to Mansfield, and, on the 12th of April, to Cincinnati, to witness the inauguration of my friend, Amor Smith, Jr., as mayor of that city. He had fought and overcome the grossest frauds that had been or could be committed by penitentiary convicts. A crowd gathered around his residence, which, with those of his neighbors, was brilliantly illuminated. The Blaine club, headed by a band and followed by many citizens, filled his yard. His house was full of his personal friends. After music by the band, Miller Outcalt, president of the club, escorted Mr. Smith to the piazza and introduced him to the citizens. His speech was modest and appropriate, but he took care to denounce, in fitting language, the open and reckless frauds practiced by his enemies to defeat him, and promised that while he was mayor no such frauds should be committed.
I was introduced to the crowd, and, after rendering my thanks and congratulations and my appeal to the young men of the club, said:
“I think the foulest crime in the decalogue of crime, worse than any named in the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic law, lower far than stealing, worse than burglary, as bad as murder, is the crime that has been perpetrated here in your city openly, in the face of day, trying to break down the elective franchise and rob the people of their right to govern themselves. I might forgive a man who would steal because he was in need of bread; he might commit other crimes because of some reason, but a man who seeks to rob his neighbors of their right to govern themselves, and practices the tricks of the wily electioneer to deprive the people of this right, commits a meaner crime than any that can be named in the list of crime.
“I am told that dozens—aye, hundreds—of men have gone to the polls and there voted over and over again; that they have given false names, and sometimes, in the presence of the very guardians of the public peace, they have openly violated the law. I say that worse men cannot be found than those who do this, or those viler creatures who protect them in doing it or justify them in their acts. Every power of the nation should be utilized to punish them with the penitentiary; they ought to be made to wear the stripes of the convict.”
Foraker followed with an eloquent speech, which greatly pleased the audience, and after much hand-shaking the crowd gradually dispersed.
My remarks about frauds at elections did not please the “Enquirer.” While strongly censuring me for violence in language it did not try to controvert what I said. I have always entertained the opinion that frauds in elections are more dangerous crimes than cheating, theft and robbery, because they are committed against the whole people and sap and undermine republican institutions. I have always denounced them, or anything approaching them, when committed by friend or foe.
From Cincinnati I went to Columbus to pay my respects to the Ohio legislature, about to adjourn. A majority of both houses was Democratic. They convened in the hall of the house of representatives, where I addressed them. I thanked them for their courtesy, which was the more gracious because it came from gentlemen who did not agree with me in political opinion. I told them I was pleased to see that in Ohio and elsewhere the interests of our country and our state were regarded of vastly more importance than the factious quarrels of bitter partisans, which feeling I was glad to say I had always encouraged. I alluded to my having served in the Senate of the United States with colleagues representing different political opinions from myself, including Allen G. Thurman, George H. Pendleton and, at that time, Henry B. Payne, and to the fact that whenever the interests of the people of Ohio were concerned our political differences disappeared and we were shoulder to shoulder as friends. I said I thought this spirit ought to be observed by the representatives of the people of Ohio and of the United States, that whenever the interests of the people were under consideration party spirit should sink into insignificance.
After hand-shaking all around I returned to my hotel. In the evening I was invited to attend the board of trade, and, being kindly introduced by President Miles, I, as usual, was called upon for a speech. I first alluded to the remarkable growth of Columbus to which the members of the board had contributed, and then discussed briefly the silver question, about which they also felt an interest. I then exploited into electricity, as follows:
“Gentlemen, you will be called upon hereafter to deal with forces yet undiscovered. The developments of science have brought to your aid things as mysterious as life, which no mind can penetrate. You are now called upon to use electricity as a motive power and as light. You must develop these secrets of nature, and you will have no more fear of the exhaustion of gold, for these new powers will contribute to the wealth and power of this country. The business men must carry out these, and so I say, as I said in Cincinnati, that if business men would carry their honest methods into government, then the scale and grade of our politics would rise higher and higher. We have had advancement under these principles in everything except the government of the country. What we want is honest government by honest men. The United States will then be looked on no longer as an experiment, but it will become the greatest of the great governments since Adam was created.
“If I can induce the young men, who have contributed so much to the growth of this city, to see to this—if you will do this much to promote honest government and honest methods, we won’t care whether you call yourself Democrat or Republican.”
I closed with thanks for the honor done me. I was also invited to visit the city council, and as soon as the reception in the board of trade was over I accompanied a committee to the council chamber, where I was again called upon for a speech.
Mr. Taylor, the president of the council, by a slip of the tongue, introduced me as “Senator Thurman.” I said:
“I see that our friend, your president, mixes me up with Judge Thurman on account of the fact that our names sound very much alike. I consider such a mistake the highest compliment that could be paid me; for the great ability, intense sagacity and entire purity of your distinguished fellow-citizen, in the highest offices of the land, have placed him, in my estimation, in the first rank of able and noble men. I like to have my name called Thurman. It is my opinion that the duties of city officers are of the very highest importance. The most serious embarrassments of this or any other country lie with the municipal governments. National government is clearly defined. The government of the State of Ohio ought to present no difficulties when administered by fair men of business habits. But the eyes of the people are upon the difficulties of municipal government. The scenes that occurred in Paris, in London, in New York, and, to come nearer home, the scenes that occurred in Cincinnati, all show the importance of good city government. I say to you, although a Member of the Senate of the United States, that the real difficulties of our government are no more serious than the problems of city management and government. When Rome became the scene of wrongs, crimes, and usurpation, the republic crumbled. If ever this government be in danger, it will be because of the misgovernment of our cities.”
In the early part of April, 1885, I arranged for a trip via Chicago, Des Moines, St. Louis, Texas and California, thence along the Pacific coast to Tacoma and Seattle, and thence by the Northern Pacific railroad to St. Paul, and home again. The party was composed of Henry C. Hedges, George F. Carpenter, both citizens of Mansfield, my nephew Frank Sherman, of Des Moines, and myself. It was arranged that we were to meet in St. Louis. In the meantime I proceeded to Des Moines, where I met my brother, Hoyt, and his son, Frank. Here I met a reporter of the “Register” published in that city. He said in his report that I seemed to feel happy at the prospect that for two months at least I was going to be free from public cares, and that I acted like a man who had absolutely thrown worry aside for the time being. I told him my business was purely of a private character, and that I had dismissed all politics from my mind. I declined to answer his questions about Mr. Cleveland. He made out of small materials an interview which answered his purpose. He asked my view of the silver question. I told him I hoped to see the people abandon the idea, which prevailed a few years previous, of having silver money of less value than gold. We had gone through a struggle of some years to make our paper money equal to gold, and the next struggle ought to be to do the same with silver money. I said we should have all kinds of money of equal value whether United States notes, bank bills, silver or gold; that if we had this our silver would circulate in all parts of the world the same as our gold, that we could use both silver and gold as the basis of our certificates, which would then be regarded as money by every commercial nation of the world. I said I was in favor of both silver and gold, and of using both to be coined upon the basis of market value, that in this way the volume of money would be increased instead of being diminished, and our money would become the standard money of the world. In his report he said that I spoke very feelingly of General Grant, expressing a hope for his recovery, but that I feared his apparent improvement was only characteristic of that disease and not substantial.
I was surprised as well as gratified at the rapid growth of Des Moines, which I first knew as an insignificant village. From Des Moines Frank Sherman and I went to St. Louis, and there met Messrs. Hedges and Carpenter. During the two or three days we remained in St. Louis I stayed at the house of General Sherman, who then resided in that city. He took great interest in my proposed trip, and one evening wrote out, without a change or erasure of a single word, on three pages of foolscap, and under the head of “Memorandum for John Sherman,” a complete and detailed statement of the route I was to follow, and the names of the cities and places I was to visit, including the persons whom I ought to see, to several of whom he gave me letters of introduction. I have regarded this “memorandum,” which we found accurate in every particular, as a striking evidence of his mastery of details. We followed the route with scarcely a change. Among the letters given me by him was one to his friend, F. F. Low, as follows:
“St. Louis, Mo., May 3, 1885.
“Hon. F. F. Low, Anglo California Bank.
“Dear Sir:—My brother John, the Senator, is on the point of starting for San Francisco via the southern route and intends to come back by the north. He will be in your city some days, and I am anxious you should become acquainted, also that he should meet your wife and daughter.
“If you are with the Pacific club please introduce him to some of the old set—Hoffman, Tevis, Haggin, Rowie, etc., etc. Nearly all my old banking friends have passed away, but I am sure he would be pleased to meet Alvord and Brown, of the Bank of California, and also Flood, of the Nevada Bank.
“Truly your friend,
“W. T. Sherman.”
While in St. Louis, the “Evening Chronicle” of May 1, published quite a long interview with me. General Sherman, during this interview, sat somewhat aside, now and then putting in an emphatic assent or suggestion. The general inquired of me if there was any late news from Washington concerning General Sheridan. The reporter then asked him what his opinion was as to the controversy between General Sheridan and Secretary of War Endicott. The general answered: “There is no controversy. It is simply an incident of the conflict of authority which has existed between the Secretary of War and the General of the Army since the days of Washington. General Scott had to leave Washington on that account. I had to leave there for the same reason, and Sheridan will have to go away.”
Early Monday morning, May 4, we left on the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern railway. I had heard and read a great deal in St. Louis about the mineral resources of the southeastern part of Missouri, through which we passed, but from the cars we could gain no information. We saw, on every side, herds of cattle, flocks of sheep, and bands of horses and mules. For miles the forest woods stretched away. We passed through the low lands of Arkansas, covered with valuable timber. We passed through Texarkana, a city located partly in Arkansas and partly in Texas, and not far from Louisiana. We proceeded across the State of Texas, only catching glimpses, here and there, of towns springing up, and broad fields already planted with cotton.
In passing through Dallas, we met my old boyhood friend, A. Banning Norton, who was there called Judge Norton. In 1844 he was so earnest in his zeal and enthusiasm for Henry Clay that he vowed he would not cut his hair until Clay was elected President of the United States. Clay’s defeat was a sad blow to Norton, but he religiously kept his vow, and until the day of his death wore his hair unshorn. He was thoroughly loyal during the war, and was compelled to leave Texas and remain in Ohio until after the war was over, when he returned and published a newspaper, and was kindly treated by his Texas neighbors. In his paper, he said that receiving a telegram from me at six o’clock, at his residence, just before the arrival of the train, he hurried to the Union Depot, and there had the satisfaction of meeting our party. He said that his chief regret at the delay in receiving this telegram was that he did not have time enough to give notice to his neighbors, who would have been glad to give us an ovation. He went with us as far as Fort Worth, and we had a chance to revive the memories of early times, when we were schoolboys at Mount Vernon, Ohio.
We arrived at El Paso and Paso del Norte, the first a Texan and the second a Mexican town, opposite each other on the Rio Grande River, which, from its mouth to this point, is the boundary line between Mexico and the United States. El Paso must, in all human probability, become a place of great importance. From there we proceeded to Deming and entered Arizona. Here we began again to hear of rich mines, of thriving mining towns, and of the inexhaustible ores of silver and gold, but how much was truth and how much exaggeration we had no means of knowing. From the cars the whole country appeared to be a wilderness. Arizona, as viewed from the cars, does not present a pleasing prospect, though we heard that back beyond the mountains on either side were plains and valleys irrigated by mountain streams, where perennial grasses existed and grain was raised. We passed through Tucson, the capital of the territory. It is an old city, having been in existence, it is said, 300 years. Here we saw fields of barley, wheat, rye and timothy, and a large orchard, all enriched by irrigation. We soon crossed the Colorado River and entered California.
From Yuma to San Bernardino is an absolute desert. For over one hundred miles the track is one hundred feet, or more, below the level of the sea, and the country is absolutely naked of bird or grass. At San Bernardino we entered California proper, and there found a beautiful country, with nothing to obstruct the view, the California mountains being on the right all the way into Los Angeles. Upon my arrival in this city I was pleasantly surprised. I had been there thirteen years before, but everything was changed. I could find none of the old landmarks I had formerly seen. They had disappeared, but in their place were great improvements and signs of progress and prosperity. I was asked the occasion of my visit. I answered truly that I proposed to remain in the southern part of the state for a week or more, for rest and recreation. Here, again, I had inquiries about the silver question. I was averse to giving any expression of opinion, but the topic was irrepressible, and I finally said to the representative of one of the leading papers: “I am in favor of a silver dollar, equal, in market value, to the gold dollar—actually equal. In other words, let the silver dollar have enough grains of silver in it to make it intrinsically worth, in the market, the gold dollar. As it is, the government buys the silver at a certain valuation and then coins it at another valuation, to make a profit on the difference. This is not protecting the silver producer at all. It really is an injury to him and his industry.”
Our stay in Los Angeles was a very pleasant one. We drove to many interesting towns and settlements within fifteen or twenty miles of the city. I do not remember, in my many travels, any part of the earth’s surface that is more attractive in the spring of the year, the season when I was there, than the region about Los Angeles. I met there many friends of General Sherman, who inquired for him, and I informed them he was living very pleasantly in St. Louis, that I had spent the last Sunday with him, that he traveled a great deal, and attended reunions with old army comrades, which he enjoyed very much, that he was fond of the Pacific coast and liked to go there, and that I almost persuaded him to come with me on this trip, had not other engagements existed which he could not annul.
We met several Ohio people while here, among them two or three gentlemen whom we had known as boys in Mansfield. We drove to Wolfskill’s orange grove, and to many handsome places in, and around, Los Angeles, to Sierra Madre Villa, to Baldwin’s place, to Rose’s wine establishment, and to Passadena, where we found Senator Cameron and his wife pleasantly situated, and where they spent the summer.
From Los Angeles we departed by stage and passed through the Los Angeles valley, the San Fernando valley, and after crossing the coast range saw the sea. For the first time we were at the Pacific coast proper. On the way we met a settlement of Ohio men, most of them from Richland county, whom we knew. San Buenaventura is the county seat of Ventura county, with about 2,000 inhabitants. It is an interesting place, its chief ornament being an old mission built in 1784. We there visited a loan exhibition and floral display under the management of the ladies of the village and surrounding country, and saw the evidences of a semi-tropical climate, magnificent palm tress, and the orange, the lemon and the lime. From this place to Santa Barbara the drive was mainly along the beach. Passing from the beach we entered upon a beautiful country, and so proceeded all the way into Santa Barbara, through charming valleys and under pleasant skies.
At Santa Barbara we were welcomed by Colonel Hollister, a native of Ohio and a ranchero of California, whom, as already related, I had met under similar circumstance thirteen years previous. We stopped at a hotel owned by him and for four days were his guests. He had settled on a tract of country west of Santa Barbara, and had become the owner of a ranch of 48,000 acres as well as extensive property in Santa Barbara and other places. We visited him at Glen Annie after a drive of a few miles in an open carriage, all the way within view of the sea and the mountains, through valleys cultivated like gardens, under a bright sky in pure air. On the foot hills were grazing herds of cattle, flocks of sheep and droves of horses. On either side of the carriage road were groves of the English walnut, orange, lemon, lime, apricot, peach, apple, cherry, the date palm and olive trees, with acres and acres of vineyards, and now and then a park of live oak. The mansion of Glen Annie was surrounded by a bower of flowers and vines. From the porch we could see the sea. This was the second time I had been at Santa Barbara and I always remember it as perhaps the most pleasing combination of scenery I have ever witnessed. We spent a very pleasant hour with Mr. Stoddard and family, who had removed from Ohio some years before to that delightful part of our country. From Santa Barbara we went by steamer to Wilmington and San Pedro and then returned to Los Angeles through a beautiful country. From thence we went to San Francisco by rail through a country that seemed absolutely worthless except now and then there were small valleys highly cultivated. In the early morning we were in the valley of the San Joaquin, where wide fields extend all along both sides. Here we saw thousands of acres of land covered by growing wheat without a fence to protect it.
Arriving at Oakland we crossed the bay to San Francisco on the 18th of May, stopping at the Palace hotel. There I was called upon by reporters of the several papers and was asked to tell them where I came from, where I was going, and my opinions upon various subjects. All manner of questions were asked and answered about matters of no present interest. Our party visited many places of interest in and about San Francisco. I visited General Pope, at his residence at Black Point, the fort at the entrance of the Golden Gate, the seal rocks and park. While here I met a great number of very agreeable gentlemen and ladies, some of whom were from Lancaster, Ohio. The letters given me by General Sherman introduced me to prominent men, who were very kind and courteous. On the 25th, a public reception was tendered me at the rooms of the Chamber of Commerce, by the members of that body, the Board of Trade and the Manufacturers’ Association. This was an act of courtesy that I did not expect, but greatly appreciated. The usual speech making occurred. I was introduced by Henry L. Dodge, president of the chamber, in flattering terms, and responded in a brief speech. I recalled to them my visit to California with Colonel Scott in connection with the Texas Pacific railroad, and the early connection of General Sherman with the history of California. I expressed my appreciation of the importance of California, and its enormous development and influence upon the country since it became part of the United States. I stated my views in respect to the silver question, and the importance of maintaining all forms of money at parity with each other, so that coins of both silver and gold might “travel all over the world equal to each other in every land and in every part.” I insert two passages from this speech, which, though it did not conform to their opinions and interests, was kindly received by the intelligent body of merchants present. I said:
“It is due to frankness and manhood for me to say that in the country there is a feeling now, that if the present system should be continued unchanged, the result would be that gold would be demonetized, being worth more than silver as coined by the government of the United States. The opinion prevails that the only thing to remedy this is to buy the silver and gold, or take them from the miner and coin them at the same rate, of equal market value, in coins, one for the other, so that they would travel, side by side, without depreciation or discount. There is an inclination in the eastern states, not of hostility to silver, but of hostility to that system which would take from the miner the fruit of his labor at its market rate and issue it at a depreciated rate; so that even cautious people would doubt whether or not this silver money will hereafter be as good as gold money.
“I wish you success in all your business enterprises. I know your success will contribute to the happiness of our country. I am glad to be able to congratulate the merchants of San Francisco upon the enormous growth and prosperity of our country, not only of California, not only of San Francisco, Los Angeles and the other beautiful towns you have in your midst, but the whole country; for although we have sometimes here and there waves of dejection, after all, our country is moving forward in bounding prosperity. We have now the best currency that exists on the globe. Our credit is unrivaled in all the world, for no nation can borrow money at so low a rate as our United States bonds now bear. Our general prosperity is increasing and abounding, and although, as I have said, there may be waves here and there, the progress is onward and upward and hopeful. I trust you will be prosperous in your enterprises, that you will share in the common prosperity of our whole country, for, after all, the energy of your people of San Francisco and California should not be expended entirely alone on the Pacific coast. This whole boundless continent is ours, and only awaits the time when we choose to assert our right to take it and hold it.”
At the invitation of Senator John F. Miller I spent a day on his ranch in Napa valley. It was a beautiful country, neither a prairie nor a woodland, but more like a fine cultivated park, with here and there groups of trees planted by nature. I made several excursions around the bay, accompanied by General Pope and members of his staff. I was delighted with my visit in and around San Francisco, not only for the natural beauty of the country, but also on account of the kindness of its inhabitants. I was no doubt indebted for this to my connection with General Sherman, who seemed to be known and greatly beloved by everyone.
I have a pleasant recollection of a reception given at the Dirigo club. The gentlemen present were not all young men, though they chose to regard themselves as such. Major Chamberlain delivered a brief address of welcome, in which he referred to the “martial services of General Sherman and the pacific achievements of the Senator,” and drew a comparison highly complimentary to both of the brothers. William W. Morrow, Member of Congress, formally welcomed me as a guest of the club and delivered a short but eloquent speech. I made a brief reply and then the company was served with refreshments, entertained with music and had a free and friendly time. The reception was a decided success as was to be expected from the high reputation of the club.
On the 27th of May we started northward towards Sacramento and Portland, Oregon. Senator Leland Stanford was kind enough to furnish us a car and accompanied us to his ranch at Vina. We stopped at Chico long enough to visit the ranch of John Bidwell, containing 20,000 acres. He met us at the station and we were soon conveyed to his mansion such as is seldom built on a farm. We drove through orchards of peach, apricot, cherry, apple, pear and almond trees, while in his gardens were all kinds of berries and vegetables. After this brief visit we proceeded along the line of railroad to Vina, the extensive possession of Senator Stanford, containing 56,000 acres. Here is said to be the largest vineyard in the world, 3,600 acres. On leaving Mr. Stanford we proceeded to the terminus of the railroad, from which point we crossed the coast range of mountains in a stage, and were for three days in sight of Mt. Shasta. This mountain rising from the plains stands out by itself 14,400 feet above the level of the sea. Between Shasta and the Sierras proper there is no continuity, nor is there with the coast range. More properly it is a butte, a lone mountain. Shortly after leaving Southern’s the castle rocks came in view, the highest and boldest mountains in close proximity, or within our view. Shasta was crowned with snow, the snow line beginning 7,000 feet from its base. The scene all day had been rugged and bold, and as we traveled by the Sacramento River, here a rapid mountain stream, its waters rushed along the rocky bottom, now confined within narrow banks, now widening out into a wide deep bed as clear as crystal and cold and pure. For thirty miles of our travel that day we had been in a good timbered country. Within a circle of fifty feet in diameter we counted a dozen pines, every one of which would have yielded ten to twelve thousand feet of sawed timber. Flowers of the richest colors were found in the woods, and the range afforded feed for thousands of cattle. At Southern’s we took a spring-top wagon in which to ride sixteen miles over the mountains. We spent three days in the journey between Delta, California, and Ashland, Oregon, the two ends of the railway approaching towards each other. I recall it as the most charming mountain ride I ever took. While crossing the mountain I occupied a seat with the driver and much of the time I held the reins. The ascent of the Siskiyou mountain was very tedious. Much of the way the load was too heavy for our six horses to pull, and many dismounted from the coach, among them the driver; the reins were placed in my hands and we transferred most of the baggage from the boot to the body of the coach. So we climbed the Siskiyou 5,000 feet to the summit of the pass. Then on a gallop, with the coach full, we turned downward. At one time, as the lead team turned a sharp curve, it was nearly opposite the stage. Down, still down, and on the full gallop, we arrived at Ashland on the evening of the 31st of May, and remained there one day.
On the 1st of June we followed the line of the Willamette valley, a productive region for the cultivation of wheat and other cereals. At Albany we were met by Governor Moody and Secretary Earnhart, who welcomed us to Oregon. With these officials we went to Salem, the capital city of the state. My visit in Salem was a very pleasant one and I was especially indebted to Governor Moody for his courtesy and kindness. On the morning of the next day, the 2nd of June, we left Salem and rode down the valley to Portland. This, the principal city of Oregon, then contained a population of nearly 40,000, of whom 6,000 or 7,000 were Chinese. It was the natural head of navigation of the Columbia River, and was a flourishing handsome city of the American type, in this respect unlike the cities of California. General Miles was then in command of the military district, with his residence at Fort Vancouver, Washington Territory. The military post of Vancouver was then on the north bank of the Columbia River, but a few miles from Portland. Mrs. Miles is the daughter of my brother Charles, and I remained with their family in Vancouver during my two or three days stay there, my traveling companions making their headquarters at Portland.
When visiting Tacoma and Seattle our party had been increased to the number of seventeen gentlemen, some of them connected with the army, some with the railroads, and others who joined us in our progress around the waters of Puget Sound and strait of Juan de Fuca. These waters furnish perhaps the finest harbors in the world. They are deep, with high banks rising in some places to mountains, and capable of holding all the navies of the world. In a military sense Puget Sound can be easily defended from an enemy coming from the sea, and, though the country is mountainous, it is capable of sustaining a large population in the extensive valleys both east and west of the coast range. I have visited this portion of the United States on three occasions, and am always more and more impressed with its great importance and its probably rapid increase of population and wealth. I will not dwell longer on this interesting trip.
We left Portland on the 7th of June and proceeded on the Northern Pacific railroad to Tacoma. On the train we met Charles Francis Adams, Jr., with a party of railway managers, and in Tacoma we met an old friend, a gallant and able officer, General John W. Sprague, formerly from Erie county, Ohio, and more recently connected with the Northern Pacific Railway Company. On Sunday, our party, including Mr. Adams, dined with General Sprague. We had not as yet been able to see Mount Tacoma in its glory, as it was constantly shrouded by clouds. In the course of the dinner, Mr. Adams said humorously to Mrs. Sprague that he had some doubts whether there was a Mount Tacoma, that he had come there to see it and looked in the right direction, but could not find it. I saw that this nettled Mrs. Sprague, but she said nothing. In a few moments she left the table and soon came back with a glowing face, saying, “You can see Tacoma now!” We all left our places at the tables and went out on the porch, and there was Mount Tacoma in all its glory. The clouds were above the head of the mountain and it stood erect, covered with snow, one of the most beautiful sights in nature. Mr. Adams said: “Tacoma—yes Mount Tacoma is there and is very beautiful!”
On the 9th of June we visited Victoria in British Columbia. On our return we stopped at Port Townsend and Seattle. I received many courtesies from gentlemen at Seattle, many of whom had been natives or residents of Ohio, and among them Governor Squire, who had read law in Cleveland and was admitted to the bar in Mansfield, where I resided. Among other events we were tendered a reception and a banquet at Tacoma, at which seventy persons sat at the table. I was introduced in complimentary terms and expressed my surprise at the rapid growth of Tacoma and Seattle and that part of our country. It was a wonder, I said, that such a scene could occur in a place that had so recently been without an inhabitant except Indians, and where, but a few years before, the Walla Wallas and the Nez Percés were on the war path and General Miles was in pursuit of them. I referred to the unrivaled body of water, Puget Sound, and said that in the geography of the world it was not equaled. I referred, also, to the coal fields and other elements of wealth scattered through the then territory. I carefully avoided the subject of the rivalry between Tacoma and Seattle, but after all I found there was no ill-will between the two places. Speeches were also made by Governor Squire, Mr. Adams, General Miles and others.
We returned to Portland on the 12th of June, but before that we visited Astoria, looked into the great industry of salmon packing, and were greeted by quite a number of old Ohioans. On our return we visited Walla Walla and there saw wheat growing that yielded fifty bushels to the acre. We remained over, also, at Spokane Falls, then a mere village with a few houses, since become quite a city.
General Miles and I drove in a buggy from Spokane to Fort Coeur d’Alène, a military post which he wished to visit and inspect. It is situated on a lake which is famous for the abundance of its fish. From there we took the cars to Helena, where we remained a day, and then proceeded to St. Paul, where we arrived on the 21st of June. Here again we found the interviewer, who wanted to know my opinion about Cleveland, the silver question, the Chinese and various other topics. I pleaded ignorance on all these matters, but told the reporter that if he would call upon me in the course of a month I would be able to answer his questions.
From St. Paul we went to Milwaukee and there crossed Lake Michigan and thence by rail to Grand Rapids, where I had a number of acquaintances and some business. We then proceeded by way of Detroit and Sandusky to our home at Mansfield about the 24th of June.
CHAPTER XLIX. REUNION OF THE “SHERMAN BRIGADE.” Patriotic Address Delivered at Woodstock, Conn., On My Return from the Pacific Coast—Meeting of the Surviving Members of the Sherman Family at Mansfield—We Attend the Reunion of the “Sherman Brigade” at Odell’s Lake—Addresses of General Sherman and Myself to the Old Soldiers and Others Present—Apathy of the Republican Party During the Summer of 1885—Contest Between Foraker and Hoadley for the Governorship—My Speech at Mt. Gilead Denounced as “Bitterly Partisan”—Governor Hoadley Accuses Me of “Waving the Bloody Shirt” —My Reply at Lebanon—Election of Foraker—Frauds in Cincinnati and Columbus—Speeches Made in Virginia.
Upon my return from the Pacific coast I found a mass of letters to be answered, and many interviewers in search of news, and I had some engagements to speak for which I had made no preparations. Among the latter was a promise to attend a celebration of the approaching 4th of July at Woodstock, Connecticut, under the auspices of Henry C. Bowen of the New York “Independent.” He had for several years conducted these celebrations at his country home at much expense, and made them specially interesting by inviting prominent men to deliver patriotic addresses suitable for Independence Day. General Logan and I were to attend on this occasion. I selected as my theme “America of to-day as contrasted with America of 1776.” I prepared an address with as much care as my limited time would allow, giving an outline of the history of the Declaration of Independence, and the prominent part taken by the sons of Connecticut in this and other great works of the American Revolution. The address was published in the “Independent.” I have read it recently, and do not see where it could be improved by me. The outline of the growth of the United States presents the most remarkable development in the history of mankind. I closed with the following words:
“It has been my good fortune, within the last two months, to traverse eleven states and territories, all of which were an unbroken wilderness in the possession of savage tribes when the declaration was adopted, now occupied by 15,000,000 people—active, intelligent, enterprising citizens, enjoying all the advantages of modern civilization. What a change! The hopeful dreams of Washington and Jefferson and Franklin could not have pictured, as the probable result of their patriotic efforts, such scenes as I saw; cities rivaling in population and construction the capitals of Europe; towns and villages without number full of active life and hope; wheat fields, orchards, and gardens in place of broad deserts covered by sage brush; miners in the mountains, cattle on the plains, the fires of Vulcan in full blast in thousands of workshops; all forms of industry, all means of locomotion.
“Who among us would not be impressed by such scenes? Who can look over our broad country, rich in every resource, a climate and soil suited to every production, a home government for every community, a national government to protect all alike, and not feel a profound sentiment of gratitude, first of all to the great Giver of all gifts, and next to our Revolutionary fathers who secured, by their blood and sacrifices, the liberty we enjoy, and by their wisdom moulded the people of the United States into one great nation, with a common hope and destiny?
“And this generation may fairly claim that it has strengthened the work of the fathers, has made freedom universal, and disunion impossible. Let the young men of to-day, heirs of a great heritage, take up the burden of government, soon to fall upon their shoulders, animated by the patriotic fire of the Revolution and the love of liberty and union that inspired our soldiers in the Civil War, turning their back upon all the animosities of that conflict, but clinging with tenacious courage to all its results, and they will, in their generation, double the population and quadruple the wealth and resources of our country. Above all, they should keep the United States of American in the forefront of progress, intelligence, education, temperance, religion, and in all the virtues that tend to elevate, refine, and ennoble mankind.”
General Logan delivered an eloquent and patriotic speech that was received by his audience with great applause. He was personally a stranger to the Connecticut people, but his western style and manner, unlike the more reserved and quiet tone of their home orators, gave them great pleasure. Senators Hawley and Platt also spoke. It is needless to say that our host provided us with bountiful creature comforts. On the whole we regarded the celebration as a great success.
During the last week of August, 1885, my surviving brothers and sisters visited my wife and myself at our residence in Mansfield. Colonel Moulton and the wives of General and Hoyt Sherman were also present. Several of my numerous nephews and nieces visited us with their parents. The then surviving brothers were W. T. Sherman, Lampson P. Sherman, John Sherman, and Hoyt Sherman, and the surviving sisters were Mrs. Elizabeth Reese and Mrs. Fanny B. Moulton. The brothers and sisters who died before this meeting were Charles T. Sherman, James Sherman, Mrs. McComb, Mrs. Willock and Mrs. Bartley. All of the family attended with me the reunion of the “Sherman Brigade,” at its camp at Odell’s Lake. On the arrival of the train at the lake we found a great crowd of soldiers and citizens waiting to meet General Sherman. The brigade had served under his command from Chattanooga to Atlanta. They received him with great respect and affection and he was deeply moved by their hearty greetings. He shook hands with all who could reach him, but the crowd of visitors was so great that many of them could not do so. The encampment was located at the west end of the lake, justly celebrated for the natural beauty of its scenery, and a favorite resort for picnic excursions from far and near. We arrived at about twelve o’clock and were at once conducted to a stand in the encampment grounds, where again the hand-shaking commenced, and continued for some time. General Sherman and I were called upon for speeches. He was disinclined to speak, and said he preferred to wander around the camp but insisted that I should speak. I was introduced by General Finley, and said:
“Soldiers and Citizens, Ladies and Gentlemen:—I saw in one of your published statements that I was to make an address on this occasion. That is not exactly according to the fact. I did not agree to make a speech. One year ago, when the Sherman Brigade met at Shelby, I did, according to promise, make a prepared speech, giving the history of the organization of the ‘Sherman Brigade,’ and a copy of that, I understand, was sent to surviving members of that brigade. But few will care for this, but it may interest the wives or children of these soldiers.
“Now I do not intend to make a speech, but only a few remarks preliminary to those that will be made to you by one more worthy to speak to soldiers than I am.
“I have always understood that at soldiers’ reunions the most agreeable portion of the proceedings is to have the old soldiers gather around the campfire to tell their stories of the war, to exchange their recollections of the trying period through which they passed from 1861 to 1865; to exchange greetings, to exhibit their wives and children to each other, and to meet with their neighbors in a social way and thus recall the events of a great period in American history. And this is really the object of these reunions.
“You do not meet here to hear speeches from those, who, like myself, were engaged in civil pursuits during the war, and therefore, I never am called before a soldiers’ reunion but I feel compelled to make an apology for speaking.”
I referred to General Grant and his recent death, and then to General Sherman as follows:
“There is another of those commanders, who is here before you to-day. What is he? He is now a retired army officer. When the war was over he became the General in Chief of the army, served until the time fixed by the law for his retirement, and now he is a private citizen, as plain and simple in his bearing and manners as any other of the citizens who now surround him. These are the kind of heroes a republic makes, and these are the kind of heroes we worship as one free man may worship another.”
General Sherman was then introduced to the vast audience, and said:
“Comrades and Friends:—A few days ago I was up on the banks of Lake Minnetonka, and was summoned here to northern Ohio to participate in a family reunion. I knew my brother’s house in Mansfield was large and commodious, sufficient to receive the survivors of the first generation of the family, but I also knew that if he brought in the second and third generations he would have to pitch a camp somewhere, and I find he has chosen this at Odell’s Lake. So, for the time being, my friends, you must pass as part of the Sherman family, not as ‘the Sherman Brigade,’ and you must represent the second and third generations of a very numerous family.
“Of course, it is not my trade or vocation to make orations or speeches. I see before me many faces that look to me as though they were once soldiers, and to them I feel competent to speak; to the others I may not be so fortunate.
“But, very old comrades of the war, you who claim to be in ‘Sherman’s Brigade’ or in any other brigade, who took a part in the glorious Civil War, the fruits of which we are now enjoying, I hail and thank you for the privilege of being with you this beautiful day in this lovely forest and by the banks of yonder lake, not that I can say anything that will please you or profit you, but there is a great pleasure in breathing the same air, in thinking the same thoughts, in feeling the same inspirations for the future, which every member of the ‘Sherman Brigade’ and the children who have succeeded them must, in contemplating the condition of our country at this very moment of time. Peace universal, not only at home but abroad, and America standing high up in the niche of nations, envied of all mankind and envied because we possess all the powers of a great nation vindicated by a war of your own making and your own termination. Yes, my fellow-soldiers, you have a right to sit beneath your own vine and fig tree and be glad, for you can be afraid of no man. You have overcome all enemies, save death, which we must all meet as our comrades who have gone before us have done, and submit. But as long as we live let us come together whenever we can, and if we can bring back the memories of those glorious days it will do us good, and, still more, good to the children who will look up to us as examples.”
He continued to speak for fifteen minutes or more, and closed with these words:
“My friends, of course I am an old man now, passing off the stage of life. I realize that, and I assure you that I now think more of the days of the Mexican War, the old California days, and of the early days of the Civil War, than I do of what occurred last week, and I assure you that, let it come when it may, I would be glad to welcome the old ‘Sherman Brigade’ to my home and my fireside, let it be either in St. Louis or on the banks of the Columbia River in Oregon. May God smile upon you, and give you his choicest blessings. You live in a land of plenty. I do not advise you to emigrate, but I assure you, wherever you go, you will find comrades and soldiers to take you by the hand and be glad to aid you as comrades.”
The gathering was a thoroughly enjoyable one, and was often recalled by those present.
During the summer of 1885 there was much languor apparent in the Republican party. President Cleveland was pursuing a conservative policy, removals from office were made slowly, and incumbents were allowed to serve out their time. Foraker and Hoadley were again nominated in Ohio for governor by their respective parties, and the contest between them was to be repeated.
There was a feeling among Republicans of humiliation and shame that the people had placed in power the very men who waged war against the country for years, created a vast public debt, and destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. This feeling was intensified by the fact that Republicans in the south were ostracised and deprived of all political power or influence. In the Democratic party there were signs of dissension. Charges of corruption in Ohio, in the election of Payne as Senator in the place of Pendleton, were openly made, and the usual discontent as to appointments to office that follows a change of administration was manifest. Under these conditions I felt it to be my duty to take a more active part in the approaching canvass than ever before. On the 13th of August, I met at Columbus with Foraker and the state Republican committee, of which Asa S. Bushnell was chairman, and we prepared for a thorough canvass in each county, the distribution of documents and the holding of meetings. In addition to the state ticket there were to be elected members of the legislature. There was no contest as to the selection of a United States Senator, as, by general acquiescence, it was understood that if the legislature should be Democratic Thurman would be elected, and if it should be Republican I would be elected. Governor Foster, when spoken to upon this subject, very kindly said:
“As long as John Sherman desires to be Senator, or is willing to take the office, there is no use for me or any other man with senatorial aspirations to be a candidate against him. Sherman is yet young. He is not much over sixty, and it would be idle to dispute that he is the best equipped man in the Republican party in Ohio for that position. He has the learning, the ability, the experience, the popularity.”
The organization of both parties was completed and a vigorous canvass inaugurated. Foraker soon after commenced a series of public meetings extending to nearly every county in the state, and everywhere made friends by his vigorous and eloquent speeches.
On the 18th I attended a pioneer picnic at Monroe, near the division line between the counties of Butler and Warren. This mode of reunion, mainly confined to farmers, is quite common in Ohio, and is by far the most pleasing and instructive popular assemblage held in that state. The discussion of politics is forbidden. The people of the country for miles around come in wagons, carriages, on horseback and on foot, men, women and children, with their baskets full of food and fruit, and gather in a well-shaded grove, in families or groups, and discuss the crops and the news, and make new or renew old acquaintance. When the scattered picnic is going on everyone who approaches is invited to eat. When the appetite is satisfied all gather around a temporary platform, and speeches, long and short, upon every topic but politics, are made. I have attended many such meetings and all with sincere pleasure. This particular picnic was notable for its large attendance—estimated to be over three thousand—and the beauty of the grove and the surrounding farms. I made an address, or rather talked, about the early times in Ohio, and especially in the Miami valley, a section which may well be regarded as among the fairest and most fruitful spots in the world. The substance of my speech was reported and published. The sketch I was able to give of incidents of Indian warfare, of the expeditions of St. Clair and Wayne, of the early settlement in that neighborhood, and of the ancestors, mainly Revolutionary soldiers, of hundreds of those who heard me, seemed to give great satisfaction. At the close of my remarks I was requested by the Pioneer Society to write them out for publication, to be kept as a memorial, but I never was able to do so.
On the 26th of August I made, at Mt. Gilead, Morrow county, my first political speech of the campaign. The people of that county were among my first constituents. More than thirty years before, in important and stirring times, I had appeared before them as a candidate for Congress. I referred to the early history of the Republican party and to the action of Lincoln and Grant in the prosecution of the war, and contrasted the opinion expressed of them by the Democratic party then and at the time of my speech. During the war our party was the “black abolition party,” Lincoln was an “ape,” Grant was a “butcher,” and Union soldiers were “Lincoln hirelings.” I said:
“Our adversaries now concede the wisdom and success of all prominent Republican measures, as well as the merits of the great leaders of the Republican party. Only a few days since I heard my colleague, Senator Payne, in addressing soldiers at Fremont, extol Lincoln and Grant in the highest terms of praise and say the war was worth all it cost and he thanked God that slavery had been abolished. Only recently, when the great procession conveyed the mortal remains of Grant to their resting place, I heard active Confederates extol him in the highest terms of praise and some of them frankly gloried in the success of Republican measures, and, especially, in the abolition of slavery.”
I said that the Republican party, within six years after its organization, overthrew the powerful dominant Democratic party, and for twenty-four years afterwards conducted the operations of a great government in war and peace, with such success as to win the support and acquiescence of its enemies, and could fairly claim to be worthy of the confidence and support of the great body of the people. The defection of a few men in three Republican states had raised our old adversaries to power again in the national government. I continued:
“Some of the very men who boastfully threatened to break up the Union, and, with the oath of office in support of the constitution fresh upon their lips, conspired and confederated to overthrow it, waged war against it, and were the cause of the loss of half a million of lives and thousands of millions of treasure, have been placed in high office again, in the very seats of power which they abandoned with scorn and defiance. Two members of the Confederate congress, and one man who sympathized with them, are at the head of great departments of the government. I saw the Union flag at half-mast, floating over the interior department in sign of honor and mourning for the death of Jacob Thompson, whom we regarded as a defaulter and a conspirator. This country is now represented abroad by men, who, within twenty-five years, were in arms to overthrow it, and the governing power in the executive branch of the government is in sympathy with the ideas of, and selects the chief officers of the government from, the men who were in war against it. This strange turn in events has but one example in history, and that was the restoration of Charles II, after the brilliant but brief Protectorate of Cromwell, and, like that restoration, is a reproach to the civilization of the age.”
I referred to the “solid south,” and the means by which it was held together in political fellowship by crimes, violence and fraud which, if continued, would as surely renew all the strifes of the Civil War as that the sun would roll around in its course.
In referring to the Republican party and its liberality I said:
“The Republican party was certainly liberal and just to the rebels lately in arms against the country. We deprived them of no political power, no blood was shed; no confiscation was had; and more generous terms were conceded to them than ever before had been extended to an unsuccessful party in a civil war. Their leaders emphasized that at the burial of our great commander, General Grant. The result of the settlement by the constitutional amendments at the close of the war was to give them increased political power, upon condition that the slaves should be free and should be allowed to vote, and that all political distinction growing out of race, color or previous condition of servitude shall be abolished; and yet to-day, the Republican party is faced by a ‘solid south,’ in which the negro is deprived, substantially, of all his political rights, by open violence or by frauds as mean as any that have been committed by penitentiary convicts, and as openly and boldly done as any highway robbery. By this system, and by the acquiescence of a few northern states, the men who led in the Civil War have been restored to power, and hope, practically, to reverse all the results of the war.
“This is the spectre that now haunts American politics, and may make it just as vital and necessary to appeal to the northern states to unite again against this evil, not so open and arrogant as slavery, but more dangerous and equally unjust. The question then was the slavery of the black man. Now the question is the equality of the white man, whether a southern man in Mississippi may, by depriving a majority of the legal voters in the state of their right to vote, exercise twice the political power of a white man in the north, where the franchise is free and open and equal to all.
“When we point out these offenses committed in the south, it is said that we are raising the bloody shirt, that we are reviving the issues of the war—that the war is over. I hope the war is over, and that the animosities of the war will pass away, and be dead and buried. Anger and hate and prejudice are not wise counselors in peace or in war. Generosity, forgiveness and charity are great qualities of the human heart, but, like everything else that is good, they may be carried to excess, and may degenerate into faults. They must not lead us to forget the obligations of duty and honor. While we waive the animosities of the war, we must never fail to hold on, with courage and fortitude, to all the results of the war. Our soldiers fought in no holiday contest, not merely to test the manly qualities of the men of the north and the south, not for power or plunder, or wealth or title. They fought to secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of a strong national government; the preservation of the Union—a Union not of states, but of the people of the United States; not a confederate government, but a national government. The preservation of the Union was the central idea of the war. The Confederate soldier fought for what he was led to think was the right of a state to secede from the Union at its pleasure. The Union soldiers triumphed. The Confederate soldiers were compelled to an unconditional surrender.
“Fellow-citizens, the line drawn between the two parties is now as distinct as it was during the war, but we occupy a different field of battle.
“Then we fought for the preservation of the Union, and, as a means to that end, for the abolition of slavery. Now the Union is saved and slavery is abolished, we fight for the equal political rights of all men, and the faithful observance of the constitutional amendments. We are for the exercise of national authority, for the preservation of rights conferred by the constitution, and upon this broad issue we invite co-operation from the south as well as the north.
“Upon this issue we intend to make our appeal to the honest and honorable people of the southern states. We think they are bound in honor to faithfully observe the conditions of peace granted to them by General Grant and prescribed by the constitutional amendments. If they do this we will have peace, union and fraternity. Without it we will have agitation, contests and complaints. Upon this issue I will go before the people of the south, and, turning my back upon all the animosities of the war, appeal only to their sense of honor and justice.”
I contrasted the policy and tendencies of the two parties on the question of protection to American industry, on good money redeemable in coin, on frauds in elections, on our pension laws, and on all the political questions of the day. I stated and approved the policy of the Republican party on the temperance question. I closed with an exhortation to support Governor Foraker and the Republican ticket and to elect a legislature that would place Ohio where she had usually stood, in the fore front of Republican states, for the Union, for liberty and justice to all, without respect of race, nativity and creed.
This speech was denounced by the Democratic press as “bitterly partisan;” and so it was and so intended. The Republican party during its long possession of power had divided into factions, as the Democratic party had in 1860. We had the Blaine, the Conkling and other factions, and many so-called third parties, and the distinctive principles upon which the Republican party was founded were in danger of being forgotten. It was my purpose to arouse the attention to the Republicans in Ohio to the necessity of union and organization, and I believe this speech contributed to that result. It was the text and foundation of nearly all I uttered in the canvass that followed.
Early in September Governor Hoadley, in commencing his campaign in Hamilton, assailed by speech at Mt. Gilead, charging me with waving the bloody shirt, and reviving the animosities of the war. He claimed to be a friend of the negro, but did not deny the facts stated by me. He allowed himself to be turned from local questions, such as temperance, schools, economy, and the government of cities, in all of which the people of Ohio had a deep interest, and as to which the Democratic party had a defined policy, to national questions, and, especially, to reconstruction and the treatment of freedmen in the south. He thanked God for the “solid south.” Though an Abolitionist of the Chase school in early life, and, until recently an active Republican, he ignored or denied the suppression of the negro vote, the organized terror and cruelty of the Ku-Klux Klan, and the almost daily outrages published in the papers. On the evening of the 8th of September I made a speech at Lebanon, in which I reviewed his speech at Hamilton in the adjoining county. I said I would wave the bloody shirt as long as it remained bloody. I referred to the copious evidence of outrage and wrong, including many murders of negroes and of white Republicans, published in official reports, and challenged him to deny it. I said that by these crimes the south was made solid, and the men who had waged war against the United States, though they failed in breaking up the Union, then held the political power of the Confederate states, strengthened by counting all the negroes as free men, though practically denying them the right of suffrage. I said this was not only unjust to the colored man but unjust to the white men of the north.
In conclusion I said:
“Thirty-eight Members of Congress, and of the electoral college, are based upon the six million of colored people in the south. The effect of the crimes I have mentioned is to confer upon the white people of the south, not only the number of votes to which they are entitled for the white population, but also the thirty-eight votes based upon the colored population, and, in this way, in some of the southern states, every white voter possesses the political power of two white voters in the northern states. The colored people have, practically, no voice in Congress and no voice in the electoral college. Mr. Cleveland is now President of the United States, instead of James G. Blaine, by reason of these crimes. I claim that this should be corrected. An injustice so gross and palpable will not be submitted to by the colored people of the south, nor by fair-minded white men in the south who hate wrong and injustice; nor by the great northern people, by whose sacrifices in the Union cause the war was brought to a successful termination. It will not be submitted to, and Governor Hoadley, from his former position, ought to be one of the first to demand and insist upon a remedy, and not seek to avoid or belittle it by cant phrases.”
After I had spoken in the opera house at Lebanon I was told that the stage I occupied was within a few feet of the place where my father died. The room in the old hotel in which he was taken sick, and in which he died within twenty-four hours, covered the ground now occupied by the east end of the opera house. As already stated, he died while a member of the supreme court holding court at Lebanon.
This debate at long range continued through the canvass. Governor Hoadley is an able man with many excellent traits, but in his political life he did not add to his reputation, and wisely chose a better occupation, the practice of his profession in the city of New York.
It is not worth while to enter into details as to the many speeches made by me in this canvass. I spoke nearly every day until the election on the 13th of October. While Foraker and Hoadley continued their debate I filled such appointments as were made for me by Mr. Bushnell. At Toledo, when conversing with a gentleman about the condition of affairs in the south, I was asked “What are you going to do about it?” In reply to this inquiry I said in my speech, at that place: “I do not know exactly how we are going to do it, but with the help of God we are going to arrange that the vote of the man who followed Lee shall no longer have, in national affairs, three times the power of the vote of the man who followed Grant. The tendency of events guided by a growing popular opinion will, I believe, secure this condition.”
The meetings grew in number and enthusiasm. The largest meeting I ever witnessed within four walls was at the Music Hall in Cincinnati, on the 22nd of September. The auditorium, the balcony, the gallery, even the windows were filled, and thousands outside were unable to enter. This and similar scenes in Cleveland and other cities indicated the success of the Republican ticket. Great interest was taken in the canvass in Ohio by many other states, as the vote in Ohio would indicate the current of popular opinion. The result was the election of Foraker by a majority of 17,451, and of Robert P. Kennedy as lieutenant governor. The legislature elected was Republican by a decided majority, the size of which depended upon the official returns from Hamilton county, where frauds had been committed by the Democratic party.
Soon after the election I was urged by Senator Mahone to take part in the canvass in Virginia in which he was interested. I doubted the policy of accepting, but, assuming that he knew best, I agreed to speak in Petersburg and Richmond. Governor Foraker accepted a like invitation and spoke in the Shenandoah valley. On my way I addressed a spontaneous crowd in Washington, the only place in the United States where no elections are held, and there I could talk about frauds at elections. I had denounced fraud and violence in elections in the south, and at Washington I had to confess recent frauds attempted or practiced in Cincinnati. The worst feature that the frauds in Ohio were forgery and perjury, committed by criminals of low degree for money, while in the south the crimes were shared by the great body of the people and arose from the embers of a war that had involved the whole country. I gave as a sample of the frauds in the 4th ward of Cincinnati this instance:
“As soon as the recent election was over an organized gang stopped the counting in fifteen precincts. Nobody but the gang knew what the vote was. This could be for no motive but to commit fraud, and frauds enough were committed in Hamilton county to change the result on the legislative ticket of four senators and nine representatives.
“There were probably 500 or 600 voters in the 4th ward, and according to previous elections about one-fourth were Republicans and the rest were Democrats. Well, they made up a registration of 700. When the day of the election came they tore up the registration papers and let every fellow vote as many times as he wanted until they got 996 votes in the ballot box. Then that was not all. The Republican judge got angry and went away, but he took the key. Then they broke open the box, tied it up with a rope, and took it to the police officer, and then changed it so that when it was counted over 900 votes were Democratic and only 48 Republican!”
A similar fraud was attempted at Columbus in sight of the penitentiary. The returns of elections had been filed with the county records. Between Saturday night and Monday morning thieves stole one of the returns and added three hundred tallies for every Democratic candidate, thus changing the number of ballots from 208 to 508. The judges were about to count this return, knowing it was a forgery, when public indignation was aroused in the city of Columbus, shared in by its most distinguished Democratic citizens, and fraud was prevented. I felt, and so declared, that these mean crimes were infinitely more despicable than the violence in the south, which sprang from a fear of the southern people that their institutions would be impaired by the votes of men debased by slavery and ignorance.
I went from Washington to Petersburg, where I was hospitably entertained by General Mahone. He had been greatly distinguished for his courage, ability and success, as a Confederate general in the Civil War, and had long been a popular favorite in Virginia. He took the lead on questions affecting the debt of Virginia in opposition to the Democratic party, and a legislature in favor of his opinions having been elected, he became a Senator of the United States. He voted as a rule with Republican Senators, but maintained a marked independence of political parties. I admired him for his courage and fidelity, and was quite willing to speak a good word for him in the election of a legislature that would designate his successor.
The meeting at Petersburg was held in a large opera house on the evening of the 29th of October. When I faced my audience the central part of the house and the galleries seemed to be densely packed by negroes, while in the rear was a fringe of white men. The line of demarkation was clearly indicated by color, most of the white men standing and seeming ill at ease. The speech was fairly well received. In opening I said my purpose was to demonstrate that what the Republican party professed in Ohio as to national questions was the same that it professed in Virginia, and that the practical application of the principles of the Republican party would be of vast benefit to the State of Virginia, while Democratic success would tend more and more to harden the times and prevent the industrial development of Virginia.
“Not only your newspaper,” I said, “but the distinguished gentleman who is the Democratic candidate for Governor of the State of Virginia, has said to you that I was waving the bloody shirt while he was contending under the Union flag. If he meant, by waving the bloody shirt, that I sought, in any way, to renew the animosities of the war, then he was greatly mistaken, for in the speech to which he refers, and in every speech I made in Ohio, I constantly said that the war was over and the animosities of the war should be buried out of sight; that I would not hold any Confederate soldier responsible for what he did during the war, and that all I wished was to maintain and preserve the acknowledged results of the war. Among these, I claim, is the right of every voter to cast one honest vote and have it counted; that every citizen, rich or poor, native or naturalized, white or black, should have equal civil and political rights, and that every man of lawful age should be allowed to exercise his right to vote, without distinction of race or color or previous condition. I charge, among other things, that these constitutional rights and privileges have been disregarded by the Democratic party, especially in the southern states.”
The speech was largely historical in its character and evidently rather beyond the comprehension of the body of my audience. The scene and the surroundings made a vivid impression on my mind. Here, I felt, were two antagonistic races widely differing in every respect, the old relations of master and slave broken, with new conditions undeveloped, the master impoverished and the slave free without the knowledge to direct him, and with a belief that liberty meant license, and freedom idleness. William McKinley, then a Member of the House of Representatives, and Green B. Raum then spoke, Mr. McKinley confining his speech mainly to a simple exposition of the tariff question, which his audience could easily understand.
The next day, at the invitation of John S. Wise, then the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, I went to Richmond, and spent a pleasant day with him. In the evening I attended a mass meeting in the open air, at which there was a very large attendance. There was no disorder in the large crowd before me, but off to the right, at some distance, it was evident that a party of men were endeavoring to create some disturbance, and to distract attention from the speeches. While I was speaking Wise rose and, in terms very far from polite, denounced the people making the noise. He succeeded in preventing any interruption of the meeting. The speech was made without preparation, but, I think, better for the occasion that the one in Petersburg. I stated that I had been born and lived in a region where a large portion of the population was from Virginia and Kentucky; that I had always been taught to believe in the doctrines of the great men illustrious in Virginia history. To the charge made that I was engaged in waving the bloody shirt I said:
“If it means that I said anything in Ohio with a view to stir up the animosities of the Civil War, then, I say, it is greatly mistaken. I never uttered an unkind word about the people of Virginia that mortal man can quote. I have always respected and loved the State of Virginia, its memories, its history, its record, and its achievements.
“Again, although I was a Union man from my heart and every pulsation, just as my friend Wise was a Confederate soldier, yet I never heard in Ohio a man call in question either the courage or purity of motive of any Confederate soldier who fought in the Confederate ranks. I never uttered such a sentiment. I disclaim it. What I did say was this—what I say here in Richmond, and what I said in Petersburg is—that the war is over and all animosities of the war should be buried out of sight; that I would not hold any Confederate soldier responsible for what he did in the war, and all I ask of you is to carry out the acknowledged results of the war; to do what you agreed to, when Grant and Lee made their famous arrangement under the apple tree at Appomattox; to stand by the constitution and laws of the land, to see that every man in this country, rich and poor, native and naturalized, white and black, shall have equal civil and political rights, and the equal protection of the law. I said also, that by constitutional amendment agreed to by Virginia, every man of proper age in this country was armed for his protection with the right to cast one honest vote, and no more, and have that vote counted, and you, as well as I, are bound to protect every man in the enjoyment of that right.
“There is the ground I stood on in Ohio, and the ground I stand on now.”
I closed my address as follows:
“And now a word to the best citizens of Richmond. If the criminal classes can deprive a colored man or a white Republican of his right to vote, as soon as they have accomplished it, then these rascals—because every man who resorts to this policy is a rascal —then these rascals will soon undermine their own party. They will begin to cheat each other after they have cheated the Republicans out of their political power. My countrymen, there is no duty so sacred resting upon any man among you, I don’t care what his politics are. It is honesty that I like to appeal to. I say there is no man who can be deprived of his right to vote without injuring you, from the wealthiest in the city of Richmond down to the humblest man among you, white or black.
“There is no crime that is meaner, there is no crime that is so destructive to society, there is no crime so prejudicial to the man who commits it as the crime of preventing a citizen from participating in the government. Here I intend to leave the question. I appeal to you, of whatever party, or color, or race, or country, to give us in Virginia at this election an honest vote and an honest count, and if Lee is elected, well and good; if Wise is elected, better yet.”
The Democrats carried the state and Wise was defeated.
CHAPTER L. ELECTED PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE. Death of Vice President Hendricks—I Am Chosen to Preside Over the United States Senate—Letter of Congratulation from S. S. Cox— Cleveland’s First Annual Message to Congress—His Views on the Tariff and Condition of Our Currency—Secretary Manning’s Report— Garfield’s Statue Presented to the Nation by the State of Ohio—I Am Elected a Senator from Ohio for the Fifth Time—I Go to Columbus to Return Thanks to the Legislature for the Honor—Business of this Session of Congress—Attempt to Inquire Into the Methods of Electing Mr. Payne to the Senate from Ohio—My Address on “Grant and the New South”—Address Before the Ohio Society of New York.
Congress convened on the 7th of December, 1885. The death of Vice President Thomas A. Hendricks, on the 25th of November, was announced by Senator Voorhees, who offered appropriate resolutions, the consideration of which was postponed until January 26, 1886, when eloquent orations by Senators Voorhees, Hampton, Saulsbury, Evarts, Ransom, Spooner and Harrison were delivered in commemoration of his life and death. I added my sincere tribute to his marked ability and personal worth.
On the first day of the session after the opening prayer, Mr. Edmunds offered the following resolution:
“Resolved, That John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Ohio, be and he hereby is, chosen president pro tempore of the Senate.”
Following the usual form Mr. Voorhees moved to strike out the words “John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Ohio,” and insert “Isham G. Harris, a Senator from the State of Tennessee.”
This was decided in the negative by the vote of 29 yeas and 34 nays, and thereupon the resolution was adopted. I was escorted to the chair by Senators Edmunds and Voorhees and, having taken the oath prescribed by law, said:
“Senators, I return you my grateful thanks for the high honor you have conferred upon me.
“In common with all the people of the United States I share in profound sorrow for the death of the Vice President, especially designated by the constitution to act as president of the Senate. It is an impressive lesson of the uncertain tenure by which we all hold office and life. The contingency had happened which compels you now, at the beginning of the session, to choose a president pro tempore.
“In assuming this position, without special aptitude or experience as a presiding officer, I feel that for a time, at least, I shall have often to appeal to the habitual courtesy and forbearance of Senators. Fortunately the rules of the Senate are simple and clear. My aim will be to secure the ready and kindly obedience and enforcement of them, so that in an orderly way the sense of the majority may be ascertained and the rights of the minority may be protected.
“I can only say, Senators, that while I hold this position I will endeavor, to the utmost of my ability, to be just and impartial, and I invoke from each of you assistance and forbearance.”
This honor was unsought by me. The public prints had, as usual, discussed the choice of president of the Senate, but I made no mention of it to any Senator. I was gratified with the choice, chiefly because it would, in a measure, relieve me from burdensome details, and was an evidence of the good will of my associates.
I received many letters of congratulation on this event, one of which, from Mr. Cox, I insert:
“United States Legation, } “Constantinople, January 23, 1886.} “Dear Mr. Senator:—I am reminded by my wife of a courtesy I have neglected. It is that of congratulation upon your accession to the post lately held by my friend (from Muskingum county) Thomas A. Hendricks. You have associations with that valley also, and they are connected with the best friend I ever had in Congress, General Samuel R. Curtis, with whom I used to associate in my callow congressional days.
“Besides, I never forget the kindness with which my father used to regard C. R. Sherman, your father, for making him clerk of the supreme court of Muskingum, in early days.
“Here I am, aloof from all old Muskingum memories, or rather, scenes. As I look out of my balcony, on this spring day in midwinter, I see the Golden Horn brimming full of ships and other evidences of interchange; and far beyond it, ‘clear as a fountain in July, when we see each grain of gravel,’ Mt. Olympus lifts a double crown of snow.
“But I only meant to testify to you, from these remote nations, the pardonable pride of an Ohioan, and a veteran Congressman—in your elevation.
“When you write to the general, remember me to him kindly.
“Mrs. Cox desired to be kindly regarded to your wife and yourself. She joins me in felicitations.
“With esteem, etc.,
“S. S. Cox.
“Hon. John Sherman.”
President Cleveland’s first annual message was delivered to the Senate on the 8th of December. He stated that:
“The fact that our revenues are in excess of the actual needs of an economical administration of the government justifies a reduction in the amount exacted from the people in its support.
“The proposition with which we have to deal is the reduction of the revenue received from the government, and indirectly paid by the people from customs duties. The question of free trade is not involved, nor is there now any occasion for the general discussion of the wisdom or expediency of a protective system.
“Justice and fairness dictate that, in any modification of our present laws relating to revenue, the industries and interests which have been encouraged by such laws, and in which our citizens have large investments, should not be ruthlessly injured or destroyed. We should also deal with the subject in such manner as to protect the interests of American labor, which is the capital of our workingmen; its stability and proper remuneration furnish the most justifiable pretext for a protective policy.”
This specific principle, if fairly and justly applied to all industries alike, would be a basis for customs duties that all would agree to, but, when made, a struggle arises in determining the articles to be protected, and those to be free of duty. The President said that the reduction should be made of duties upon the imported necessaries of life. Such articles are not imported; they are mainly produced by our own people. By common consent the few articles that are imported, classed as necessaries of life, and which cannot be produced in this country, are already free of duty. When Congress undertook to reduce the revenue it was found difficult to apply the rule suggested by the President. He said:
“Nothing more important than the present condition of our currency and coinage can claim your attention.
“Since February, 1878, the government has, under the compulsory provisions of law, purchased silver bullion and coined the same at the rate of more than $2,000,000 every month. By this process, up to the present date, 215,759,431 silver dollars have been coined.”
He properly stated that the mere desire to utilize the silver product of the country should not lead to a coinage not needed for a circulating medium. Only 50,000,000 of the silver dollars so coined had actually found their way into circulation, leaving more than 165,000,000 in the possession of the government, the custody of which had entailed a considerable expense for the construction of vaults for its safe deposit. At that time the outstanding silver certificates amounted to $93,000,000, and yet every month $2,000,000 of gold from the public treasury was paid out for two millions or more silver dollars to be added to the idle mass already accumulated. He stated his view of the effect of this policy, and in clear and forcible words urged Congress to suspend the purchase of silver bullion and the coinage of silver dollars until they should be required by the business of the country. This is the same question now pending, but under circumstances of greater urgency.
The President enlarged fully upon this vital subject and has adhered to his opinions tenaciously. He was re-elected with full knowledge of these opinions and now, no doubt, will soon again press them upon Congress. The efforts made to carry into effect the policy of the President will be more fully stated hereafter. He closed his message by calling attention to the law relating to the succession to the presidency in the event of the death, disability or removal of both the President and Vice President, and his recommendation has been carried into effect by law. In conclusion he said:
“I commend to the wise care and thoughtful attention of Congress the needs, the welfare, and the aspirations of an intelligent and generous nation. To subordinate these to the narrow advantages of partisanship, or the accomplishment of selfish aims, is to violate the people’s trust and betray the people’s interests. But an individual sense of responsibility on the part of each of us, and a stern determination to perform our duty well, must give us place among those who have added, in their day and generation, to the glory and prosperity of our beloved land.”
The Secretary of the Treasury, David Manning, in his report to Congress, amplified the statement made of the receipts and expenditures of the government and gave estimates for the then current and the next fiscal year. He was much more explicit than the President in his statement of reform in taxation. He expressed more at length than the President the objections to the further coinage of the silver dollars. He stated the superior convenience of paper money to coins of either gold or silver, but that it should be understood that a sufficient quantity of actual coin should be honestly and safely stored in the treasury to pay the paper when presented. He entered into an extended and interesting history of the two metals as coined in this country and the necessity of a monetary unit as the standard of value. His history of the coinage of the United States is as clear, explicit and accurate as any I have read.
On the 12th of December, 1885, I received from Governor Hoadley an official letter notifying me, as president of the Senate, that a marble statue of General Garfield had been placed in the hall of the old House of Representatives, in pursuance of the law inviting each state to contribute statues of two of its eminent citizens, and saying:
“It is hoped that it may be found worthy of acceptance and approval as a fit contribution from this state to the United States, in whose service President Garfield passed so much of his life and whose chief executive officer he was at the time of his death.”
On the 5th of January, 1886, I submitted to the Senate, in connection with Governor Hoadley’s letter, concurrent resolutions returning the thanks of Congress to the Governor, and through him to the people of Ohio, for the statue, and accepting it in the name of the nation. In presenting these resolutions I expressed at considerable length the estimate of the people of Ohio of the character and public services of Garfield, and closed as follows:
“The people of Ohio, among whom he was born and bred, placed his image in enduring marble in the silent senate of the dead, among the worthies of every period of American history, not claiming for him to have been the greatest of all, but only as one of their fellow-citizens, whom, when living, they greatly loved and trusted, whose life was spent in the service of his whole country at the period of its greatest peril, and who, in the highest places of trust and power, did his full duty as a soldier, a patriot, and a statesman.”
The resolutions were then adopted.
The legislature of Ohio that convened on the 3rd of January, 1886, was required to elect a Senator, as my successor, to serve for six years following the expiration of my term on the 4th of March, 1887. The Republican members of the legislature held an open joint caucus on the 7th of January, and nominated me for re-election, to be voted for at the joint convention of the two houses on the following Tuesday. The vote in the caucus was unanimous, there being no other name suggested. The legislature was required to meet an unexampled fraud at the recent election, practiced in Hamilton county, where, four Republican senators and eleven Republican members had been chosen. A lawless and desperate band of men got possession of the ballot boxes in two or three wards of the city of Cincinnati, broke open the boxes and changed the ballots and returns so as to reverse the result of the election of members of the legislature. These facts were ascertained by the finding and judgment of the circuit and supreme courts, but the supreme court held that the power to eliminate such frauds and forgeries did not reside in the courts but only in the senate and house of representatives of the state, respectively. Each house was the judge of the election of its members. This palpable and conceded fraud had to be acted upon promptly. The house of representatives, upon convening, appointed a committee to examine the returns, and on the fifth day of the session reported that the returns were permeated with fraud and forgeries, and that the persons elected and named by the committee were entitled to seats instead of those who held the fraudulent certificates of election. Without these changes the Republican majority was three on joint ballot. The report was adopted after a full and ample hearing, and the Republican members were seated.
In the senate a committee was also appointed and came to the same conclusion. The senators holding the fraudulent certificates claimed the right to vote on their own cases, which was denied by Lieutenant Governor Kennedy, the presiding officer, and the Republican senators were awarded their seats, but this did not occur until some months after the election of United States Senator, which took place on the 13th of January, when I was duly elected, receiving in the senate 17 votes and Thurman 20, and in the house 67 votes and Thurman 42, making a majority of 22 for me on joint ballot.
I was notified at Washington of my election and was invited to visit the legislature, members of the senate and house of both parties concurring. It so happened that at this time I had accepted an invitation from President Cleveland to attend a diplomatic dinner at the White House. I called upon him to withdraw my acceptance, and, on explaining the cause, he congratulated me on my election.
The reception by the two houses was arranged to be at 4 o’clock p. m. on the day after the election. I arrived in Columbus at 3:30, and, accompanied by Governor Foraker and a committee of the two houses, proceeded immediately to the hall of the House, where the legislature and a great company had assembled. I was introduced by Lieutenant Governor Kennedy. George G. Washburn delivered an eloquent address of welcome in behalf of the legislature, closing as follows:
“Your return to the Senate in 1881 was only additional evidence of our continued confidence and esteem, and on this, the occasion of your fifth election to that honored position, I tender to you the hearty congratulations of the general assembly and of the citizens of this great commonwealth. Conscious that you have rendered far greater service to the people of your native state than it will be possible for them to repay by any honors they can confer upon you, I again bid you a most cordial welcome and invoke the continued guidance and protection of the same Almighty Being who has led you thus far to well merit the exalted title of ‘good and faithful servant.’”
After the applause which followed Mr. Washburn’s address had subsided, I responded in part as follows:
“My first duty on this occasion, after the magnificent reception you have given me, it to express to you my profound sense of the high honor you have conferred upon me. I have often, in a somewhat busy life, felt how feeble are words to express the feelings of the heart. When all has been said that one can say, there is still something wanting to convey an adequate expression of gratitude and obligation. This I feel now more than ever before, when you have selected me for the fifth time to serve as a Member of the Senate of the United States.
“Such trust and confidence reposed in me by the people of Ohio, through their chosen representatives, imposes upon me an obligation of duty and honor, more sacred than any words or promises can create.
“And now, gentlemen, for the future term of service to which you have elected me, I can only, with increased experience, do what I have done in the past, and, with every motive that can influence any man, seek to preserve the favor and confidence of a people as intelligent as any on the face of the globe.
“As many of you know, I did not seek re-election to the Senate. I sincerely felt that there were many citizens of the State of Ohio of my political faith who might rightfully aspire to the dignity of the office of Senator of the United States. I was very willing to give way to any of them, but you have thought it best to continue me in this position. It comes to me without solicitation or intrigue, or any influence that is not honorable to you and to me. I trust it will not prove injurious to any portion of the people of the State of Ohio, whether they agree with me in political opinions or not.
“I accept the office as a trust to be performed under the active vigilance of political adversaries and the partial scrutiny of friends, but with the sole object of promoting the honor and prosperity of the United States. I can have no motive of selfishness or ambition to turn me from a faithful performance of every duty attached to the office.
“I assure you, gentlemen, that, without recalling that I am elected by a party, I will go back to Washington with the earnest desire to perform the duties that you have assigned me, with the hope to contribute, to the best of my abilities, not merely to the success of my party, but to the good of the whole country.
“To me the national government in our system is the father, the protector of our national honor, our defender against enemies at home and abroad, while the state is the good mother who guards sacredly the home, the family and the domestic interests of life, to be beloved by every good citizen of the state, the fountain and source of the greatest blessings of domestic life. Ohio can justly claim to be the equal of any other in the sisterhood of states, central in location, rich in resources, the common pathway of all the states, containing over three millions of people as happy in their surroundings as those of any community in the world. We must do our part to advance and improve our condition by wise legislation and by the moral influences of education and religion. In this way only can Ohio sustain her high and honorable standing as a part of a great country, eloquently and truly described by Canon Farrar as ‘in numbers the greatest, in strength the most overwhelming, in wealth the most affluent, of all the great nations of the world.’”
My speech was well received by both Democrats and Republicans.
In the evening a general reception of ladies and gentlemen was held in the senate chamber, when hand shaking and social congratulations occurred, participated in by citizens of Columbus and other places. The next day I returned to Washington.
I observed closely the course pursued by the press of the country in respect to my election. As a rule it was received with favor by papers of both parties. The election of a Senator of the United States by such frauds as had been practiced by Democrats in Cincinnati would be a bad example that might be followed by other crimes, violence or civil war. The weakness in our system of government is likely to be developed by a disputed election. We touched the line of danger in the contest between Hayes and Tilden. Some guards against fraud at elections have been adopted, notably the Australian ballot, but the best security is to impress succeeding generations with the vital importance of honest elections, and to punish with relentless severity all violations of election laws.
During this Congress, by reason of my position as presiding officer, I participated only occasionally in the current debate, introduced only private bills, and had charge of no important measure.
Mr. Eustis, on the 8th of February, introduced a resolution instructing the committee on finance to inquire whether it had been the custom for the assistant treasurer at New Orleans to receive deposits of silver dollars and at a future period issue silver certificates therefor. This led to a long and rambling debate, in which I took part. I stated my efforts, as Secretary of the Treasury, and those of my successors in that office, to put the silver dollars in circulation; that they were sent to the different sub-treasuries to be used in payment of current liabilities, but silver certificates were exchanged for them when demanded. Also, when gold coin or bullion came into the United States in the course of trade, and was inconvenient to transport or to use in large payments for cotton or other products, the treasurer of the United States, or his assistants in all parts of the country, issued silver certificates in exchange for gold, that in this way the coin reserve in the treasury was maintained and increased without cost, that during one season $80,000,000 gold was in this way acquired by the treasury. I could have said later on, that, until within three years, when the receipts of the government were insufficient to pay its current expenditures, there was no difficulty in securing gold and silver coin in exchange for United States notes, treasury notes and silver certificates. The greater convenience of paper money in large commercial transactions created a demand for it, and gold and silver were easily obtained at par for all forms of paper money issued by the government. The exchange was temporarily discontinued by Secretary McCulloch. It is a proper mode of fortifying the gold reserve and ought to be continued, but cannot be when expenditures exceed the revenue, or when there is the slightest fear that the treasury will not be able to pay its notes in coin.
On the 8th of March John F. Miller, a Senator from California, died, and funeral services were conducted in the Senate on the 13th, when I announced that:
“By order of the Senate, the usual business will be suspended this day, to enable the Senate to participate in the funeral ceremonies deemed appropriate on the death of John F. Miller, late an honored Member of this body from the State of California.”
The services were conducted in the Senate Chamber by Rev. William A. Leonard, rector of St. John’s church, the chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Huntley, pronouncing the benediction, after which the following statement was made by me, as president of the Senate:
“The funeral ceremonies deemed appropriate to this occasion in the Senate Chamber are now terminated. We consign all that is mortal of our brother to the custody of an officer of the Senate and a committee of its Members, to be conveyed to his home on the Pacific, and there committed for burial to those who have honored him and loved him so much when living. The Senate, as a body, will now attend the remains to the station.”
Mr. Miller was highly esteemed by his associates in the Senate. He was born in Indiana a few miles from Cincinnati, Ohio. After graduating as a lawyer he went to California, in 1853, but returned to his native state, and at the outbreak of the war entered the Union army with the rank of colonel. That he was a gallant soldier is shown by the fact that on his return to Indiana, at the close of the war, Governor Morton presented him a sword which he had promised the soldier of the state who had distinguished himself most and reflected the greatest credit on his state and country. At the close of the war he returned to California, and, after a few years, was elected, by a Republican legislature, to the United States Senate. He was not a frequent or lengthy speaker, but was a man of thought, of attention, of industry and practical sagacity, and brought to every question patient and persistent energy and intelligence. In his manner he was quiet, dignified and courteous. For years he suffered greatly from wounds received in the war, which no doubt shortened his life. He held the position of chairman of the committee on foreign relations, to which I succeeded him.
During April and May interstate commerce was the subject of an extended debate in which I participated. Amendments to the bill passed two years previously, involving “the long haul and the short haul” and whether Congress should attempt to legislate as to transportation within a single state, were debated, and no problems of legislation have been more difficult. The Interstate Commerce Commission organized under these laws was invested with extraordinary powers and its action has been beneficial to the public, but in many cases has seriously crippled many railroad corporations, and bankrupted some of them.
During the latter part of this session I was called upon to perform a very disagreeable duty. The election of my colleague, Mr. Payne, as a Member of the Senate, after an active contest with Mr. Pendleton, gave rise to charges of corruption, not against him personally, but against those who had charge of his canvass in the legislature. The succeeding legislature of Ohio was Republican and undertook to examine these charges by a committee of its house of representatives. The charges made and the testimony taken were sent by the house to the Senate of the United States, with a resolution requesting further examination and that the election be vacated. The papers were referred to the committee on privileges and elections, the majority of whom reported that the charges were not proven, and asked that the committee be discharged from further consideration of the matter. The minority of the committee reported in favor of the inquiry proposed. I felt it to be my duty to the people of Ohio to insist upon an investigation, but in no spirit of unkindness to my colleague. It was the first and only time I had occasion to bring before the Senate the politics of Ohio. My relations with Mr. Payne were friendly. I knew him, and respected him as a prominent citizen of Cleveland and regarded well by his neighbors. I believed that whatever corruption occurred at his election he had no personal knowledge of it, and that his honor would not be touched by the testimony to be produced.
On the 22nd of July I made a long speech upon the report of the committee, reviewing the evidence presented by the Ohio legislature and insisting that it was ample to justify and require a full and thorough examination by the committee. I disclaimed any desire to reflect upon the motives, or the honor, or the conduct, or the opinions, of the Senators who differed with me, saying:
“I believe from my own knowledge of the history of events in Ohio, as well as from the papers sent to us, that there is a profound conviction in the minds of the body of the people of Ohio of all political parties that in the election of my colleague there was gross corruption, by the use of large sums of money to corrupt and purchase the votes of members of the general assembly.
“Now, that is a fact. Whether sufficient evidence has been produced before you to justify this belief is for you to say. Whether sufficient has been said here to put you upon an inquiry, the fact remains that the people of Ohio believe, that in the election of my colleague, there was the corrupt use of money sufficient to change the result.”
I then entered upon the details of the charges and testimony submitted to the committee, and concluded as follows:
“It is not sufficient for us to state that the case made by this printed testimony is not strong enough to convict. It is a question whether it is sufficient to excite a suspicion, because upon a suspicion a Senator’s seat and his right to hold a seat here may be inquired into. Therefore, with due deference to the distinguished and eminent gentlemen who treat this case as if we were now passing upon the guilt or innocence of an accused with the view of a lawyer and the strictness of a lawyer, it seems to me they have confounded the stage of this inquiry. It is now an inquiry only in the hands of a committee of our body to advise whether or not, in these papers or in any that can be produced, there is cause for investigation, or whether there is reasonable and probable cause that can be produced. If so, then the inquiry goes on. The final judgement, however, is only arrived at when we shall have completed testimony of a legal character, when, with grave and deliberate justice, and with the kindness that we always give to our colleagues here, we proceed to render our judgment.
“I have said more than I intended to say when I rose. I will now add, in conclusion, that I consider that I perform a duty to my state, and especially to the party that I represent here, and all we can say to you is that we have believed and do now believe, mainly upon the statements made by Democratic editors and Democratic citizens, for they know more about it than we do, that upon the belief generally held in the State of Ohio that fraud and corruption did supervene in this election we ask you to make such inquiries as will satisfy your conscience whether that charge is true or false. If it is true, you alone are the judges of it. If it is false, then you should punish the men who started these charges and you should vindicate the men who have been unjustly arraigned.
“In any view I can take of it, I believe it is the duty of the Senate of the United States, as it regards its own honor and the future of our country, never the leave this matter in its present condition, to be believed by some and disbelieved by others, to be made the subject of party contest and party chicanery, but let us have a fair, judicial, full investigation into the merits of these accusations. If they are false, stamp them with the brand of ignominy; if they are true, deal with the facts proven as you think is just and right.”
The debate upon the report attracted much attention and was participated in by many Senators. The motion of the majority of the committee was adopted by the vote of 44 yeas and 17 nays. The Senate thus denied that the case made by the legislature of Ohio did justify an inquiry into the election of Senator Payne. He filled out the measure of his term and still lives at his home in Cleveland, honored and respected, at the age of eighty-five.
Congress adjourned August 5, 1886.
I had been invited to deliver an address, upon the celebration of the sixty-fourth anniversary of the birth of General U. S. Grant, at the Metropolitan church in Washington on the 27th of April, 1886. The text given me was “Grant and the New South.” As this brief speech expressed my appreciation of the character of General Grant soon after his death, and my presage of the new south, I insert it here:
“Ladies and Gentlemen:—Our friends have given me a very great theme and very little time in which to present it to you. The new south is one of the mysteries which time only can unfold. It is to us, and, I fear, will be for generations to come, one of those problems which tax the highest abilities of statesmen. It is like the Irish question to England and the Eastern question to Europe. We can only judge of the future by the past. I can base my hope for the new south only upon the probable results of the changed conditions grafted upon the old south by the war; more a matter of hope and expectation than as yet of realization. Still we may hope very much even from the present signs of the times and upon what the south ought to be if not upon what it is.
“We know what the old south was. It was an oligarchy called a democracy. I do not speak this word in an offensive sense, but simply as descriptive of the character of the government of the south before the war. One-third of the people of the south were slaves. More than another third were deprived, by the nature of the institutions among which they lived, of many of the advantages absolutely indispensable to the highest civilization. Less than one-fourth of the population were admirably trained, disciplined and qualified for the highest duties of mankind. The south was very much such a democracy as Rome and Greece were at some periods of their history; a democracy founded upon the privileges of the few and the exclusion of the many. Very much like the democracy of the barons of Runnymede, who, when they met together to dictate Magna Charta to King John, guarded fully their own privileges as against the king, but cared but little for the rights of the people. And so with the south—the old south. But it was an able oligarchy.
“Among the brightest names in the American diadem were many men of the south—at the head of whom, and at the head of all mankind, was the name of Washington. And so, in all our history, the south, misnamed a democracy, did furnish to the United States many of their leading lights, and the highest saints in our calendar. They were able men. All who came in contact with them felt their power and their influence. Trained, selected for leading pursuits, they exercised a controlling influence in our politics. They held their slaves in subjection and the middle classes in ignorance, but extended their power and influence, so as to control, in the main, the policy of this country, at home and abroad. They disciplined our forces, led our parties, and made our law.
“General Grant, in the popular mind, represents the impersonation of the forces that broke the old south. Not that thousands of men did not do as much as he within the limits of their opportunities. Not that every soldier who followed his flag did not perform his duty in the same sense as General Grant. But General Grant was the head, the front, the selected leader; and therefore his name is the impersonation of that power in the war which broke the old south, and preserved our Union to your children, and I trust your children’s children, to the remotest posterity. But, while we praise Grant and the Union soldiers, we must remember that Abraham Lincoln was the genius of the times. He pointed out the way. He foresaw the events that came. He did not like war. He hated war. He loved the south as few men did. He was born of the south—in his early life reared in the south. All his kin were in the south. He belonged to that middle or humble class of men in the south who were most seriously oppressed by all their surroundings—by the slavery of the south. He hated slavery, if he hated anything, but I do not believe he hated the owners of slaves. He loved all mankind. No man better than he could have uttered those words: ‘Malice towards none, charity for all.’ That was Abraham Lincoln. He was driven into the war reluctantly. At first, he tried to prevent it, and would not see the necessity for it. He ridiculed it, and believed that the time would speedily come when all the excitement springing up in the south would pass away.
“But the inevitable and irrepressible conflict was upon him, and he met the responsibility with courage and sagacity. A higher power than Abraham Lincoln, a power that rules and governs the universe of men, decreed the war as a necessary and unavoidable event, to prepare the way for a new south and a new north, and a more perfect Union. The war did come as a scourge and a resurrection. Grant was the commander of the Union armies, and at the close of the war more than what we had hoped for at the beginning was accomplished. When the war commenced no man among those in public life contemplated or expected the speedy abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the United States of America. I can say that, the winter before the war commenced, no man in public life in Washington expected the untold benefits and good that have come to mankind as the result of the war, by the Act of Emancipation —unforeseen then, but thankfully appreciated now, by the whole American people; even by the masters of the slaves.
“Now fellow-citizens, the new south is founded upon the ruins of the old. It inherits the prejudices, the institutions and some of the habits of the old south. No wise man will overlook this, and should not expect that the southern people will at once yield to the logic of events; but every patriotic man ought to do his utmost to bring about, as soon as possible, a cheerful acquiescence in the results of the war. You cannot in a single generation, much less a single decade, change the ideas of centuries. And, therefore, we must not be impatient with the new south. And we who come from the north must not expect them at once to lay aside all ideas with which they were born and which they inherited from their ancestors for generations. Therefore, it was to be expected that the south would be somewhat disturbed, and would be somewhat slow in their movements; that it must be born again and live an infancy and take its ordinary course in human life. It must grow as Topsy grew. Remember, at that time, before the war, this country was a confederacy, not of states, but a confederacy of sections. There were but two parties to that confederacy, one was the north and the other was the south. On every question, great and small, that division in American life and American politics arose. Before the war and during the war party lines were drawn on the sectional line, north and south. The parties in this country were sectional parties, and even up to this time we have not broken down the asperity which existed, growing out of this sectional condition of affairs.
“Now that slavery is gone, parties ought to be based on other conditions than sectional lines. There is no question now existing between the north and the south, and politicians will soon find that they must base their divisions of party lines upon some other question than between the north and the south. I see growing up every day the evidence of that feeling that this sectional controversy is at an end. Although the ghost is not buried—the dead body lies mouldering in the grave.
“What then, is the first duty of both sections, now that slavery is abolished. It is to base party divisions upon other than sectional lines. It is to adopt a policy approved by the patriotic men of both sections, that will develop the resources, improve the conditions, and advance the interests of the whole people. The north is ready for this consummation. There never was a time in the history of this government, from the time the constitution was framed to this hour, when there was less party spirit among the mass of the people of the United States. Nearly all that is left is among mere politicians. The people of the United States desire to see these differences buried, and new questions, living questions of the present and future, form the line of demarkation between parties. The north has made enormous growth and development since the war. Immense capital is seeking investment, and millions of idle men are seeking employment. The south, from a state of chaos, is showing marked evidence of growth and progress, and these two sections, no longer divided by slavery, can be united again by the same bonds that united our fathers of the revolution.
“Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me state briefly the conditions upon which the new south can secure the greatest amount of good for its people—conditions that can be accepted by men who served in either army (who wore the blue or the gray), both Confederate and Union soldiers. If these elemental conditions are accepted fairly, as I hope they will be by the south, the union will be complete without either north or south or sectional or party lines.
“First, there must be recognized in every part of this country, without respect to race or color or condition, the equality of rights and privileges between man and man. This fundamental principle is now ingrafted upon our constitution. It can never be erased. There it stands; and although, from time to time, parties and men may refuse to observe the spirit of that great provision in the constitution, there it will stand, and in time—and I trust a not far distant time—it will be recognized by every man and woman and child in this broad land, white or black, north or south. It is not safe for it to be otherwise. A right plainly given by the constitution and the laws, withheld or denied, is an uneasy grievance which will never rest. And, therefore, the time is not far distant, when those now strongly actuated by the prejudices and feelings of race will recognize this important doctrine. They will feel that it is for their own safety and for their own good. Blacks and whites are spread all over the south. They cannot be separated without the fiat of the Almighty, and such a fiat has never been issued except once, when the Israelites marched out from slavery in Egypt, and it took them about forty years to travel a short way.
“One-third of the population of the south is of the negro race, and two-thirds of the white race. Whatever may have been thought of the wisdom of the policy of emancipation, it was the logical result of the war, has been finally adopted, and will never be changed. It is idle to discuss schemes to separate these races except by voluntary and individual movement, but they will live and increase, generation after generation, the common occupants of the new south. What is needed above all else is to secure the harmonious living and working of these two elements, to secure to both the peaceful enjoyment of their rights and privileges. As long as any portion or race or class of the people of the new south are deprived of the rights which the constitution and law confer upon them, there will be unrest and danger. All history teaches us that those who suffer a wrong will sooner or later find means to correct and avenge it.
“There is another condition that the new south must find out. The honorable gentleman who preceded me (Senator Brown) has found it out already. The system of production which was admirably adapted to the old south will not answer for the new south. Under the old institution of slavery they raised a few leading crops, cotton, rice, sugar and tobacco—but not much else. Why? Because these articles could be raised by the labor of slaves.
“Now, in the new south, it is manifest that the chief sources of wealth and prosperity lie in the development of their natural resources, in the production of coal and iron and other minerals and phosphates, and in the manufacture of cotton and other textile fabrics, and in the development of railroads and other means of communication. In other words, they will find it to their interest to adopt and compete with the north in all its industries and employments. That this can be successfully done is shown in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia. All the states touching on the Alleghany range have facilities for varied manufactures fully equal to any of the northern states, and with some advantages as to climate and labor. A diversity of production will be wealth to the south, break down its exclusion, open its doors to immigration, and assimilate its institutions with those of the north.
“The north is ready for this competition. Although the south will probably deprive us of some of the markets we now have, yet no man in the north will complain; but, on the contrary, we have in the north millions of dollars in capital to invest, and millions of hardy men to work north or south, wherever they can get fair wages for a fair day’s work. When this competition comes we will have a diversity of industry, and a country rich in developed as well as in undeveloped resources. This is the second great want of the new south which I trust their able men may bring about; and Governor Brown is one of their leaders, and has seen that this is the road not only for the improvement of his section, but for the betterment of his fortune.
“There is one other thing I wish to say in regard to the south. That is, that it must mainly work out its own salvation. That is one of the last things that we in the north have found out. We have striven in various ways to assist the south in managing their local affairs; and I must confess that although I participated in that kind of business I am afraid it did not turn out very well. The north cannot rule the south any more than England can rule Ireland, or Europe can govern Greece and Turkey. According to the principles of our government it is not possible for us to keep soldiers enough down south to guard all their ballot boxes, and indeed we need a good many up north to guard our own sometimes. At all events it is not consistent with the principles of our government that we should undertake to rule in local affairs, and, therefore, while we should give to those who are oppressed, in our own country as well as in others, every kindly aid which the constitution and the law allow, yet, after all, the people of the south must work out their own salvation.
“I am inclined to think that the blacks, having the labor and the muscle and industry on their side, will not be far behind the white race in the future in the south. It is now conceded on all hands that, under our system of government, we cannot by external force manage or interfere with the local affairs of a state or community, unless the authorities of the state call for aid to resist domestic violence. Wrongs inflicted upon citizens by mobs are beyond redress by the general government. The only remedy is migration and public opinion; but these, though slow and very discouraging, will in time furnish a remedy and also a punishment. Neither capital nor labor, prosperity nor hope, will go or linger long where human rights and life are unsafe. The instinctive love of justice and fair play will, in time, dissipate the prejudice of race or caste and point the finger of scorn to the man who robs another of his rights, as it now does to the man who cheats, or steals the property of his neighbor. With the power of the colored people to migrate, whenever they are unjustly treated, to a place where law and justice prevail, with the capacity for labor and to acquire property, with reasonable opportunity for education, they will in time make sure their rights as citizens. I believe this is the growing feeling in the new south. I am willing to trust it, and I will be glad to aid it whenever and wherever I can see the way.
“What the new south wants now more than all else is education! education!! education!!! The statistics with which we have been made familiar recently in the debate in the Senate, of illiteracy in the south, are appalling, but not much more so than was the condition of the western states fifty years ago. The negroes being slaves were, of necessity, without education. The great mass of the white people were in the same condition, not because it was desired in the south, but because, from the sparseness of the population and the existence of plantations instead of farms, it was difficult to establish a system of public schools. A change in this respect cannot be brought about suddenly, but it is apparent that every southern state appreciates the importance of education of both white and black. It is the bounden duty of the national government to extend the aid of its large resources. If the action of the Senate is sanctioned by the House, and fairly and justly executed by the people of the southern states, there need be no danger from the ignorance of the next generation. I believe that these conditions will be the solution of the troubles of the south and make a great step on the road to prosperity and union in the south.
“Now, but a few words in conclusion. It is not merely common school education in the south that is needed, but it is higher education. It is all the learning of the schools, all that science has taught, all that religion teaches, all that medicine has found in its alchemy, all the justice which the law points out and seeks to administer; the south wants opportunity for that higher education which cannot be obtained from common schools, but which exists in no country except where common schools abound. It wants in its midst the places where the active leading young men of the south can gather in colleges and universities and there gain that higher education which prepares them to be leaders among men.
“I congratulate you, my countrymen, here in Washington, that, under the authority of the Methodist Episcopal church, a Christian denomination, under the name of the illustrious hero General Grant, there has been founded in the mountains of Tennessee, away up among the clouds and in the pure air of Heaven, in the midst of a loyal and patriotic population, an institution of learning which will be a blessing to all the people of the south, and I trust to all the people of the north. Every aid possible should be showered down from the north and south alike. Let them light their fires at this modern Athens upon the mountain top and they will shine forth all over our land. Here the young men of the south will fit themselves to lead in the march of progress and improvement. They will learn to vary their production, to develop their resources, to advance every race and generation in education, intelligence and patriotism, and with charity broad enough to secure all the people, of every race and tribe, the peaceful and unquestioned enjoyment of their civil and political rights. There is now no disturbing question of a sectional character which should prevent the north and south from moving in harmonious union. The two streams have united, and though for a time their waters may be divided by the color line, like the Mississippi and the Missouri at and after their junction, yet, in the end they will mingle in a great republic, not of sections, but of friendly states and a united people.”
I attended a meeting of the members of the Ohio Society of New York, on the occasion of their first annual dinner at Delmonico’s, on the 7th of May. It was a remarkable assemblage, composed almost exclusively of men born in Ohio, then living in New York, all of whom had attained a good standing there, and many were prominent in official or business life. There were over two hundred persons present. Thomas Ewing was president of the society, and Mr. Payne and myself sat on either side of him. I insert the remarks of General Ewing and myself as reported in the papers the next morning. Many speeches were made by others, including Senators Payne and Harrison. General Ewing, after the dinner had received ample attention, called the company to order and made a brief address, which was repeatedly applauded. He said:
“I hail and congratulate you, guests and members of the Ohio Society of New York, on our delightful and auspicious reunion. It is good that we are here. This large assemblage of Ohio’s sons, coming from far and near, attests how strong and vital are the ties that bind us to our mother state. We have every reason to love and be proud of her. If American citizenship be a patent of nobility, it adds to the honor to have been born of that state which, almost in the forenoon of the first century of her existence, has shed such luster on the republic; which has given to it so long a roll of President, chief justices, judges of the Supreme Court and statesmen in the cabinet and in Congress—among whom is found not one dishonored name, but many that will shine illustrious in our country’s annals forever; a state which, in the supreme struggle by which the Union was established as indissoluble and the plague of human slavery destroyed, gave to the republic even more than her enormous quota of noble troops, and with them those great captains of the war: Grant, Sherman, Rosecrans, McPherson.
“Gentlemen, we have not formed our society from a desire to culture state pride in any spirit of divided allegiance. No, no! There has been far too much of that in the past, and can’t be too little in the future. We are first Americans—then Buckeyes. The blessings and misfortunes of our sister states are ours as well as theirs. The love of our own state and pride in her history spring largely from the fact that she and her institutions, in birth and growth, are purely American. She is the oldest and, so far, the best developed of all the typically American states. Neither Roundhead nor Cavalier stood sponsor at her cradle. She never wore the collar of colonial subserviency. Her churches and colleges are not endowed of King Charles or Queen Anne. Her lands are not held by grant or prescription under the Duke of York, Lord Fairfax or Lord Baltimore, but by patents under the seal of the young republic and the hand of George Washington, whose name will continue to be loved and honored throughout the world long after the memory of the last king and peer of Great Britain shall have sunk in oblivion.
“The early generation of her sons were not reared amid distinctions of wealth and rank and class, but in the primeval forest and prairie, where all stood equal and had no aid to eminence but strenuous efforts; where recollections of the sufferings and sacrifices of Revolutionary sires became inspirations of patriotism in their sons; and where nature threw around all her pure, loving and benignant influences to make them strong and great.
“Gentlemen, I now have the pleasure to present to you a typical Buckeye—the architect of his own fame and fortune—who stands below only one man in the republic in official station, and below none in the respect of his countrymen—John Sherman.”
As General Ewing closed, there was a tumultuous scene. There were repeated cheers, and Colonel W. L. Strong called for three cheers in my honor, which were given. When I could be heard, I spoke as follows:
“Mr. President, Brethren All:—I give you my grateful thanks for this greeting. If you receive every Buckeye from Ohio in this manner, you will have the hordes of Ararat here among you. Such a reception as this, I think, would bring every boy from every farm in the State of Ohio, and what would become of New York then? You have gathered the sons of Ohio, and those who have been identified with its history, into a society where you may meet together and preserve and revive the recollections of Ohio boyhood and Ohio manhood. Why should you not do that? Why should you not have an Ohio society as well as a New England society, or any other kind of society? Our friends and fellow-citizens from old England’s shore, from Ireland and Scotland and Germany, form their societies of the city of New York; and why should not the State of Ohio, more important than any of these countries by this represented?
“Now, gentlemen, there is one characteristic of Ohio people which has marked them from the beginning of their history, and marks them now. We are a migratory race. We are the Innocents Abroad. No Arab in his tent, restless and uneasy, feels more uncertain and movable than a man from Ohio, who can better his condition anywhere else. We are a migratory race, and why should we not be? Do we not deserve the best of every land? When we go to any other country, we don’t go to rob them of anything, but to add to their wealth. If I want to prove that Ohio people are migratory, what better evidence can I have than is afforded by the men who are here around me? Here is my friend, General Ewing, born in one of the garden spots of Ohio, under circumstances when it would be supposed that he ought to be content with his lot; but he goes walking off to Kansas, and then to the war, and then into Washington, and finally settles down near New York here, under the shadow of the Sage of Greystone! Among others here around me I see a grandson of old William Henry Harrison. I see here innumerable representatives of the Puritan fathers, with all the virtues of the old fathers and some besides. I see here representatives not only of Virginia and New England, but of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania—all from Ohio.
“My countrymen, in the early days Ohio was the camping ground of all the old states. Ohio is the first fruit of the Federal Union. It is true that Vermont and Kentucky and Tennessee were admitted into the union of these states before Ohio was, but they were offshoots of New York and Virginia, while Ohio was the first fruit of that great commonwealth. Every state of the old states had a camping ground in the State of Ohio, either by reservation, by purchase or by settlement. Nearly all of the early descendants of Ohio were sons of Revolutionary fathers who came out to Ohio. They went there to redeem that land from a wilderness, and they made of Ohio the most prosperous, the richest and fairest commonwealth the world has ever known. In Ohio was the beginning of that magnificent march of progress which adds luster to the history of the northwest, as an evidence of growth and progress unexampled in the previous history of mankind. Think of it, my countrymen! Within one hundred years, more than 30,000,000 people have grown up in a country once people alone by Indian tribes, and that 30,000,000 of people are among the most prosperous and powerful peoples of the whole world.
“I want to defend our Ohio people against another charge that is very often made against them, especially in this city of New York. They charge us with being fond of office. Why, my countrymen, I can show by statistics—and statistics never lie—that Ohio never had her fair share of the public offices. I have not brought any of the statistics with me, for fear some know-nothing might cry at our after-dinner speech ‘Figures.’ Still we never had our share of the public offices, or if we had we always filled them well, and performed our duties honorably.
“Now, gentlemen, only one or two other thoughts, and then I will leave you. In the early times, migration was always to the westward. Nobody thought of coming east. Therefore it is that out of the eight sons of Ohio who are now Members of the United States Senate, all moved westward; and out of some thirty or forty or fifty Members of the House of Representatives who were born in Ohio, and who didn’t stay in Ohio—and they are only a small part of them—all went westward. The reason was that ‘Westward the star of empire wends its way.’ But latterly the star of empire seems to have settled about this city of New York, until more than 200 Ohio men can sit down to an Ohio feast in the city of New York. There is another reason—there is more money in New York than anywhere else in the country. Not that our people have a fondness for money, but they have come here to better their condition—and I hope in God they will. They not only better their own condition, but the condition of all around them, and I can pick out from all over this community, and from this little dinner party, men who came from Ohio poor, but with an honest endeavor to do what was best for themselves and their families, and here they are, rich and happy.
“One word more, worthy fellow-citizens. We love Ohio. We love Ohio as our mother who nurtured us and fed us in our in our infancy; and, under any circumstances, although we may hear ill of Ohio, we never fail to remember all that is good that can be said of Ohio, and to be true and honorable for the love of Ohio. But we love our country more, and no man from Ohio would ever be true to his mother unless he were more true to his country all around, from one end of the land to the other. Our country forever from the Atlantic to the Pacific; from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canada line, and away around this continent in due time, when the pear will ripen and fall in this Federal Union; in the whole round of the country!
“I congratulate you upon this happy meeting, upon this successful feast, and I trust you may go on prospering and to prosper, until you will gather all the men of Ohio who are deserving of their nativity into the fold of this social union, not only that you may meet each other again as kinsmen born of the same soil, but that you may aid and assist each other, as other kindred societies have done, and I trust that the Ohio society, though the junior members at the table of these societies of New York, may yet be the foremost and leading members in charity and good works to the sons of Adam.”
CHAPTER LI. A PERIOD OF POLITICAL SPEECH MAKING. Organization of the “Sherman Club” at Mansfield, Ohio—My Experiences with Newspaper Reporters—Address at the State Fair in Columbus on Agricultural Implements—Other Speeches Made in the Campaign of that Year—Address at Louisville, Ky.—Courteous Treatment by Henry Watterson, of the “Courier Journal”—Hon. John Q. Smith’s Change of Heart—Answering Questions Propounded by Him at a Gathering in Wilmington, Ohio—Success of the Republican Party—Second Session of the 49th Congress—But Little Legislation Accomplished—Death of Senator John A. Logan—Tributes to His Memory—His Strong Characteristics—My Reason for Resigning the Presidency of the Senate—Succeeded by John J. Ingalls.
After the adjournment of Congress I returned home. I was not fatigued by the labors of the session, as the duties of presiding officer were lighter than those of an active Member on the floor. The usual canvass had already commenced for state officers and Members of Congress. A club called the “Sherman club” had been organized at Mansfield, and soon after my return having been invited to attend it, I did so, and made a brief political address. During this month I was visited by many interviewers, and while sometimes their calls were inopportune, yet I uniformly received them, answered their questions, and furnished them any information in my power. I knew that they were seeking information not for their own convenience, but to gratify a public interest, and, therefore, I was entirely willing to answer such questions as were put to me. The case was very rare where I was misrepresented, and then it was either unintentional or to brighten a story or to exaggerate a fact. I recall one interview in respect to courts of arbitration and the universal labor question. My opinions were expressed offhand, and, although not taken down at the time by the interviewer, my words uttered during a half hour’s interview were quoted with great exactness. I know this is not the common opinion in respect to the interviewer, and in some cases gross misrepresentations are made, but in the very few instances where this has occurred in my experience I have always carefully remembered the reporters who made them and declined any further interview with them.
The latter part of August, Judge Thurman and I were invited to make brief addresses at the state fair in Columbus. After he had spoken with his usual ability and directness, I made a speech mainly about new devices in agricultural implements. I said:
“From the fact that Judge Thurman and I have been invited to address you I infer that you did not expect us to tell you what we knew about farming. He has been recognized as a standard authority as to the law—not only as to what it is but as to what it ought to be—but I never heard that he was eminent as a farmer, either of the theoretical sort who know how things ought to grow, or of the practical sort who know how to make them grow. I have had more experience as a farmer than he has had, but somehow my crops always cost me more than I could get for them. If the many millions of farmers in the United States have had my experience in farming they would have to get more than seventy-five cents a bushel for wheat to make the two ends meet. Still, Judge Thurman and I have learned enough to know that farming is the chosen employment of a large proportion of the human race, and is, besides, the chosen recreation of nearly all who have been successful in other pursuits. Every lawyer especially, from Cicero to Webster, has delighted in the healthful pleasure of rural pursuits—and if they have not made their money by farming they have spent their money in farming—and have enriched the language of every age and clime with eloquent and beautiful tributes to this noblest occupation of man.
“Perhaps this is the reason you call upon lawyers to speak on occasions like this, when the varied products of the farm, in their rich profusion and excellence, are spread before us. Besides, it is the common opinion that lawyers can talk as well about things they don’t know as things they do know—and on either side of the question, without respect to the merits or morals of the topic. Your worthy secretary, in inviting me to speak for a few minutes on this occasion, said that I was quite at liberty to choose the subject of my remarks. So I have chosen as a text a discovery I have made very much like that of Benjamin Franklin, who advised the people of Paris that he had made a great discovery—that being wakeful one morning he discovered that the sun rose at Paris at five o’clock, and that if they would rise with the sun and go to bed with the sun they would save an enormous sum—millions of francs —in the cost of candles and lamps, and greatly improve their health and morals. So I have discovered that our farmers have become machinists, and, instead of working themselves, they make the horses, mules, and especially the machines, do nearly all the work of the farm.
“I have observed in the numerous fairs I have attended since they were first introduced in Ohio, and especially since the war, a marked change in the articles exhibited. Formerly the chief attraction was the varied exhibition of fruits, grain, cattle, horses, sheep, hogs, poultry—all the productions of the farm—and the chief benefit then derived from our state and county fairs was to excite competition in the size, excellence and abundance of these purely animal or agricultural productions. Formerly the tools and implements of husbandry were few, simple and plain, the chief of which were the plow, the scythe, the cradle, the sickle.
“Later by degrees there appeared new devices—new implements of husbandry—the mower, the reaper, the thresher, the binder, the sulky plow, an infinite variety of mechanical contrivances to make the labor of the farmer easier, or rather to dispense with a multitude of laborers, and substitute in their places the horse, the mule and the steam engine. In other words, to convert the business of farming from an agricultural pursuit, where the labor of men and women was the chief factor of production, to a mechanical pursuit, in which the chief element of cost and power were machines, the invention of a single generation.
“This striking change in an employment, which in all ages has been pursued by a greater number of human beings than any other, is shown in every fair now held in the United States, and especially in this.”
I spoke of the changed condition of the farmer since Ohio was a new state, covered by a great forest, when the home was a cabin, and about the only implements were the plow and the axe, and then said:
“After what has been said by others, and especially so eloquently said by Judge Thurman, I need not express the high value I place upon the magnificent work of the state board of agriculture in preparing these grounds as a permanent place for the exhibition of the industrial products of Ohio, not only of the farm but of the workshop. It is this day dedicated by appropriate ceremonies for the use of the present and future generations of Buckeyes, and, I hope, as time rolls on, there may be here exhibited, not only stock and grains and vegetables, not only ingenious machinery and inventions, but men, high-minded men and noble women, and that with the many advantages in education and culture secured to them by their ancestors they will maintain and advance with manly vigor and sturdy virtue the work of the generations before them, who have planted and founded here in Ohio a model republic.”
I attended the thirteenth Industrial exposition at Music Hall, Cincinnati, on the 2nd of September, where fully six thousand people were gathered, I entered the building with Governor Foraker, and we were received with rounds of applause and made brief remarks, the substance of which was reported, but I can only remember the magnitude of the audience and the difficulty of being heard. The city was crowded with men, women and children, all in holiday dress, and everybody in good humor at the success of the exposition. During September, and until the day of the election, I was engaged in making speeches. The one at Portsmouth, on the 28th of September, was carefully prepared and reported, and contained the substance of what I said in that canvass. It was a review of the political questions of the day. I always feel more at home in that part of Ohio then in any other. The river counties are associated with my early recollections and the people are uniformly generous and kind. With rare exceptions they have heartily supported me during my entire political life.
I attended a meeting conducted by the Blaine club in Cincinnati. The procession that marched through the streets was an immense one, and seemed to include all the men and boys in the city. The clubhouse, brilliantly illuminated, was surrounded by a great crowd, too large to hear the speeches, nor did it matter, for their enthusiasm and cheers showed that they needed no exhortation.
I attended a reception of the Sherman club of the 24th ward, at the head of which was my old friend, Governor Thomas L. Young. I there made a strong appeal for the election of Benjamin Butterworth and Charles Brown to Congress, the former being one of the ablest and most promising men in congressional life, and the latter a gallant soldier, who had lost a leg in the service of his country. I said:
“Their election is more important than anything else. The election of a Republican House of Representatives is of vital importance, because if we can have not only a Republican Senate, but a Republican House of Representatives, we will tie up Cleveland and his administration so that he and it can do no harm to anybody. If we can get a good Republican House of Representatives we will be able to maintain the system of protection of American labor, which is the pride and glory of the Republican party. We will maintain all these great measures of Republican policy which tend to develop our country, to increase its happiness, diversify its pursuits, and build up its industries; to give you a good currency; to protect your labor; and generally to promote the common good and welfare of our common country.”
At the invitation of the Republicans of Louisville, Ky., I went to that city. In the afternoon I made a short address at the laying of the corner stone of the new customhouse, and in the evening made a long political speech. It was my first visit there, and I was much gratified as well as surprised, at the great numbers which attended a Republican meeting and the enthusiasm with which I was greeted. I referred to the long and intimate association of Ohio and Kentucky since the days of the Indian wars, when Kentucky sent her best and bravest men to fight the battles of Ohio, under Harrison and Taylor at Fort Meigs and Sandusky. In a later time, when Henry Clay was their favorite, Ohio steadily and heartily supported him, and now that the war was over, there was no reason why Kentucky and Ohio might not stand side by side in maintaining the principles of the Republican party. I said:
“You might naturally inquire why I came to the city of Louisville to make a Republican speech, when I knew that the majority of your population belong to a different school of politics, and that I could scarcely hope to make any impression upon the Democratic vote of the city of Louisville or the State of Kentucky. Still, I have always thought it strange that your people, who through many long years followed the fortunes and believed in the doctrines of Henry Clay, should willingly belong to a party opposed to all his ideas, and I was curious to learn why the same great events that led the people of Ohio into the ranks of the Republican party should lead the people of Kentucky into the ranks of the Democratic party. It is to make this discovery that I come here to-night, and I will speak to you, not for the purpose of reviving past controversies, but to see whether, after all, the people of Ohio and Kentucky ought not now to stand side by side in their political action, as they did in the days of old.
“When approaching manhood I, in common with the people of Ohio, was in ardent sympathy with the political opinions of the people of Kentucky. I was reared in a school which regarded Henry Clay, John J. Crittenden, Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin as the brightest lights in the political firmament, chief of whom was Henry Clay. I need not remind a Kentucky audience with what pride and love your people followed him in his great career, and with rare intermissions supported and sustained him to the close of his life. And so, too, with John J. Crittenden, who represented the people of Kentucky in both Houses of Congress, in the cabinet of two administrations, and, to the close of his eventful life in the midst of the Civil war, retained the confidence and support of the people of Kentucky. It may be said, also, that Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin, the warm and lifelong friends of Clay and Crittenden, represented the people of Ohio in the highest official positions, and that these great men, united in counsel, in political opinions and in ardent friendship, were the common standards of political faith to the people of these neighboring states.
“I had the honor to cast my first vote for Henry Clay for President of the United States, and supported him with all the natural enthusiasm of youth, and remember yet my sorrow when it was at last known that he was defeated. I also knew Mr. Crittenden from 1846, when, as a young lawyer, I visited Washington, and saw much of him in the later years of his life. I also held close personal relations with Mr. Ewing and Mr. Corwin since my early boyhood, and shared, as much as youth can share, the benefits of their council and confidence. I am justified in saying that during the memorable period of thirty years of political conflict through which we have passed, I have steadily adhered to the lessons they have taught, by supporting the measures adopted from time to time by the Republican party, while the majority of the people of Kentucky, with equal sincerity, no doubt, pursuing their convictions, have landed in the Democratic party. What I would like to find out is whether it is you or I who have switched off from the councils of our political fathers, and whether the causes of the difference of opinion still exist.”
I closed as follows:
“I freely confess that the great mass of the Democratic party are patriotic, law-abiding citizens, yet I believe the elements that control that party, especially in the northern states, are unworthy of the confidence and trust of a brave and free people, and that the Republican party, although it may not always have met the hopes and expectations of its friends, does contain within it the elements of order, safety, obedience to law and respect for the rights of others, with well-grounded principles of public policy, and can fairly be trusted again to manage our national affairs.
“My heartiest sympathies go with the gallant Republicans of Kentucky, who, in an unequal fight, have shown the courage of their race and the patriotism of their ancestors. Let them persevere in appealing to their neighbors for co-operation, and they can fairly hope that, as the passions of the war pass away, Kentucky will be, as of old, on the side of the Union, the constitution and the impartial enforcement of the laws.
“Is not this a good time to try the experiment of a Republican representative from the Louisville district? Our Democratic friends seem to be in a bad way about the choice of a candidate. If what the opposing factions say of their candidates is half true, you had better take shelter under a genuine and fearless Republican like Mr. Wilson, who will be impartial to the factions and true to the great interests of American labor and American production. Such a light shining from Louisville will be a star of hope, a beacon light of safety and prosperity to the extreme bounds of our country. Why not try the experiment? I hope that my visit among you will be a message of good will, and I thank you with all my heart for your kindly reception.”
The “Courier Journal” was much more fair to me on this occasion than the Democratic papers in Ohio. In consequence of this I have always entertained a kindly feeling for its editor, Henry Watterson, who, notwithstanding his strong political opinions, is always bold, frank and courteous in his criticisms.
On my return from Kentucky I spoke to a large meeting at Wilmington, Ohio, on the 7th of October. I had frequently addressed meetings at that place and always received a very cordial and hearty welcome. It so happened that John Q. Smith, one of the leading citizens of Clinton county, who had been a Member of Congress, had changed his political relations and become a warm supporter of the administration of Cleveland. He had prepared a large number of questions, to be put to me, which were printed and scattered broadcast in handbill form. I was glad of the opportunity to answer his questions, as they gave me a text for a general review of a Democratic administration. I said that the handbill was issued by a gentleman whom I esteemed very highly, and for whom I had the greatest good will and friendship, one of their own citizens, who had served in the legislature and in Congress with credit, and had been a representative of our government abroad. I then read the questions one by one and answered them, and, as I think, clearly showed to the satisfaction of my hearers, that, although Mr. Smith was generally sound on other matters, he was a little cracked on the question of American protection. My answers were received with great applause by the audience, and I think my old friend made nothing by his questions.
After making a number of other speeches in Ohio, I spoke in Grand Rapids on the 18th of October; in Indianapolis on the 21st; at Fort Wayne on the 24th, and at the Academy of Music, Philadelphia, on the 27th. I closed my speaking in this campaign at Toledo on the 30th. The time of the fall elections had been changed to the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. During the period from my return home after the adjournment of Congress until the day of election, I spoke almost daily. The election resulted in a victory for the Republican party, the head of the ticket, James S. Robinson, Secretary of State, receiving about 11,000 majority.
The second session of the 49th Congress passed but little important legislation except the appropriation bills. The two Houses were so widely divergent that they could not agree upon measures of political importance.
On the 9th of December I made an impromptu speech on the revision of the tariff, in reply to Senator Beck, but as no action was taken upon the subject at that session, it is useless to quote what I said. Mr. Beck was a man of great mental as well as physical power. A Scotchman by birth, he came at an early age to the United States and settled in Kentucky, where he practiced law, and in due time became a Member of Congress, and afterwards a Senator of the United States. He was aggressive, affirmative and dogmatic, and seemed to take special delight in opposing me on all financial questions. He and I were members of the committee on finance, and had many verbal contests, but always with good humor. On the 9th of December, as I entered the Senate Chamber after a temporary absence, I heard the familiar voice of Beck begging, in the name of the Democratic party, a chance to reduce taxation. I promptly replied to him, and the colloquy between us extended to considerable length. He was, in fact, a free trader, believed in the policy in force in Great Britain, and opposed every form of protection to American industries. Our debate brought out the salient arguments on both sides, though no measure on the subject-matter was pending before the Senate.
During the holiday recess Senator John A. Logan died at his residence, Calumet Place, in Washington. This was announced, in the Senate, by his colleague, Shelby M. Cullom, on January 4, 1887, as follows:
“‘The angel of death has been abroad throughout the land.’ His visitation has been most unexpected during the recent brief recess of the Senate, and has imposed upon me a duty which I have scarcely the heart to perform—the duty of announcing the death of my late distinguished colleague. At his home, which overlooks this capital city, at three minutes before three o’clock on Sunday afternoon, the 26th of December, the spirit of John A. Logan took its flight into the unknown realms of eternity. On Friday last, the funeral ceremonies were conducted, by the Senators and Representatives present, in this Senate Chamber, and his mortal remains were conveyed to the silent tomb.
“We are called upon to mourn the loss of one of the bravest and noblest of men—a man loved by the patriotic people of his state and of the nation, known to his country and to the civilized world as great in war and in peace, and for nearly fourteen years a distinguished Member of this Senate.”
Logan is buried in the cemetery of the Soldiers’ Home in Washington, in a conspicuous and beautiful marble tomb erected to his memory by his widow. On the 9th of February the business of the Senate was suspended, and many Senators, the associates of the deceased, paid fitting and eloquent tribute to his public and private virtues in addresses of marked ability and interest.
He was a striking character, bold, fearless and aggressive, but sensitive as a child. I knew him well when he was a Member of the House before the war. He was a devoted friend and admirer of Douglas, and, like him, when the war commenced, threw his whole soul into the Union cause. He was a good soldier, and, of those who entered the army from civil life, was among the most distinguished. He was a model of the volunteer soldiery. After the war was over he was returned to Congress and served in the House and Senate until his death. He was a positive man; there were no negative qualities about him. Thoroughly honest in his convictions he was regarded as a strong debater, though somewhat too urgent in presenting his opinions, and disposed to take a personal view of controverted questions. I had great respect for Logan, and never had any controversies with him except upon financial questions, upon which I thought he took at one time erroneous views. For a long time he adopted the ideas prevailing in the west in regard to paper money. Upon further reflection he became satisfied that the policy of resumption was the right one and adhered to it. He was a member of the committee that framed the resumption act, and from the time that measure was agreed upon, he, so far as I know, supported it firmly and warmly. He was a good party man; he stood by the judgment of his political friends. I never saw the slightest hesitation or doubt on his part in supporting a measure which was agreed upon by his political associates. One interesting feature of Logan’s life was the interest felt by his wife in his public career, and her helpfulness to him. She was the model of a helpmate. She is in every way a good woman. She has the very qualities that he lacked, and I might illustrate by many instances her great aid to him in his political purposes.
I had accepted an invitation of the merchants of Boston to attend the annual banquet of the Mercantile Association on the 29th of December, but was compelled to withdraw my acceptance, so that, as president of the Senate, I could perform certain duties in respect to Logan’s funeral that I could not delegate to others, and which were requested of me by the committee on arrangements, through a notice sent me by Senator Cullom, the chairman, as follows, and upon which I acted:
“The committee on arrangements at the funeral ceremonies of John A. Logan, late a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, respectfully request the Honorable John Sherman, a Senator of the United States from the State of Ohio, to preside at the funeral exercises on Friday, December 31, 1886.”
In the Boston invitation it was intimated that some remarks on the national banking system would be acceptable. In declining I wrote a letter expressing my opinion of that system, which I said had realized all the good that had ever been claimed for it by its authors, that it had furnished the best paper money ever issued by banking corporations, that the system was adopted only after the fullest consideration and had won its way into public favor by slow process, and that I regarded it as the best that had ever been created by law. The remarkable success of this system, I said, was not appreciated by those not familiar with the old state banks. It had been adopted by many countries, especially in the far off island of Japan.
The bill to regulate interstate commerce became a law on the 4th of February, 1887. It had passed both Houses at the previous session, but, the Senate having disagreed to amendments of the House, the bill and amendments were sent to a committee of conference. The report of this committee was fully debated. I had taken great interest in this bill, but had not participated in the debate until the 14th of January, when I supported the conference report, while not agreeing to some of the amendments made. Senator Cullom is entitled to the chief credit for its passage.
On the 22nd of February I laid before the Senate the following communication, which was read:
“To the Senate of the United States.
“Senators:—My office as president pro tempore of the Senate will necessarily terminate on the 4th of March next, with my present term as Senator. It will promote the convenience of the Senate and the public service to elect a Senator as president pro tempore whose term extends beyond that date, so that he may administer the oath of office to Senators-elect and aid in the organization. I, therefore, respectfully resign that position, to take effect at one o’clock p. m., on Saturday next, February 26.
“Permit me, in doing so, to express my heartfelt thanks for the uniform courtesy and forbearance shown me, while in discharge of my duties as presiding officer, by every Member of the Senate.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.”
I said that if there was no objection the communication would be entered in the journal and placed among the files of the Senate. On the 25th John J. Ingalls was elected president pro tempore, to take effect the next day. On that day I said:
“Before administering the oath of office to his successor the occupant of the chair desires again to return to his fellow Senators his grateful acknowledgments for their kind courtesy and forbearance in the past.
“It is not a difficult duty to preside over the Senate of the United States. From the establishment of our government to this time the Senate has always been noted for its order, decorum, and dignity. We have but few rules, and they are simple and plain; but we have, above all and higher than all, that which pervades all our proceedings —the courtesy of the Senate, which enables us to dispose of nearly all of the business of the Senate without question or without division. I trust that in the future, as in the past, this trait of the Senate of the United States will be preserved intact, and I invoke for my successor the same courtesy and forbearance you have extended to me. I now invite him to come forward and take the oath of office prescribed by law.”
Mr. Ingalls advanced to the desk of the president pro tempore, and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took the chair, and said:
“Senators, I must inevitably suffer disparagement in your estimation, by contrast with the parliamentary learning and skill, the urbanity and accomplishments of my illustrious predecessor, but I shall strive to equal him in devotion to your service, and I shall endeavor, if that be possible, to excel him in grateful appreciation of the distinguished honor of your suffrages.”
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted;
“Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered to Hon. John Sherman, for the able and impartial manner in which he has administered the duties of the office of president pro tempore during the present Congress.”
CHAPTER LII. VISIT TO CUBA AND THE SOUTHERN STATES. Departure for Florida and Havana—A Walk Through Jacksonville— Impressions of the Country—Visit to Cigar Factories and Other Places of Interest—Impressions of Cuba—Experience with Colored Men at a Birmingham Hotel—The Proprietor Refuses to Allow a Delegation to Visit Me in my Rooms—Sudden Change of Quarters— Journey to Nashville and the Hearty Reception Which Followed—Visit to the Widow of President Polk—My Address to Nashville Citizens— Comment from the Press That Followed It—An Audience of Workingmen at Cincinnati—Return Home—Trip to Woodbury, Conn., the Home of My Ancestors—Invitation to Speak in the Hall of the House of Representatives at Springfield, Ill.—Again Charged with “Waving the Bloody Shirt.”
At the close of the session of Congress, early in March, a congenial party was formed to visit Florida and Havana. It was composed of Senator Charles F. Manderson, wife and niece, Senator T. W. Palmer and niece, General Anson G. McCook and wife, and myself and daughter. We were accompanied by E. J. Babcock, my secretary, and A. J. Galloway and son, in the employ of the Coast Line road, over which we were to pass. We stopped at Charleston, where the ravages of a recent earthquake were everywhere visible. Fort Sumter, which we visited, was a picture of desolation. Such a large party naturally attracted attention. At Jacksonville we encountered our first reporter. He showed me an article in which it was stated that we were on a political trip. This I disclaimed and said we had not heard politics mentioned since we left Washington, that we were tired out after Congress completed its work and made up a party and started off merely for rest and recreation. I remarked that I had been in every state in the Union but one, and wanted to finish up the list by seeing Florida. A colloquy as given by the reporter was as follows:
“Well, Senator, my errand was for the purpose of getting your opinion on matters political.”
“I am out of politics just now. I want to rest and I do not want politics to enter my head for two weeks.”
“Then you say positively that you are not down here to look after your fences for a presidential boom in 1888?”
“Most decidedly not. I will not say a word about politics until I reach Nashville on my return. There I take up the political string again and will hold to it for some time.”
Manderson proposed a walk through the city, the reporter being our guide. Orange trees were to be seen on every side. We were surprised to find so large and prosperous a city in Florida, with so many substantial business houses and residences. The weather was delightful, neither too hot nor too cold, and in striking contrast with the cold and damp March air of Washington. From Jacksonville we went in a steamboat up the St. John’s River to Enterprise. Florida was the part of the United States to be first touched by the feet of white men, and yet it seemed to me to be the most backward in the march of progress. It was interesting chiefly from its weird and valueless swamps, its sandy reaches and its alligators. It is a peninsula, dividing the Gulf of Mexico from the ocean, and a large part of it is almost unexplored. The part we traversed was low, swampy, with dense thickets, and apparently incapable of reclamation by drainage. The soil was sandy and poor and the impression left on my mind was that it could not be made very productive. There were occasional spots where the earth was far enough above the sea to insure the growth of orange trees, but even then the soil was thin, and to an Ohio farmer would appear only to be a worthless sand bank. This, however, does not apply to all points in Florida, especially not to the Indian River region, where fine oranges and other semitropical fruits are raised in great abundance. The Indian River is a beautiful body of water, really an arm of the sea, on the eastern coast of Florida, separated from the Atlantic by a narrow strip of land. The water is salt and abounds in game and fish.
At Sanford our party was joined by Senator Aldrich and his wife, and we proceeded by way of Tampa and Key West to Havana, where we arrived on the 17th of March. The short sail of ninety miles from Key West transported us to a country of perpetual summers, as different from the United States as is old Egypt. After being comfortably installed in a hotel we were visited by Mr. Williams, our consul general, who brought us an invitation from Captain General Callejas to call upon him. We did so, Mr. Williams accompanying us as interpreter. We were very courteously received and hospitably entertained. The captain general introduced us to his family and invited us to a reception in the evening, at which dancing was indulged in by the younger members of the party. We spent four very pleasant days in the old city, visiting several of the large cigar factories, a sugar plantation in the neighborhood and other scenes strange to our northern eyes. The ladies supplied themselves with fans gaily decorated with pictures of bull fights, and the men with Panama hats, these being products peculiar to the island.
Among the gentlemen of the party, as already stated, was Frank G. Carpenter, a bright young man born at Mansfield, Ohio, who has since made an enviable reputation as a copious and interesting letter writer for the press. His description of Havana is so true that I insert a few paragraphs of it here:
“Havana has about 300,000 inhabitants. It was a city when New York was still a village, and it is now 100 years behind any American town of its size. It is Spanish and tropical. The houses are low stucco buildings put together in block, and resting close up to narrow sidewalks. Most of them are of one or two stories, and their roofs are of red tile which look like red clay drain pipes cut in two and so laid that they overlap each other. The residences are usually built around a narrow court, and their floors are of marble, tile or stone. This court often contains plants and flowers, and it forms the loafing place of the family in the cool of the evening.
“These streets of Havana are so narrow that in some of them the carriages are compelled to go in one direction only. When they return they must go back by another street. The sidewalks are not over three feet wide, and it is not possible for two persons to walk abreast upon them. The better class of Cubans seldom walk, and the cabbys are freely called upon. The cab of Havana is a low Victoria holding two or three persons. Their tops come down so as to shade the eyes, and they have springs which keep every molecule of your body in motion while you ride in them. The horses use are hardy mongrel little ponylike animals, who look as though they were seldom fed and never cleaned.
“The traffic of Havana is largely done by oxen, and the two-wheeled cart is used exclusively. This cart is roughly made and it has a tongue as thick as a railroad tie, nailed to the body of the cart, and which extends to the heads of the oxen and is there fastened by a great yoke directly to the horns. The Cuban ox pulls by his head and not his shoulders. This yoke is strapped by ropes across the foreheads of the oxen, and they move along with their heads down, pushing great loads with their foreheads. They are guided by rope reins fastened to a ring in the nose of the ox. Some of the carts are for a single ox, and these have shafts of about the same railroad tie thickness, which are fastened to a yoke which is put over the horns in the same manner. Everything is of the rudest construction and the Egyptians of to-day are as well off in this regard.
“Prices of everything here seem to me to be very high, and the money of the country is dirty, nasty paper, which is always below par, and of which you get twelve dollars for five American ones. A Cuban dollar is worth about forty American cents, and this Cuban scrip is ground out as fast as the presses can print it. The lower denominations are five, ten, twenty and fifty cent pieces, and you get your boots blacked for ten Spanish cents. Even the gold of Cuba is below par, about six per cent. below the American greenback, and most of it and the silver in use has been punched or chipped to make money off of the pieces thus cut out. The country is deeply in debt, and the taxes are very heavy.”
On the return voyage a strong northwest wind sprang up, and most of the party, especially the ladies, experienced the disagreeable effects of being on a small steamer in a rough sea. They had, however, all recovered by the time we reached Tampa, and as soon as we landed we started for Jacksonville.
In an interview shortly after my return from Cuba, I thus gave the impression made upon my mind as to its condition:
“And how did you enjoy your visit to Cuba?”
“We spent four days in Havana. Nobody could be treated with greater courtesy. You know Spanish courtesy is never surpassed anywhere. But that cannot prevent me from saying that Cuba is in a deplorable condition. I should judge from what I heard from intelligent Cuban Americans living there, and even Spaniards themselves, that the island is in a condition of ill-suppressed revolt. Natives are nearly to a man in favor of annexation to us. I think they have given over the idea of independence, for they begin to recognize that they are incapable of self-government. Their condition is indeed pitiable. No serfs in Russia were ever greater slaves than the Cubans are to Spain. The revenue they must raise yearly for Spain, and for which they get no benefit whatever, except the name of a national protection and the aegis of a flag, is $16,000,000. They have no self-government of any kind. From captain general down to the tide-waiter at the docks, the official positions are held by Spaniards. I venture to say that not a single native Cuban holds an office or receives public emolument. In addition to the $16,000,000 sent annually to Spain, Cuba has to pay the salaries of all the Spanish horde fastened upon her.”
“Do you think the native planters, the wealthier classes, that is, favor annexation to the United States?”
“Yes, I am told all of them are anxious for it, but I don’t think we want Cuba as an appendage to the United States. I would not favor annexation. In spite of the drains upon her, Cuba is enormously rich in resources, and is a large consumer of our products, on which at present the heavy Spanish duties rest. What I would favor would be a reciprocity treaty with Spain, as to Cuba, so that we might send our goods there instead of forcing the Cubans to buy of England, France and Germany. We could do the island much more good by trading with her on an equal basis than we ever can by annexing her. Cuba, to some extent, is under our eye, we would probably never let any other nation than Spain own the island, but so long as Spain does own it she is welcome to it if she will only let us sell our goods on equal or better terms than the Cubans can get them for elsewhere.”
I had some time previously accepted an invitation of the members of the Tennessee legislature to address them, and, therefore, at Jacksonville left the remainder of the party to pursue their way to Washington at their leisure, while I started for Nashville, accompanied by Mr. Babcock and Mr. Mussey. Having a few days to spare before my appointment at that place, and having heard much of the wonderful progress and development of the iron industry at Birmingham, Alabama, I determined to stop at that place. On our arrival we went to the Hotel Florence, and at once met the “ubiquitous reporter.” My arrival was announced in the papers, and I was soon called upon by many citizens, who proposed that an informal reception be held in the dining room of the hotel that evening, to which I had no objection. Among those present were ex-Senator Willard Warner, and a number of the leading men who had so quickly transformed an open farm into the active and progressive city of Birmingham. The reception was held and was a very pleasant affair. Being called upon for a speech I made a few remarks, which were well received, and as the gentlemen present expressed a desire to have a larger meeting I consented to speak on the following evening at the opera house.
That afternoon, when my room was thronged with callers, most of whom were Democrats, I was handed the following note:
“Birmingham, Ala., March 20, 1887.
“Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senator.
“Dear Sir:—The undersigned, citizens of Birmingham, Alabama, take this method of writing you to extend your visit from Nashville, Tennessee, to our growing city, and bear witness to its development and progress in the prospective mining, manufacturing and business metropolis of the state. Feeling confident that you are naturally interested in our welfare and happiness, American citizens in every capacity and relation in life, we earnestly trust that you will comply with our solicitation.
“Yours respectfully,
“Sam’l R. Lowery, Editor ‘Southern Freemen.’
“A. L. Scott, Real Estate Agent.
“W. R. Pettiford, J. M. Goodloe, A. J. Headon, A. D. Jemison and
R. Donald, Pastors of Colored Churches in Birmingham, Ala.”
The letter was written to be sent me at Nashville, when it was not known that I was at Birmingham, and was indorsed as follows;
“Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senator.
“Dear Sir:—A colored delegation, as given above, desires to call upon you to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock or at 3. Please do us the kindness to say if we may see you, and when.
“Yours faithfully,
“A. L. Scott.”
I at once sent word to the delegation that I would see them in my room the next morning at 10 o’clock, having already arranged to accompany some gentlemen on an excursion among the mines and other evidences of Birmingham’s boom at 11 a. m. The next morning I waited in my room with General Warner, Judge Craig and others until 11 o’clock, and, the delegation not appearing, was about to start on my visit to the mines, when the following note was handed me by one of the colored servants of the house:
“Birmingham, Ala.
“Hon. John Sherman.
“Dear Sir:—In accordance with arrangement, a committee of colored citizens of the United States and the State of Alabama came to see you at 10 o’clock this morning. The proprietor of the Florence hotel declined to allow us to visit your room, and said if we desired to see you we must see you outside of the Florence hotel. We regret the occurrence, as the committee is composed of the best colored citizens of the community.
“Yours respectfully,
“A. L. Scott,
“W. R. Pettiford,
“Samuel R. Lowery,
“R. C. D. Benjamin,
“Albert Boyd.”
I requested General Warner and Judge Craig to go to the proprietor of the hotel and ask him if it was true that he had forbidden certain men going to my room. The proprietor informed them that it was true; it was against his rules to allow any colored people to go upstairs except the servants. I said I would not allow a hotel proprietor to say whom I should or should not receive in my room. That was a question I chose to decide for myself. I therefore immediately paid my bill and went to the Metropolitan hotel, where the delegation made their call. Their only object was to read to me an address of welcome to the city in behalf of the colored people. Their address was well expressed and they were evidently intelligent and respectable men. They welcomed me cordially in behalf of their race and countrymen, and said:
“While we respect your political and statesmanlike life, not an event has equaled your manly and heroic conduct in Birmingham, Alabama, in respect to the persecuted, proscribed and downtrodden black citizens, on account of their race, color and proscription in this city and state.
“When you stated to the tavern keeper, if the black citizens were not permitted to visit you there, you would go to another tavern, and if not permitted, you would stop with your baggage in the street and receive them, shows a sympathy and sentiment that you, though honored and able, feel bound with them and to them. And every black man, woman and child thenceforward in our state will pray Heaven’s favor shall follow you and yours to a throne of grace for Sherman, Ohio’s noblest, heroic and patriotic statesman.”
In reply I expressed pleasure at meeting the colored people, and, touching the Florence hotel affair, advised forbearance. “Be true to yourselves,” I said, “be industrious, maintain your own manhood, and they day will come when you can command recognition as men and citizens of the United States, free and equal with all others.” I assured them that I entertained as high respect for colored people as I did for any other citizens.
I mention this incident at some length because, at the time, it excited much comment in the press throughout the United States. It is but fair to say that the action of the hotel proprietor was condemned by the leading Democrats of Birmingham, prominent among whom was the editor of the “Iron Age.”
In the evening I spoke at the opera house, which was well filled with representative citizens. I was introduced by Rufus M. Rhodes, president of the News Publishing Company. My speech was confined mainly to nonpartisan subjects, to the industries in that section, and the effect of national legislation upon them. I had read of the vast deposits of coal and iron in that section, and had that day seen them for myself. I said: “You have stored in the surrounding hills elements of a wealth greater than all the banks of New York.” In speaking of the effect of national legislation upon the development of their resources, I said I would not allude to politics, because, though a strict party man, as they all knew, I believed that men who differed with me were as honest as I was; that whatever might have occurred in the past, we were a reunited people; that we had had our differences, and men of both sides sought to have their convictions prevail, but I would trust the patriotism of an ex-Confederate in Alabama as readily as an ex-Unionist in Ohio; that I was not there to speak of success in war, but of the interests and prosperity of their people. My nonpartisan speech was heartily approved. General Warner made a brief address to his former constituents, and the meeting then adjourned.
I went the next day to Nashville, arriving early in the evening. A committee of the legislature met me on my way. On my arrival I met many of the members of both political parties, and was the recipient of a serenade at which William C. Whitthorne, a Democratic Member of Congress, made a neat speech welcoming me to the hospitality of the state. None of the speeches contained any political sentiments, referring mainly to the hopeful and prosperous outlook of the interests of Tennessee. During the next day I visited with the committee, at the head of which was Mr. Kerchival, the mayor of the city, several manufacturing establishments, and the Fisk and Vanderbilt universities, and also a school for colored boys. Among the more agreeable visits that day was one made at the residence of Mrs. Polk, the widow of President Polk. I remembered her when she was the honored occupant and mistress of the White House, at the time of my first visit to Washington in the winter of 1846-47. She was still in vigorous health, and elegant and dignified lady.
I wish here to express my grateful appreciation of the reception given me by the people of Nashville on this occasion. There was no appearance of mere form and courtesy due to a stranger among them, but a hearty general welcome, such as would be extended to one representing their opinions and identified with their interests. I met there several gentlemen with whom I had served in Congress, most of whom had been in the Confederate service. One of them paid me a compliment after hearing my speech by saying: “Sherman, your speech will trouble the boys some, but I could answer you.”
This speech was made on the evening of the 24th of March, 1887, in the hall of the house of representatives. It was carefully prepared with the expectation that it would be delivered to an unsympathetic audience of able men. I delivered it with scarcely a reference to my notes, and substantially in the language written. Tennessee and Kentucky had been Whig states, strongly in favor of protection, and before the war were represented by John Bell and Henry Clay. I claimed my fellowship with the people of Tennessee in the old Whig times, and, aside from the questions that grew out of the war, assumed that they were still in favor of the policy of protection of American industries by tariff laws. I did not evade the slavery question or the War of the Rebellion, but said of them what I would have said in Ohio. I made an appeal on behalf of the negro, and quoted what Senator Vest had eloquently said, that “the southern man who would wrong them deserves to be blotted from the roll of manhood.” All we asked for the negro was that the people of Tennessee would secure to him the rights and privileges of an American citizen, according to the constitution of the United States. I then presented the questions of the hour, taxation, currency, public credit, foreign and domestic commerce, education and internal improvements. On these questions I said the people of Tennessee had like interests and opinions with the people of Ohio, that the past was beyond recall, that for evil or good the record was made up and laid away. I discussed each of these subjects, dwelling mainly on taxation and currency; in the one was the protection and promotion of home industries, and in the other was the choice between bank notes of the olden time, and United States notes and national bank notes secured by the bonds of the United States. I closed with these words:
“But I do, in the presence of you all, claim for the Republican party, and defy contradiction, that in the grandeur of its achievements, in the benefits it has conferred upon the people, in the patriotic motives that have animated it, and the principles that have guided it, in the fidelity, honesty, and success of its administration of great public trusts, it will compare favorably with the record of any administration of any government in ancient or modern times. We ask you to aid us, to help us. We make this appeal in the same words to the Confederate gray as to the Union blue—to whoever in our great country is willing in the future to lend a helping hand or vote to advance the honor, grandeur and prosperity of this great republic.”
The speech, being made by a Republican at the capital of a southern Democratic state, attracted great attention from the public press, and, much to my surprise, several of the leading Democratic and independent papers commended it highly. This was notably the case with the Louisville “Courier Journal,” the Washington “Evening Star,” and the New York “Herald.” A brief extract from the latter is given as an indication of public sentiment:
“Senator Sherman’s Nashville speech is the first address on national politics ever spoken by a Republican of national reputation to a southern audience. He was welcomed by the prominent citizens of the Tennessee capital, and spoke to a crowded and attentive audience in the hall of representatives.
“Both the speech and the welcome the speaker received are notable and important events. Mr. Sherman spoke as a Republican in favor of Republican politics, and what he said was frankly and forcibly put. If the Republican leaders are wise they will take care to circulate Mr. Sherman’s Nashville speech all over the south, and through the north as well. He spoke for high protection, for internal improvements, for liberal expenditures on public buildings, for the Blair education bill, for the maintenance of the present currency system, and for spending the surplus revenue for public purposes.
“All that is the straightest and soundest Republican doctrine. He told his hearers, also, that the war is over, and that the interests of Tennessee and other southern states must naturally draw them to the Republican party. He spoke to attentive ears.”
The speech was reprinted and had considerable circulation, but, like the shadows that pass, it is probably forgotten by all who heard or read it. I consider it as one of the best, in temper, composition and argument, that I ever made.
It had been arranged that I was to be driven to Saint Paul’s chapel after the meeting. The occasion was the assemblage of the educational association of the African Methodist Episcopal church, and their friends. The chapel was a large, handsome, well-furnished room, and was crowded to the door with well-dressed men and women. Dr. Bryant made an address of welcome, and Bishop Turner introduced me to the audience. I made a brief response and excused myself from speaking further on account of fatigue. General Grosvenor and ex-Senator Warner made short speeches. Our party then returned to the hotel. To me this meeting was a surprise and a gratification. Here was a body of citizens but lately slaves, who, in attendance on religious services and afterward remaining until a late hour listening to us, behaved with order, attention and intelligence. The report of my remarks, as given in their newspapers, was as follows:
“Senator Sherman said that the praise of himself had been too high. He had voted for the emancipation of the negro race in the District of Columbia, an event which had preceded the emancipation proclamation of Abraham Lincoln. He supported it as a great act of national authority and of justice. Therefore, he could appear as a friend of the race and of liberty. He had not voted for it because they were negroes, but he had voted for it because they were men and women. He would have voted for the whites as well. He spoke of the society and said any measure that would tend to elevate the race he was in favor of. What the race wanted was not more rights but more education. Their rights were secured to them by the constitution of the United States, and the time would come when they would enjoy them as freely as anyone. They should not be impatient to advance. Prejudice could not be overcome in a short period. He said the best way to overcome all prejudice was by elevating themselves; but not by gaudy extravagance, groans, abuse, war, or tumult of war. They had the same right to become lawyers, doctors, soldiers and heroes as the white man had.
“When they became as advanced as the whites around them there would be no trouble about their franchises. Now they were free men and they should become freeholders. After they had got education they should accumulate property.”
On the next morning I left Nashville for Cincinnati, where I arrived on the evening of the 25th of March and took lodgings at the Gibson House. I was to speak at Turner Hall on the next evening, under the auspices of the Lincoln and Blaine clubs. It was a busy day with me in receiving calls and in visiting the chamber of commerce and the two clubs where speeches were made and hand shaking done. Still, I knew what I was to say at the meeting, and the composition of the audience I was to address. The hall is large, with good acoustic qualities, and in it I had spoken frequently. It is situated in the midst of a dense population of workingmen, and was so crowded that night in every part that many of the audience were compelled to stand in the aisles and around the walls. On entering I mentally contrasted my hearers with those at Faneuil Hall and Nashville. Here was a sober, attentive and friendly body of workingmen, who came to hear and weigh what was said, not in the hurry of Boston or with the criticism of political opponents as in Nashville, but with an earnest desire to learn and to do what was best for the great body of workingmen, of whom they were a part. I was introduced in a kindly way by ex-Governor Noyes. After a brief reference to my trip to Florida and Cuba, I described the country lying southwest of the Alleghany mountains, about two hundred miles wide, extending from Detroit to Mobile, destined to be the great workshop of the United States, where coal and iron could be easily mined, where food was abundant and cheap, and in a climate best fitted for the development of the human race. In this region, workingmen, whether farmers, mechanics or laborers, would always possess political power as the controlling majority of the voters. I claimed that the Republican party was the natural home of workingmen, that its policy, as developed for thirty years, had advanced our industrial interests and diversified the employments of the people. This led to a review of our political policy, the homestead law, the abolition of slavery, good money always redeemable in coin, the development of manufactures and the diversity of employments. I discussed the creation of new parties, such as the labor party and the temperance party, and contended that their objects could better be attained by the old parties. I referred to the organization of a national bureau of labor, to a bill providing for arbitration, and other measures in the interest of labor. I stated the difficulties in the way of the government interposing between capital and labor. They were like husband and wife; they must settle their quarrels between them, but the law, if practicable, should provide a mode of adjustment. I closed with the following appeal to them as workingmen:
“Let us stand by the Republican party, and we will extend in due time our dominion and power into other regions; not by annexation, not by overriding peaceable and quiet people, but by our commercial influence, by extending our steamboat lines into South America, by making all the Caribbean Sea one vast American ocean; by planting our influence among the sister republics, by aiding them from time to time, and thus, by pursuing an American policy, become the ruler of other dominions.”
From Cincinnati, after a brief visit to Mansfield, I returned to Washington to await the opening of spring weather, which rarely comes in the highlands of Ohio until the middle of May.
General Sherman and I had been invited several times to visit Woodbury, Connecticut, for nearly two centuries the home of our ancestors. In April, both being in Washington, we concluded to do so, and advised Mr. Cothron, the historian of Woodbury, of our purpose. We arrived in the evening at Waterbury, and there found that our coming was known. Several gentlemen met us at the depot and conducted us to the hotel, some of them having served with General Sherman in the Civil War. Among them was a reporter. We explained to him that we were on our way to Woodbury, had no plans to execute, intended to erect no monuments, as was stated, and only wished to see where our ancestors had lived and died. General Sherman was rather free in his talk about the steep hills and cliffs near High Rock grove. These he admired as scenery, but he said: “I cannot see how this rocky country can be converted into farming lands that can be made profitable;” also “I am indeed pleased to think that my ancestors moved from this region to Ohio in 1810.” Among the callers was S. M. Kellogg, who had served with me in Congress.
The next morning we went to Woodbury, called on William Cothron, and proceeded to the cemetery and other places of note in the neighborhood. In this way the day was pleasantly spent. I thought there were signs of decay in the old village since my former visit, but this may have been caused by the different seasons of the year at which these visits were made. Woodbury looks more like an England shire town than any other in Connecticut. Its past history was full of interest, but the birth and growth of manufacturing towns all around eclipsed it and left only its memories. After visiting the site of the old Sherman homestead, about a mile from town, and the famous Stoddard house, in which my grandmother was born, we returned to New York.
I had been invited by the officers and members of the Illinois legislature, then in session at Springfield, to speak in the hall of the house of representatives on the political issues of the day. I accepted with some reluctance, as I doubted the expediency of a partisan address at such a place. My address at Nashville, no doubt, led to the invitation; but the conditions were different in the two cities. At Nashville it was expected that I would make a conciliatory speech, tending to harmony between the sections, while at Springfield I could only make a partisan speech, on lines well defined between the two great parties, and, as I learned afterwards, by reason of local issues, to a segment of the Republican party. Had I known this in advance I would have declined the invitation.
The 1st of June was the day appointed. I arrived in Chicago, at a late hour, on the 29th of May, stopping at the Grand Pacific hotel, and soon after received the calls of many citizens in the rotunda. On the evening of the 30th I was tendered a reception by the Union League club in its library, and soon became aware of the fact that one segment of the Republican party, represented by the Chicago “Tribune,” was not in attendance. The reception, however, was a very pleasant one, greatly aided by a number of ladies.
The next morning, accompanied by Senator Charles B. Farwell and a committee of the club, I went to Springfield. I have often traversed the magnificent State of Illinois, but never saw it clothed more beautifully than on this early summer day. The broad prairies covered with green, the wide reaches of cultivated land, rich with growing corn, wheat and oats, presented pictures of fertility that could not be excelled in any portion of the world. I met Governor Oglesby and many leading citizens of Illinois on the way, and on my arrival at Springfield was received by Senator Cullom and other distinguished gentlemen, and conducted to the Leland hotel, but soon afterward was taken to the residence of Senator Cullom, where several hours were spent very pleasantly. Later in the evening I attended a reception tendered by Governor and Mrs. Oglesby, and there met the great body of the members of the legislature and many citizens.
On the 1st of June an elaborate order of arrangements, including a procession, was published, but about noon there came a heavy shower of rain that changed the programme of the day. A platform had been erected at the corner of the statehouse, from which the speaking was to be made. This had to be abandoned and the meeting was held in the hall of the house of representatives, to which no one could enter without a ticket.
It was not until 2:40 p. m. that we entered the hall, when Governor Oglesby, taking the speaker’s chair, rapped for order and briefly addressed the assembly. I was then introduced and delivered the speech I had prepared, without reading or referring to it. It was published and widely circulated. The following abstract, published in the Chicago “Inter-Ocean,” indicates the topics I introduced:
“The Senator began first to awaken applause at the mention of the name of Lincoln, repeated soon after and followed by a popular recognition of the name of Douglas. He quoted from Logan, and cheers and applause greeted his words. There was Democratic applause when he proclaimed his belief ‘that had Douglas lived he would have been as loyal as Lincoln himself,’ and again it resounded louder still when Logan received a hearty tribute. He touched upon the successes of our protective policy, and again the applause accentuated his point. He exonerated the Confederate soldier from sympathy with the atrocities of reconstruction times, and his audience appreciated it. He charged the Democratic party in the south with these atrocities and the continual effort to deprive the negro of his vote, and the audience appreciated that. His utterance that he would use the power of Congress to get the vote of a southern Republican counted at least once, excited general applause. They laughed when he asked what Andrew Jackson would have thought of Cleveland, and they laughed again when he declared the Democrats wanted to reduce the revenue, but didn’t know how. He read them the tariff plank in the Confederate platform, and they laughed to see how it agreed with the same plank in the Democratic platform. From discussion of the incapacity of the Democrats to deal with the tariff question, from their very construction of the constitution, the Senator passed to the labor question, thence carrying the interest of his hearers to the purpose of the Republicans to educate the masses, and make internal improvements. His audience felt the point well made when he declared the President allowed the internal improvement bill to expire by a pocket veto because it contained a $5,000 provision for the Hennepin Canal. In excellent humor the audience heard him score the Democracy for its helplessness to meet the currency question, and finally pass, in his peroration, to an elaboration of George William Curtis’ eulogy of the achievements of the Republican party. He read the twelve Republican principles, and each utterance received its applause like the readoption of a popular creed. ‘The Democrats put more jail birds in office in their brief term than the Republicans did in the twenty-four years of our magnificent service,’ exclaimed Senator Sherman, and his audience laughed, cheered, and applauded. Applause followed each closing utterance as the Senator outlined the purposes of the party for future victory, and predicted that result, the Democrats under the Confederate flag, the Republicans under the flag of the Union.”
I returned the next day to Chicago, and in the evening was tendered a public reception in the parlors of the Grant Pacific hotel. Although Chicago was familiar to me, yet I was unknown to the people of Chicago. One or two thousand people shook hands with me and with them several ladies. Among those I knew were Justice Harlan, Robert T. Lincoln and Walker and Emmons Blaine.
Upon my return to Mansfield I soon observed, in the Democratic and conservative papers, hostile criticism of my Springfield speech, and especially of my arraignment of the crimes at elections in the south, and of the marked preference by Cleveland in the appointments to office of Confederate soldiers rather than Union soldiers. A contrast was made between the Nashville and Springfield speeches, and the latter was denounced as “waving the bloody shirt.” Perhaps the best answer to this is the following interview with me, about the middle of June:
“So much fault is found with the Springfield speech by the opponents of the Republican party, and so many accusations made of inconsistency with the Nashville speech, that perhaps you may say—what you meant —what the foremost purpose was in both cases?”
“I meant my Springfield speech to be an historical statement of the position of the two parties and their tendencies and aims in the past and for the future. In this respect it differed from the Nashville speech, which was made to persuade the people of the south, especially of Tennessee, that their material interests would be promoted by the policy of the Republican party.”
“Do you find anything in the Springfield speech to moderate or modify?”
“I do not think I said a word in the Springfield speech but what is literally true, except, perhaps, the statement that ‘there is not an intelligent man in this broad land, of either party, who does not know that Mr. Cleveland is now President of the United States by virtue of crimes against the elective franchise.’ This may be too broad, but upon a careful analysis I do not see how I could modify it if fair force is given to the word ‘intelligent.’”
“You stand by the speech, then?”
“Well, since the speech has been pretty severely handled by several editors whom I am bound to respect, I have requested it to be printed in convenient form, and intend to send it to these critics with a respectful request that they will point out any error of fact contained in it, or any inconsistency between it and my Nashville speech.”
“You do not admit that the two speeches are in two voices?”
“I can discover no inconsistency. And now, after seeing and weighting these criticisms, I indorse and repeat every word of both speeches. It may be that the speech was impolitic, but, as I have not usually governed my speeches and conduct by the rule of policy, as distinguished from the rule of right, I do not care to commence now.”
“What about the persistent charge of unfriendliness to southern people and the accusation that you are shaking the bloody shirt?”
“I do not see how the arraignment of election methods that confessedly destroy the purity or the sanctity of the ballot box, and deprive a million of people of their political rights, can be ignored or silenced in a republic by the shoo-fly cry of ‘bloody shirt.’”
“Is there no hope of persuasion of the southern people at large to see the justice of the demand for equal political rights?”
“I cannot see any reason why the Confederate cause, which was ‘eternally wrong,’ but bravely and honestly fought out, should be loaded down with the infamy of crimes which required no courage, committed long since the war, by politicians alone, for political power and for the benefit of the Democratic party. I can find some excuse for these atrocities in the strong prejudice of caste and race in the south, growing out of centuries of slavery, but I can find no excuse for any man of any party in the north, who is willing to submit to have his political power controlled and overthrown by such means.”
CHAPTER LIII. INDORSED FOR PRESIDENT BY THE OHIO STATE CONVENTION. I Am Talked of as a Presidential Possibility—Public Statement of My Position—Unanimous Resolution Adopted by the State Convention at Toledo on July 28, 1887—Text of the Indorsement—Trip Across the Country with a Party of Friends—Visit to the Copper and Nickel Mining Regions—Stop at Winnipeg—A Day at Banff—Vast Snowsheds Along the Canadian Pacific Railroad—Meeting with Carter H. Harrison on Puget Sound—Rivalry Between Seattle and Tacoma—Trying to Locate “Mount Tacoma”—Return Home After a Month’s Absence—Letter to General Sherman—Visit to the State Fair—I Attend a Soldiers’ Meeting at Bellville—Opening Campaign Speech at Wilmington—Talk to Farmers in New York State—Success of the Republican Ticket in Ohio—Blaine Declines to Be a Candidate.
During the months of June and July, 1887, the question of the selection of the Republican candidate for President in the following year was discussed in the newspapers, in the conventions, and among the people. The names of Blaine and myself were constantly canvassed in connection with that office, and others were named. I was repeatedly written to and talked with about it, and uniformly said, to warm personal friends, that in view of my experience at previous national conventions I would not be a candidate without the support of a united delegation from Ohio, and the unanimous indorsement of a state convention. I referred to the fact that in every period of my political career I had been supported by the people of Ohio, and would not aspire to a higher position without their hearty approval. This statement was openly and publicly made and published in the newspapers. The “Commercial Gazette,” of Cincinnati was authorized to make this declaration:
“If the Republicans of Ohio want Mr. Sherman for their presidential candidate they can say so at the Toledo convention. If not, Mr. Sherman will be entirely content with the position he now occupies, and will not be in the field as a presidential candidate.”
I also wrote the following to a friend, and it was afterwards published:
“I do not want to be held up to the people of the United States as a presidential candidate if there is any doubt about Ohio. I do not, as many think, seek for the high honor, nor do I ask anyone to aid me in securing the nomination. I am as passive about it as any man can be whose merits or demerits are discussed in that connection. I do not desire the nomination, nor shall I encourage anyone to secure it for me until Ohio Republicans, who have conferred upon me the honors I have enjoyed, shall, with substantial unanimity, express their wish for my nomination.”
This led my friends to determine to present this question to the approaching state convention at Toledo. It was said that, as this would be held in a year in advance of the national convention, it was too soon to open the subject, but the conclusive answer was that no other state convention would be held prior to the national convention, and that it was but fair that I should have the chance to decline if there should be a substantial difference of opinion in the convention, and should have the benefit of its approval if it should be given.
It was understood that Governor Foraker would be unanimously renominated for governor. He doubted the policy of introducing in that contest a resolution in favor of my nomination for President, but said it if should be passed he would support it. The press of the state was somewhat divided as to the policy of the convention making a declaration of a choice for President, but indicated an almost universal opinion that there should be an undivided delegation in favor of my nomination. As the convention approached, the feeling in favor of such declaration grew stronger, and when it met at Toledo, on the 28th of July, there was practically no opposition. After the preliminary organization ex-Governor Foster reported a series of resolutions, which strongly indorsed me for President, and highly commended Foraker for renomination as governor. The convention called for the rereading of these resolutions and they were applauded and unanimously adopted. The committee on permanent organization nominated me as chairman of the convention. In assuming these duties I made a speech commending the nomination of Governor Foraker and the action of the recent general assembly, and closed with these words:
“I have but one other duty to perform, and that I do with an overflowing heart. I thank you with all my heart for the resolution that you have this day passed in respect to your choice for a President of the United States. I know, my fellow-citizens, that this is a matter of sentiment. I know that this resolution is of no importance unless the voters of the States of Ohio and of the several states should, in their free choice, elect delegates who will agree with you in your opinion. I recognize the district rule, and the right of every district to speak its own voice. I stood by that rule in 1880, when I knew that its adoption would cut off all hopes of my friends at that time. I also knew that there was another rule, that no man ought to be held as a candidate for that high office unless he has the substantial, unanimous voice of his party friends behind him. I believe that is a true rule, and it ought to be exercised to promote harmony and good will and friendship among Republicans. Now, my countrymen, again thanking you for this expression, I tell you with all frankness that I think more of your unanimous praise this day uttered than I do of the office of President of United States.”
The resolution, as adopted, was as follows:
“Recognizing, as the Republicans of Ohio always have, the gifted and tried statesmen of the Republican party of other states, loyal and unfaltering in their devotion to the success of the organization in 1888, under whatever standard bearer the Republican national convention may select, they have just pride in the record and career of John Sherman, as a member of the Republican party, and as a statesman of fidelity, large experience and great ability. His career as a statesman began with the birth of the Republican party; he has grown and developed with the growth of that organization; his genius and patriotism are stamped upon the records of the party and the statutes and constitution of the country, and, believing that his nomination for the office of President would be wise and judicious, we respectfully present his name to the people of the United States as a candidate, and announce our hearty and cordial support of him for that office.”
The convention then proceeded to form a state ticket.
During the summer vacation of 1887, I made a trip across the continent from Montreal to Victoria, Vancouver Island, and from the Sound to Tacoma, going over the Canadian Pacific railroad, and returning by that line to Port Arthur, at the head of Lake Superior then, by one of the iron steamers of the Canadian Pacific road, through Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Owen Sound, and from there by rail to Toronto and home.
I had for many years desired to visit that country and to view for myself its natural resources and wonders, and to inspect the achievement of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company.
I was accompanied on this journey by James S. Robinson, formerly secretary of state of Ohio, ex-Congressman Amos Townsend, for many years Member from Cleveland, and Charles H. Grosvenor, Member of Congress from Athens, Ohio. We met at Cleveland and spent the next night at Toronto. Thence we proceeded to Montreal, and there received many courtesies from gentlemen distinguished in private and public life. We left Toronto on the night of the 1st of August, in a special car attached to the great through train which then made its journey to Vancouver in about six days. We halted at Sudbury, the point on the Canadian Pacific from which the Sault Ste. Marie line of railway diverges from the main track. We spent twenty-four hours at Sudbury, visiting the copper and nickel mining operations, then in their infancy. Proceeding, we passed the head of Lake Superior, and thence to Winnipeg. At this place the officers of the provincial government showed us many attentions, and I was especially delighted by a visit I made to Archbishop Taché of the Catholic church, a very aged man. He had been a missionary among the Indians at the very earliest period of time when missionary work was done in that section. He had been a devoted and faithful man, and now, in the evening of his life, enjoyed the greatest respect and received the highest honors from the people of his neighborhood, regardless of race or religion.
Proceeding from Winnipeg, we entered the great valley of the Saskatchewan, traversed the mighty wheat fields of that prolific province, and witnessed the indications of the grain producing capacity in that portion of Canada, alone quite sufficient, if pushed to its utmost, the furnish grain for the whole continent of America. We spent one night for rest and observation at a point near the mouth of the Bow River, and then proceeded to Calgary. This is the westernmost point where there is arable and grazing lands before beginning the ascent of the Rocky mountains. Here we inspected a sheep ranch owned by a gentleman from England. It is located at Cochrane, a few miles west of Calgary. It was managed by a young gentleman of most pleasing manners and great intelligence, who was surrounded at the time of our visit by numerous Scotch herdsmen, each of whom had one or more collie dogs. The collie, as everybody knows, is a Scotch production, and it has been imported into the country largely for the service of the great sheep and cattle ranches of the west. One shepherd was about to depart from Canada to reoccupy his home in Scotland, and among his other effects was a collie, passing under the name of Nellie. She was a beautiful animal, and so attracted my attention that at my suggestion General Grosvenor bought her, and undertook to receive her at the train as we should pass east a week or ten days later. The train, on our return, passed Calgary station at about two o’clock in the morning in the midst of a pouring rain storm, but the shepherd was on hand with the dog, and her pedigree carefully written out, and the compliments of Mr. Cochrane, and his assurance that the pedigree was truthful. Nellie was brought to Ohio, and her progeny is very numerous in the section of the state where she lived and flourished.
Leaving Calgary, we followed the valley of the Bow River. The current of this river is very swift in the summer, fed as it is by the melting of the snows of the Rocky mountains. We soon began to realize that we were ascending amid the mighty peaks of the great international chain. We spent one day at Banff, the National Park of the Dominion. Here we found water, boiling hot, springing out from the mountain side, and a magnificent hotel—apparently out of all proportion to the present or prospective need—being erected, with every indication of an effort, at least, to make the Canadian National Park a popular place of resort.
All about this region of country it is claimed there are deposits of gold and silver, and at one point we saw the incipient development of coal mining, coal being produced which it was claimed, and it seemed to me with good reason, to be equal in valuable qualities to the Pennsylvania anthracite.
Passing from the National Park and skirting the foot of the Giant mountains, we entered the mighty valley of the great Fraser River. The scenery between Calgary and Kamloops is indescribably majestic. We were furnished by the railroad company with a time-table in the form of a pamphlet, and a description of the principal railway stations and surrounding country written by Lady Smith, the wife of Sir Donald Smith, of Montreal, one of the original projectors of the Canadian Pacific railroad. This lady was an artist, a poet, with high literary attainment, and her descriptions of the mountains, of the glaciers, of the rivers and scenery were exceedingly well done. We stopped at one of the company hotels, at the foot of one of the mightiest mountains, whose peak ascends thousands of feet into the air, and at whose base, within a few rods of the entrance to the hotel, was the greatest of the mighty glaciers, almost equal in beauty and grandeur, as seen by us, with the far-famed glacier of the Rhone.
The construction of this railroad through the mountains is a marvel of engineering skill and well illustrates what the persistence and industry of man can accomplish. More than seventy miles of this line, as I remember it, are covered by snowsheds, constructed of stanch timbers along the base of the mountain in such a manner that the avalanches, which occasionally rush down from the mountain top and from the side of the mountain, strike upon the sheds and so fall harmless into the valley below, while the powerful locomotives go rushing through the snowsheds, heedless of the dangers overhead.
The Fraser River was full of camps of men engaged in the business of catching, drying and canning the salmon of that stream. The timber along this river is of great importance. The Canadian fir and other indigenous trees line the banks and mountain sides in a quantity sufficient to supply the demand of the people of that great country for many years to come. But it was unpleasant to witness the devastation that the fires had made by which great sections of the forests had been killed. The Canadian government has made a determined effort to suppress these fires in their forests and upon their plains, and it is one of the duties of the mounted police force, which we saw everywhere along the line of the road, to enforce the regulations in regard to the use of fire, but, naturally and necessarily, nearly all these efforts are abortive and great destruction results.
Vancouver, at the mouth of the Fraser, is the terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway. At this point steamers are loaded for the China and Japan trade and a passenger steamer departs daily, and perhaps oftener, for Victoria, an important city at the point of Vancouver Island. We had a delightful trip on this steamer, running in and out among the almost numberless islands. It was an interesting and yet most intricate passage.
At Victoria we were entertained by gentlemen of public position and were also shown many attentions by private citizens. We were invited to attend a dinner on board of a great British war vessel, then lying at Esquimault. A canvass of our party disclosed the fact that our dress suits had been left at Vancouver, and being on foreign soil and under the domination of her British majesty’s flag, we felt it was impossible to accept the invitation, and so, with a manifestation of great reluctance on the part of my associates, the invitation was declined.
We went by steamer to Seattle, Washington Territory, where we remained over night and were very kindly received and entertained by the people. Among the persons who joined in the reception were Watson C. Squire and his wife, then residents of the territory. Mr. Squire, after the admission of Washington as a state, became one of her Senators.
We were joined on this part of our journey by Carter H. Harrison, of Chicago, whose fourth term of office as mayor had just closed, and who was escorting his son and a young friend on a journey around the world. While waiting for the departure of the Canadian Pacific steamer from Vancouver, he joined in this excursion through the sound. He was a most entertaining conversationalist, and we enjoyed his country greatly.
There was much rivalry at that time between the growing cities of Seattle and Tacoma. At a reception in Seattle, one of the party, in responding to a call for a speech, spoke of having inquired of a resident of Seattle as to the whereabouts of Mount Tacoma. He said he was informed by the person to whom he applied that there was no Mount Tacoma. On stating that he had so understood from citizens of Washington Territory, he was informed that there was not then and never had been a Mount Tacoma. The gentleman was informed, however, that in the distance, enshrouded in the gloom of fog and smoke, there was a magnificent mountain, grand in proportion and beautiful in outline, and the mountain’s name was Rainier. Later on he said he had inquired of a citizen of Tacoma as to the whereabouts, from that city, of Mount Rainier, and the gentleman, with considerable scorn on his countenance, declared that there was no such mountain, but in a certain direction at a certain distance was Mount Tacoma. The gentleman closed his speech by saying, whether it was Mount Tacoma or Mount Rainier, our party was unanimously in favor of the admission of Washington Territory into the Union.
We visited some sawmills at Tacoma where lumber of monstrous proportions and in great quantities was being produced by a system of gang saws. This is a wonderful industry and as long as the material holds out will be a leading one of that section. The deep waters of Puget Sound will always offer to the industrious population of Washington ample and cheap means of transportation to the outside market, and I predict a great future for the state.
We returned east more hastily and with fewer stops than in the western journey. We spend a night at Port Arthur, and the next day, embarking upon one of the great steamers of the Canadian Pacific line, found among our fellow-passengers Goldwin Smith, the distinguished Canadian writer and statesman. We had a most pleasant trip, arriving at Owen Sound without special incident; thence to Toronto, and by steamer to Niagara, where we remained until the next day, when our party separated for their several homes. The trip occupied exactly a month and was full of enjoyment from the beginning to the end.
After my return home I wrote a note to General Sherman, describing my impressions of the country. In this I said:
“My trip to the Pacific over the Canadian railroad was a great success. We traveled 7,000 miles without fatigue, accident or detention. We stopped at the chief points of interest, such as Toronto, Montreal, Sudbury, Port Arthur, Winnipeg, Calgary, Banff, Donald, Glacier House, Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and Tacoma, and yet made the round trip within the four weeks allowed. We did not go to Alaska, because of the fogs and for want of time. The trip was very instructive, giving me an inside view of many questions that may be important in the future. The country did not impress me as a desirable acquisition, though it would not be a bad one. The people are hardy and industrious. If they had free commercial intercourse with the United States, their farms, forests, and mines would become more valuable, but at the expense of the manufactures. If the population of Mexico and Canada were homogenous with ours, the union of the three countries would make the whole the most powerful nation in the world.”
I then entered into the canvass. I attended the state fair at Columbus on the 2nd of September, first visiting the Wool Growers’ Association, and making a brief speech in respect to the change in the duty on wool by the tariff of 1883. I reminded the members of that association that they were largely responsible for the action of Congress on the wool schedule, that while all the other interests were largely represented before the committees of Congress, they were only represented by two gentlemen, Columbus Delano and William Lawrence, both from the State of Ohio, who did all they could to prevent the reduction. Later in the day I attended a meeting of the state grange, at which several speeches had been made. I disclaimed the power to instruct the gentlemen before me, who knew so much more about farming that I, but called their attention to the active competition they would have in the future in the growth of cereals in the great plains of the west. I described the wheat fields I had seen far west of Winnipeg, ten degrees north of us in Canada. I said the wheat was sown in the spring as soon as the surface could be plowed, fed by the thawing frosts and harvested in August, yielding 25 to 40 bushels to the acre, that our farms had to compete in most of their crops with new and cheap lands in fertile regions which but a few years before were occupied by Indians and buffaloes. “We must diversify our crops,” I said, “or make machines to work for us more and more. New wants are created by increased population in cities. This is one lesson of many lessons we can learn from the oldest nations in Europe. With large cities growing up around us the farmer becomes a gardener, a demand is created for dairy products, for potatoes, and numerous articles of food which yield a greater profit. In Germany, France and Italy they are now producing more sugar from beets than is produced in all the world from sugar cane. The people of the United States now pay $130,000,000 for sugar which can easily be produced from beets grown in any of the central states.” I said much more to the same purport.
I visited all parts of the state fair, and tried to avoid talking politics, but wherever I went on the ground I found groups engaged in talking about the Toledo convention, and the prospects of Republican or Democratic success. I had been away so long that I supposed the embers left by the convention were extinguished, but nothing, I think, can prevent the Ohio man from expressing his opinion about parties and politics. I met William Lawrence, one of the ablest men of the state as a lawyer, a judge and a Member of Congress. An interview with him had recently been published in respect to the resolution indorsing my candidacy. This was frequently called to my attention, and though I had not then read it, my confidence in him was so great I was willing to indorse anything he had said.
On the 7th of September I attended a soldiers’ meeting at Bellville, in Richland county, where it was said upwards of 4,000 people took part. I made quite a long talk to them, but was far more interested in the stories of men who had served in the war, many of whom gave graphic accounts of scenes and incidents in which they had taken part. I have attended many such meetings, but do not recall any that was more interesting. The story of the private soldier is often rich in experience. It tells of what he saw in battle, and these stories of the soldiers, told to each other, form the web and woof out of which history is written. It was useless to preach to these men that Providence directly controls the history of nations. A good Presbyterian would find in our history evidence of the truth of his theory that all things are ordained beforehand. Certain it is that the wonderful events in our national life might be cited as an evidence of this theory. I do reverently recognize in the history of our war, the hand of a superintending Providence that has guided our great nation from the beginning to this hour. The same power which guided our fathers’ fathers through the Revolutionary War, upheld the arms of the soldiers of the Union Army in the Civil War, and I trust that the same good Providence will guide our great nation in the years to come.
I made my opening political speech in this campaign at Wilmington, on the 15th of September. Clinton county is peopled almost exclusively by a farming community, whose rich upland is drained by the waters of the Scioto and Miami Rivers. My speech, not only on this occasion, but during the canvass in other parts of the state, was chiefly confined to a defense of the Republican party and its policy while in power, which I contrasted with what I regarded as the feebleness of Mr. Cleveland’s administration. I touched upon state matters with brevity, but complimented our brilliant and able governor, Foraker. I referred to the attacks that had been made upon me about my speech in Springfield, Illinois, and said that no one had answered by arraignment, except by the exploded cry of “the bloody shirt,” or claimed that a single thing stated by me as fact was not true. I referred to the “tenderfoot” who would not hurt anyone’s feelings, who would banish the word “rebel” from our vocabulary, who would not denounce crimes against our fellow-citizens when they occurred, who thought that, like Cromwell’s Roundheads, we must surrender our captured flags to the rebels who bore them, and our Grand Army boys, bent and gray, must march under the new flag, under the flag of Grover Cleveland, or not hold their camp fires in St. Louis. In conclusion, I said:
“But I will not proceed further. The immediate question is whether you will renew and ratify the brilliant administration of Governor Foraker, and support him with a Republican legislature. I feel that it is hardly necessary to appeal to the good people of Clinton county for an overwhelming vote in favor of a man so well known and highly respected among you, and whose associates on the state ticket are among the most worthy and deserving Republicans of Ohio. I call your attention to the special importance of the election of your candidates for senator and members of the house. It is of vital importance to secure a Republican legislature to secure and complete the good work of the last. Our success this fall by a good majority will be a cheering preparation for the grand campaign of the next year, when we shall have an opportunity again to test the question of whether the Republican party, which conducted several administrations in the most trying period of American history with signal success, shall be restored to power to renew the broad national policy by which it preserved the Union, abolished slavery and advanced the republic, in strength, wealth, credit and varied industries, to the foremost place among the nations of the world.”
In the latter part of September, I made an address to the farmers of Wayne county, at Lyons, New York. The county borders on Lake Ontario. Its surface is undulating, its soil generally fertile, and beneath are iron ore, limestone, gypsum, salt and sulphur springs. Its chief products are dairy and farm produce and live stock. I said that my experience about a farm was not such as would justify me in advising about practical farming, that I was like many lawyers, preachers, editors and Members of Congress, who instinctively seek to get possession of a farm, not to show farmers how to cultivate land, but to spend a good portion of their income in a healthy recreation, that Horace Greeley and Henry Ward Beecher were, when living, good specimens of this kind of farmer, that they all soon learned by sad experience that—
“He that by the plow would thrive,
Himself must either hold or drive.”
I claimed to be one of the farmers whose potatoes and chickens cost more than the market price. Still, those engaged in professional pursuits, and especially Members of Congress, have to study the statistics of agriculture because upon the increase and diversity of its varied productions depend the wealth and progress of the country for which we legislate. I will not undertake to repeat in any detail what I said. I drew the distinction between the work of a mechanic and the work of a farmer; the mechanic had but a single employment and sometimes confined himself to the manufacture of a single article, but the farmer must pursue the opposite course. He must diversify his crops each year, and the nature of his labors varies with the seasons. His success and profit depend upon the diversity of his productions, and the full and constant occupation of his time. I described what I had seen in the far-off region near the new city of Tacoma on Puget Sound, where the chief employment of the farmer is in raising hops, and also the mode of producing wheat in the vast plains of Canada, which, now that the buffalo is gone, are plowed in the spring, sown in wheat and left unguarded and untended until ready for the great machines which cut and bind the crop and thresh it ready for the market. I described the production of the celery plant in the region of Kalamazoo, Michigan, where a large portion of the soil is devoted to this vegetable. As each region varied in climate, soil and market, the occupations of farmers had to vary with the conditions that surrounded them. The great cereals, such as wheat, corn, oats and barley, can be produced in most parts of the United States. Our farmers ought constantly to diversity their crops and add to the number of their productions. Attention had been recently turned to the possibility of producing beet sugar in the northern states, the great obstacle being the cost of the factory and machinery which, to secure profitable results, could not be erected for less than $200,000, but I predicted that this industry would be established and sugar sufficient for our wants would be produced in our own country. I referred to the great advance made in the methods of farming, during the past forty years, with the aid of new inventions of agricultural implements and new modes of transportation, and the wonderful progress that had been made in other fields of invention and discovery, and in conclusion said:
“And so in mental culture, in the knowledge of chemistry, in granges and fairs, in books, magazines and pamphlets devoted to agriculture, the farmer of to-day has the means of information which lifts his occupation to the dignity of a science. The good order of society now rests upon the intelligence and conservatism of the farmers of the United States, for to them all classes must look for safety against the dogmas and doctrines that threaten the social fabric, and sacred rights of persons and property, and I believe the trust will not be in vain.”
I spoke nearly every day during the month of October, in different parts of the State of Ohio. I do not recall a town of importance that I did not visit, nor a congressional district in which I did not speak. Governor Foraker was even more active than I was. His speeches were received with great applause, and his manners and conduct made him popular. The only danger he encountered was in the active movement of the Prohibition party. This party ran a separate ticket, the votes of which, it was feared, would mainly come from the Republican party. In a speech I made at Oberlin, on the 4th of November, I made an appeal to our Prohibition friends to support the Republican ticket. I said:
“There are but two great parties in this country, one or the other of which is to be put in power. You have a perfect right to vote for the smaller Prohibition party, and thus throw away your vote, but you know very well that either a Republican or a Democratic legislature will be elected, and that there will not be a single Prohibition candidate elected. Will it not be better to choose between these two parties and give your assistance to the one that has done the most for the success of your principles? We think the Republican party is still entitled, as in the past, to your hearty support. Among other of its enactments there is the ‘Dow law,’ looked upon you with suspicion, yet it has done more for temperance than your ‘prohibition laws’ at present could have done. That law enables you to exclude the sale of liquor in more than 400 Ohio towns. It was passed by a Republican legislature. By it more than 3,000 saloons have been driven out of existence.
“Then you have the repeated declaration of the Republican party, a party that never deceived the people with false promises, that they will do anything else that is necessary, or all that is possible by law, to check the evils that flow from intoxicating drinks.
“Is there not a choice between that party and the Democratic party, which has always been the slave of the liquor party, and whose opposition to the enforcement of the Dow law cost the state $2,000,000? The Democratic party, if put in power, will repeal that law and will do nothing for prohibition that you will accept. They say they want license, but they know it can never be brought about without a change in the constitution. They want the liquor traffic to go unrestrained. It does seem to me that with all the intelligence of this community it is the duty of all its candid men, who are watching the tendencies of these two parties in this country, not to throw their votes away.
“It is much better to do our work by degrees, working slowly in the right direction, than to attempt to do it prematurely by wholesale, and fail. More men have been broken up by attempting too much than by ‘going slow.’
“Your powerful moral influence, if kept within the Republican party, will do more good, a thousandfold, than you can do losing your vote by casting it for a ticket that cannot be elected. Next year will present one of the most interesting spectacles in our history. The Republican party will gather its hosts of progressive and patriotic citizens into one grand party at its national convention, and I trust that when that good time comes our Prohibition friends and neighbors who stand aloof from us will come back and join the old fold and rally around the old flag of our country, the stars and stripes, and help us to march on to a grand and glorious victory.”
I closed my part of the canvass on the 5th of November, at Music Hall, Cleveland, one of the finest meetings that I ever attended. General E. S. Meyer and D. K. Watson shared in the speaking.
The result of the election, on the following Tuesday, gave Governor Foraker a plurality of 23,329 over Thomas E. Powell, and the legislature was Republican in both branches.
During the canvass I felt specially anxious for the election of Governor Foraker and a Republican legislature. Some doubts had been expressed by members of the Toledo convention whether the resolution favoring my nomination for President would not endanger the election of Governor Foraker, and his defeat would have been attributed to that resolution. I did not believe it could have that effect, yet the fear of it led to my unusual activity in the canvass. I was very much gratified with the result. Before and after the election the general discussion was continued in the newspapers for and against my nomination, upon the presumption that the contest would lie between Mr. Blaine and myself.
The election in New York was adverse to the Republican party, and this and his feeble health no doubt largely influenced Mr. Blaine in declining to be a candidate for the nomination. Upon the surface it appeared that I would probably be the nominee, but I took no step whatever to promote the nomination and resumed my duties in the Senate with a firm resolve not to seek the nomination, but to rest upon the resolution adopted at Toledo. When letters came to me, as many did, favoring my nomination, I referred them to Green B. Raum, at that time a resident in Washington, to make such answer as he thought expedient.
CHAPTER LIV. CLEVELAND’S EXTRAORDINARY MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. First Session of the 50th Congress—The President’s “Cry of Alarm” —Troubled by the Excess of Revenues over Expenditures—My Answer to His Doctrines—His Refusal to Apply the Surplus to the Reduction of the Public Debt—The Object in Doing So—My Views Concerning Protection and the Tariff—In Favor of a Tariff Commission—“Mills Bill” the Outcome of the President’s Message—Failure of the Bill During the Second Session—My Debates with Senator Beck on the Coinage Act of 1873, etc.—Omission of the Old Silver Dollar—Death of Chief Justice Waite—Immigration of Chinese Laborers—Controversy with Senator Vest—Speech on the Fisheries Question—Difficulties of Annexation with Canada.
The 50th Congress convened on the 5th of December, 1887, and was promptly organized, the Senate being Republican, and the House Democratic. During this long session of about eleven months, nearly every question of political or financial importance in American politics was under discussion, and I was compelled, by my position on the committees on foreign relations and finance, to take an active part in the debates.
On the 6th the President sent to Congress his annual message, in which he departed from the established usage of his predecessors, who had presented in order the subjects commented upon, commencing with a summary of our relations with foreign nations, and extending to the business of all the varied departments of the government. Instead of this he abruptly opened with a cry of alarm, as follows:
“To the Congress of the United States.
“You are confronted, at the threshold of your legislative duties, with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands immediate and careful consideration.”
This threatening announcement of a great national danger startled the general public, who had settled down into the conviction that all was going on very well with a Democratic administration. The President said that the amount of money annually exacted largely exceeded the expenses of the government. This did not seem so great a calamity. It was rather an evidence of good times, especially as he could apply the surplus to the reduction of the national debt. Then we were told that:
“On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying with the annual requirement of the sinking fund act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54.”
In other words, we had an excess of revenue over expenditures for three years of about $122,000,000. The sinking fund during that three years, as he informed us, amounted in the aggregate to $138,058,320; that is, we had stipulated by law to pay of the public debt that sum during three years, and had been able to pay all we agreed to pay, and had $122,000,000 more. He did not state that during and subsequent to the panic of 1873 the United States did not pay the sinking fund, and this deficiency was made good during the prosperous years that followed 1879. Upon the facts stated by him he based his extraordinary message. The only recommendation made by him was a reduction of taxation. No reference to the vast interests intrusted to departments other than the treasury was made by him except in a brief paragraph. He promised that as the law makes no provision for any report from the department of state, a brief history of the transactions of that important department might furnish the occasion for future consideration.
I have a sincere respect for President Cleveland, but I thought the message was so grave a departure from the customary annual message of the President to Congress that it ought to be answered seriatim. I did so in a carefully prepared speech. The answer made can be condensed in a few propositions: An increase of revenue (the law remaining unchanged) is an evidence of unusual trade and prosperity. The surplus revenue, whatever it might be, could and ought to be applied to the reduction of the public debt. The law under which the debt was created provided for this, by requiring a certain percentage of the debt to be paid annually, and appropriating the surplus revenue for that purpose. Under this policy it was estimated that the debt would be paid off prior to 1907.
But experience soon demonstrated that, whatever might be the law in force, the revenues of the government would vary from year to year, depending, not upon rates of taxation, but upon the financial condition of the country. After the panic of 1873, the revenues were so reduced that the sinking fund was practically suspended by the fact that there was no surplus money in the treasury to meet its requirements. At periods of prosperity the revenues were in excess of the current expenses and the sinking fund, and in such conditions the entire surplus revenue, was applied to the reduction of the public debt and thus made good the deficiency in the sinking fund in times of financial stringency. This was a wise public policy, fully understood and acted upon by every Secretary of the Treasury since the close of the war and prior to Mr. Manning.
Another rule of action, founded upon the clearest public policy, had been observed prior to the incumbency of Mr. Cleveland, and that was not to hold in the treasury any form of money in excess of a reasonable balance, in addition to the fund held to secure the redemption of United States notes. All sums in excess of these were promptly applied to the payment of the public debt, and, if none of it was redeemable, securities of the United States were purchased in the open market. It was the desire of Congress and every Republican Secretary of the Treasury, in order to comply with the sinking fund law, to apply the surplus to the gradual reduction of the debt. While I was secretary I heartily co-operated with the committees of Congress in reducing appropriations, and in this way was enabled to maintain the reserve, and to reduce the interest-bearing public debt.
The policy of Mr. Cleveland and Secretary Manning was to hoard in the treasury as much of the currency of the country as possible, amounting sometimes to more than $200,000,000, and this created a stringency which affected injuriously the business of the country. It was the policy of all the early Presidents to apply any surplus revenue either to the reduction of the public debt or to public objects.
Mr. Jefferson, in his message of 1806, says: “To what object shall the surplus be appropriated? Shall we suppress the impost, and thus give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufacturers?” He believed that the patriotism of the people would “prefer its continuance and application for the purpose of the public education, roads, rivers and canals.” This was in exact opposition to the policy proposed by Mr. Cleveland, who refused to apply the surplus revenue to the reduction of the debt, and in his extraordinary message demanded a reduction of duties on foreign goods. A larger surplus revenue had frequently, from time to time, been wisely dealt with by Republican administrations. It had either been applied by the executive authorities to the payment of the public debt, or its accumulation had been prevented by Congress, from time to time, by the reduction or repeal of taxes. In the administration of each of Mr. Cleveland’s predecessors since the close of the war, this simple remedy had been applied without neglecting other matters, or raising a cry of alarm. It was apparent that the object of the President was to force the reduction of duties on imported goods, which came into competition with domestic products, and that the accumulation of money in the treasury was resorted to as a means to compel such a reduction.
On the 19th of July, 1886, I had called the attention of the Senate to the difficulty and danger of hoarding in the treasury surplus revenue, and the readiness of the Senate to provide for the reduction of taxes and the application of the surplus. The revenues could have been reduced without endangering domestic industries. At the date of his extraordinary message both Houses of Congress were quite ready to reduce taxes. Full authority had been given to the Secretary of the Treasury to apply surplus revenue to the purchase of United States bonds. But the President, set in his opinion, was not satisfied with such measures, but demanded the reduction of duties which protected American industries.
The greater part of my speech in reply to the President’s message was a discussion of the different forms of taxation imposed by the United States and especially the duties imposed on imported goods. I never was an extreme protectionist. I believed in the imposition of such a duty on foreign goods which could be produced in the United States as would fairly measure the difference in the cost of labor and manufacture in this and foreign countries. This was a question not to be decided by interested capitalists, but by the careful estimate of business men. The intense selfishness exhibited by many of those who demanded protection, and the error of those who opposed all protection, were alike to be disregarded.
I believe that no judicious tariff can be framed by Congress alone, without the help of a commission of business men not personally interested in the subject-matter, and they should be aided by experienced officers in the revenue service. I have participated in a greater or less degree in the framing of every tariff law for forty years. I have spoken many times on the subject in the Senate and on the rostrum. My reply to the President’s message is the best exposition I have made as to the principles and details of a protective tariff. If I had my way I would convene such a tariff commission as I have discussed, give it ample time to hear and gain all information that could aid it, and require it to report the rates of duty proposed in separate schedules so that the rate of each schedule or paragraph might be raised or lowered from time to time to meet the wants of the treasury. If Congress would allow such a bill to become a law we could dismiss the tariff free from party politics and lay the foundation for a durable system of national taxation, upon which domestic industries may be founded without the hazard which they now encounter every year or two by “tinkering with the tariff.”
The real controversy raised by the President’s message was not whether taxes should be reduced, but what taxes should be reduced or abolished. I stated the position of the two parties in a debate with Mr. McKenna, as follows;
“There is a broad line of division between the two parties as they exist now and as they will exist in the future. The President says, ‘retain all internal taxes and reduce the duties on imported merchandise that comes in competition with home industries.’ We say we will not strike down any prospering industry in this country; that where manufactures have sprung up in our midst by aid of a duty, this protection, as you call it, we will not reduce; we will not derange contracts, industries, or plans, or lower the prices of labor, or compel laborers or manufacturers to meet any sudden change or emergency. We say that we are willing to join with you in reducing the taxes. We will select those taxes that bear most heavily upon the people, especially internal taxes, and repeal those. We will maintain the policy of protection by tariff duties just as long as it is necessary to give our people the benefit of a home market, and diversified productions a fair chance in the trade and commerce of our country, but we will not invite into our country foreign importations to compete with and break down our home industries.”
The bill entitled “A bill to reduce taxation and simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenue,” known as the Mills bill, was the outcome of the President’s message. It was reported to the House of Representatives by Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, and thus obtained its name. Mr. Mills, on the 17th of April, called it up for consideration, and it was debated and amended, and passed the House on the 21st of July, more than seven months after the President’s cry of alarm, by the close vote of 162 yeas to 149 nays. Samuel J. Randall, then absent and sick, desired his colleague to pair him against the bill, as, if present, he would record his vote in opposition to the bill. It came to the Senate and was referred to the committee on finance. On the 8th of October Mr. Allison, from that committee, reported back the Mills bill with a substitute for the entire bill. This substitute was a careful and elaborate protective tariff bill, containing some provisions I did not approve, but, in its general provisions, was, in my opinion, a far better bill than the Mills bill. The debate on these rival bills continued until the close of the session on the 19th of October, when the Senate, by a resolution, authorized and directed the committee on finance to continue during the recess of Congress the investigation of such revenue measures, including the Senate and House bills, as had been referred to the Senate.
The history of the bills during the second session of this Congress is easily told. They were debated in the Senate nearly every day until the 22nd of January, 1889, when the amendment of the Senate was adopted as a substitute for the entire Mills bill, by the close vote of 32 yeas to 30 nays. It was debated in the House of Representatives and referred to its committee of ways and means. It was reported by the committee to the House of Representatives, with a resolution declaring that the action of the Senate in substituting an entire bill for the House bill was in violation of the constitution. No action was taken on this resolution, and then all tariff legislation was defeated for that Congress.
On the 6th of March, 1888, Senator Beck made a rambling speech commencing with a fierce denunciation of a bill then pending to grant pensions to certain disabled soldiers of the Union army. He then veered off on the tariff and the great trusts created by it. I ventured, in a mild-mannered way, to suggest to him a doubt whether trusts were caused by the tariff, whether they did not exist as to domestic as well as to foreign productions. I named to him the whisky trust, the cotton-seed trust and other trusts of that kind, and wanted to know how these grew out of the tariff. Thereupon he changed his ground and took up the silver question and commenced assailing me for the coinage act of 1873, saying I was responsible for it. He said it was secretly passed, surreptitiously done, that I did it, that I knew it.
I promptly replied to that charge by showing from the records that the act referred to, and especially the part of it relating to the silver dollar, was recommended by Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary of the Treasury, and all the officers connected with coinage and the mints, that it was debated at great length for three successive sessions in both Houses, that it was printed thirteen times, and that the clause omitting the old silver dollar was especially considered and the policy of it fully debated, and a substitute for the old dollar was provided for by each House. I can say with confidence that every Member of the Senate but Beck felt that he had been worsted in the debate, and that the charge aimed at me, but which equally applied to Morrill and Bayard, and especially to all the Senators from the silver states who earnestly and actively supported the bill, was thoroughly refuted.
Senator Beck, chafed by his defeat, on the 13th of March made in the Senate a three hours’ speech in support of his position. Instead of going to the public records and showing by them whether or not the law was put through the Senate in a secret way, he quoted what several Senators and Members said they did not know, what Grant did not know, a mode of argument that if of effect would invalidate the great body of the legislation of Congress.
I replied in a speech occupying less than half an hour, producing the original bill as it came from the treasury department with the dollar omitted from the silver coins, with the report of the Secretary of the Treasury calling attention to its omission, and the opinion of Knox, LInderman, Patterson, Elliott, all of whom were prominent officers of the treasury department in charge of currency and coinage, giving fully the reasons why the old silver dollar was omitted. I also quoted from the records of each House of Congress, showing that special attention was called to the omission of the old silver dollar by Mr. Hooper, having charge of the bill. The House of Representatives, in compliance with the advice of Comptroller Knox, did authorize in its bill, which it passed, a subsidiary dollar containing 384 grains of standard silver, the same weight as two half dollars, but these dollars were, like the subsidiary fractional coins, a legal tender for only five dollars. When this bill came to the Senate it was thoroughly debated. The legislature of California petitioned Congress for a silver dollar weighing more than the Mexican dollar instead of the subsidiary dollar provided for by the House. In compliance with this petition, the Senate so amended the bill as to authorize the owner of silver bullion to deposit the same at any mint, to be formed into bars or into dollars of the weight of 420 grains, designated as “trade dollars.” These dollars were intended solely for the foreign trade, and were worth in the market only the value of 420 grains of standard silver. It was the dollar desired by the silver producing states, and but for the rapid decline in the price of silver, which made this dollar worth less than its face in gold, the mint would probably be coining them to-day; but before the mint was closed to their coinage more than 35,000,000 pieces had been made. No unprejudiced persons could claim that the charges of Mr. Beck were not completely answered.
On the 23rd of March Chief Justice Waite, of the Supreme Court of the United States, died at his residence in Washington. Upon the 27th, upon my motion, the Senate adopted a resolution that a committee of five Senators be appointed by the chair, whose duty it should be to accompany the remains of the chief justice to Toledo, in the State of Ohio, and attend the funeral there. The committee appointed were Messrs. Sherman, Allison, Evarts, George and Gray. They attended the funeral as directed. Chief Justice Waite was born in Connecticut, but lived all his manhood life in Toledo, Ohio, until appointed by President Grant as chief justice. He was an able lawyer and a patient, conscientious and learned judge.
On the 1st of March I was directed by the committee on foreign relations to report the following resolution:
“Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That, in view of the difficulties and embarrassments that have attended the regulation of the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, under the limitations of our treaties with China, the President of the United States be requested to negotiate a treaty with the Emperor of China, containing a provision that no Chinese laborer should enter the United States.”
After a brief debate, participated in by Senators Morgan, Stewart, Mitchell and others, I made a few remarks, commencing as follows:
“Whatever differences there may have been in the Senate or in the country, with regard to the restriction of Chinese immigration, the time has come when I believe the general sentiment of the people is, that the law on the subject should be fairly enforced; that the Chinese laborer should be excluded from enjoying the benefits of our country, because he will not adapt himself to the civilization of our country. That feeling is most strongly expressed by Senators and Representatives from the Pacific coast, among whom the 100,000 or more Chinese in the country live, and they have expressed that opinion to the committee on foreign relations so decidedly and unanimously, and supported by such potent reasons, that I believe every member of that committee is of the opinion that the object of the law to exclude the immigration of Chinese laborers should be effectively carried out.”
The resolution was adopted.
During this Congress the question of excluding Chinese immigration by treaty and by law was pending and copiously debated. There seemed to be a general concurrence that such immigration was not desirable, and that Chinese coolies should be absolutely excluded. A treaty was negotiated providing for such exclusion, but, as there was a long dely by the Chinese government in ratifying it, and the coolies still continued to come, bills were introduced in Congress prohibiting, under severe penalties, the immigration of all Chinese laborers. Before the bill became a law the treaty was ratified. Now, both by treaty and by law, such immigrants are excluded, but in spite of law and treaty they still come in lessening numbers, and it does not appear how they can be entirely excluded. I have been in favor of the exclusion of Chinese laborers when practically they are slaves, but have sought to moderate the legislation proposed, so as not to disturb our friendly relations with China, or to exclude educated Chinamen engaged in commercial pursuits.
On the 18th of April I made a speech on a bill for the admission of Dakota, as a state, into the Union. That territory had more than the usual population of a new state, but its admission had been postponed, year after year, by the action of the Democratic party. This speech led to a long debate between Mr. Vest and myself on the election in Louisiana in 1876. It is not an unusual occurrence to change the subject of discussion in the Senate where debate is unlimited. I made a long review of the events in Louisiana, mainly in reply to a question put by Mr. Vest as follows:
“I have never understood, and the people of this country have never been able to understand, why Packard was not elected governor with a larger number of votes than Hayes received for President. But Packard was thrown out and sent as consul to Liverpool, and Hayes was sworn in as President of the United States.”
To this I replied that the returning board was invested with the power to pass upon the election of electors and they did perform that duty, but the question of the election of a governor and a legislature of Louisiana could only be passed upon by the legislature itself, each house being the judge of its own elections, and the two houses, when organized, had the sole and exclusive power to pass upon the election of a governor. This condition of affairs led to a controversy which endangered the public peace and involved the use of United States troops to prevent civil war. President Hayes thereupon had selected five gentlemen, Charles B. Lawrence, Joseph R. Hawley, John M. Harlan, John C. Brown and Wayne MacVeagh, each of whom was a man of marked distinction in the community in which he lived. They were sent to Louisiana to inquire and report upon the existing condition of affairs bordering on a state of civil war between the opposing factions. They were instructed to promote, as far as possible, the organization of a legislature, so that it might pass upon the question of who was governor of the state. The result of their inquiry led to the organization of the legislature, and when so organized it recognized Nichols as Governor of Louisiana, as it clearly had the right to do. The returning board had the unquestioned right to pass upon the election of electors for President, but it was equally clear that the legislature was invested with the sole power of passing upon the election of the governor. The returning board certified to the election of the Hayes electors, and the legislature determined that Nichols was elected governor. Although these decisions were inconsistent with each other yet each was legal and binding. I took occasion in this speech to defend the action of the returning board, and especially the two leading members, J. Madison Wells and Thomas A. Anderson, both of whom were men of high character and standing in that state.
In the course of this debate Vest and Butler charged me with inconsistency in my speeches at Nashville and Springfield. This allegation had been frequently made in the newspapers of the time. In reply I said:
“I am much obliged to my friend from Missouri for his kindness in reading extracts from my speeches. They sound much better to me read by him than when spoken by myself. The speeches speak for themselves, particularly the one at Nashville. Every word I uttered on that night I utter now. If I could repeat it over, I would add emphasis to give force and effect to it, and so I feel about the south. I have not the slightest feeling of hostility against the south, and no desire in regard to it, except to preserve and protect the rights of all the people of the south.
“Now, in regard to my speech at Springfield, every word of that is true. Why does not the Senator dispute some fact stated in that speech? That was a review made to a legislature—indeed, both speeches were made to legislative assemblies, dignified and honorable men. I was speaking in sight of the monument of Lincoln; I was recalling the incidents of Lincoln’s life, the period of the war, and referred, of course, to the Democratic party north and south. I could not truthfully draw a more flattering picture. The one was a speech as to the future to men who, I believed, were hopefully looking forward to the disappearance of the feelings of the war. The other was a recapitulation and review of the past. Every word of it was true. If the Senator can point out the inconsistency in these speeches, he will oblige me. There is not a single word in one inconsistent with the other. I did denounce the course of the Democratic party north and south, during and since the war, especially in regard to the reconstruction measures. I did, at Nashville, speak hopefully, and I feel hopefully, of the future, but it is only upon the basis of the recognized rights of every American citizen.”
On the 16th of July I made a speech in favor of the passage of a bill for the erection of a monument to General George Rogers Clark, of the American Revolution. His march through the wilderness and attack upon the British posts in the northwestern territory was one of the most brilliant events in the Revolutionary War. The bill passed the Senate and was reported to the House, but was not acted upon. It is one of the obligations of honor and duty which, I trust, will be discharged by the United States before many years.
On the 24th of August a message from the President, in regard to the fishing rights of the United States, was read in the Senate. I moved that the message be referred to the committee on foreign relations. Before this motion was put an extended debate took place mainly between Senators Edmunds and Morgan, though several other Senators took part. I made a speech expressing my opinion of the President’s position on the fishery question, and then took occasion to refer to the surplus in the treasury in the following words:
“It seems to me that the position taken by the President is a good deal like that held by him as to the payment of the public debt. My former old and honored colleague [Mr. Thurman] is going around through the country talking about surplus money in the treasury, there accumulated all because we Republicans will not let it out. Of all the financial management that I have read or know of, the worst is that by the present administration. Here there was an accumulating surplus in the treasury, day by day and year by year, since the first day Mr. Cleveland entered the presidential chair. What did he do with that surplus revenue? He did not make proclamation of it for two or three years, but let it accumulate and accumulate until he did not know what to do with it. Finally the attention of the administration was called to the fact that they ought to buy bonds with it. Well, Mr. Cleveland, with his sharp construction, thought he had not the power to buy bonds; he thought he could not do it legally. The law confers the power upon the Secretary of the Treasury.
“The President had no more power over it than the Senator from Connecticut before me [Mr. Platt] has. The law confers it upon the secretary; it was his duty to buy bonds. What untold sums have been lost by his failure to comply with that law. Until recently, during nearly all the administration of Mr. Cleveland, the four per cent. bonds have been sold in the market about 123. I have here the American almanac giving the value of the four per cent. bonds during his administration, and they have usually sold at 123. If the United States had quietly watched its opportunities in the way the present secretary’s predecessors had done, he could have gone into the market and absorbed those bonds, to the amount of half a million or a million at a time, and bought them at the market price, 123, and then how much money would have been saved to the government of the United States.
“My former colleague says they have over $100,000,000 of surplus. If they had applied that one hundred million in the purchase of bonds they would have saved four per cent. per annum for three years—that is, twelve per cent. And besides, they would have saved six or seven per cent. lost by the advance of bonds. At any time during the administration of Mr. Cleveland, if his Secretary of the Treasury had exercised the power conferred on him by the law, he might have saved the government of the United States from twelve to sixteen per cent. on the whole hundred million of dollars, if he had invested it in bonds of the United States. But he would not do it because he had not the power. So the President sent to Congress and asked for power, just as he has done in this case, when he had ample power, and both Houses declared unanimously that he had the power, and then, after the bonds had gone up to 127 or 128, when he had lost three years’ interest on a large portion of this accumulation, he commenced to buy bonds and complains that they are too high, and that he calls wise financial management.
“So now here is a law, on the statute book for over a year, to enforce a demand on the Canadian authorities that our fishermen, who are there carrying on their hazardous enterprise, should have the right to enter the port of Halifax and ship their goods under the plain provisions of the treaty or the law, and, if that right was denied, then here was the law expressly prepared for the particular case, to authorize the President not to do any violent act of retaliation, not to involve us in any dangerous or delusive measure which would excite the public mind and probably create animosities between these two great countries. But suppose he had simply said: ‘Well, if you deny to the Yankee fishermen the right to transship their fish, we deny you the right to bring fresh fish into Maine, Boston, and New York, and scatter them all over, cured by ice,’ for that is the effect of it—ice takes the place of salt.”
My allusion to the finances as usual excited the ire of Mr. Beck, who said:
“The Senator from Ohio gets away from the treaty and talks about this administration not buying bonds and how much we could have saved because they have raised the price; but I want to say that he himself was the man, both as Secretary of the Treasury and as chairman of the committee on finance, who arranged our debts in such a way that we could not pay them.”
In my reply I again called attention to the fact that the House, of which Mr. Beck was a Member at the time of the passage of the four per cent. bond bill, and not the Senate, was responsible for the long period of the bonds. I said:
“The Senator from Kentucky says I am responsible for the fact that there is the prolonged period of thirty years to the four per cent. bonds. He knows, because he was here the other day when I showed from the public record, that the Senate of the United States proposed to pass a bill to issue bonds running only twenty years, with the right of redemption after ten years; and if the law had been passed in that form in which it was sent from the Senate none of this trouble would have existed; but it was changed by the House of Representatives, of which the Senator from Kentucky was then a Member. I believe he voted for the House proposition against the Senate proposition, by which the time was extended to thirty years, and they were not redeemable during that time. Yet I am charged with the responsibility of lengthening these bonds.
“Whatever my sins, I can claim to have always favored the right to redeem the bonds of the United States as the 5-20’s and the 10-40’s were issued to be redeemed; and if I had had my way we would have had the same kind of bonds issued instead of the thirty-year bonds.”
The relation of Canada with the United States, especially in connection with the fisheries, became at this period dangerously strained. This led me, on the 18th of September, to offer in the Senate the following resolution:
“Resolved, That the committee on foreign relations be directed to inquire into, and report at the next session of Congress, the state of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada, with such measures as are expedient to promote friendly commercial and political intercourse between these countries and the United States, and for that purpose have leave to sit during the recess of Congress.”
In support of this resolution I said in opening:
“The recent message of the President recommending a line of retaliation against the Dominion of Canada involves the consideration of our relations with that country in a far more important and comprehensive way than Congress has ever before been called upon to give. The recent treaty rejected by the Senate related to a single subject, affecting alone our treaty rights on her northeastern coast. The act of retaliation of 1887 was confined to the same subject-matter. This message, however, treats of matters extending across the continent, affecting commercial relations with every state and territory on our northern boundary. Under these circumstances I feel it is my duty to present my views of all these cognate subjects, and in doing so I feel bound to discard, as far as possible, all political controversy, for in dealing with foreign relations, and especially those with our nearest neighbor, we should think only of our country and not of our party.”
The real difficulty of dealing with Canada is its dependence on Great Britain. Our negotiations must be with the English government, while the matters complained of are purely Canadian, and the consent of Canada is necessary to the ratification of any treaty. The President complained that Canadian authorities and officers denied to our fishermen the common privileges freely granted to friendly nations to enter their ports and harbors, to purchase supplies and transship commodities. He said that they subjected our citizens, engaged in fishing enterprises in waters adjacent to their northeastern shore, to numerous vexatious interferences and annoyances, had seized and sold their vessels upon slight pretexts, and had otherwise treated them in a rude, harsh, and oppressive manner. He further said:
“This conduct has been justified by Great Britain and Canada, by the claim that the treaty of 1818 permitted it, and upon the ground that it was necessary to the proper protection of Canadian interests. We deny that treaty agreements justify these acts, and we further maintain that, aside from any treaty restraints, of disputed interpretation, the relative positions of the United States and Canada as near neighbors, the growth of our joint commerce, the development and prosperity of both countries, which amicable relations surely guaranty, and, above all, the liberality always extended by the United States to the people of Canada, furnished motives for kindness and consideration higher and better than treaty covenants.”
I agreed with the President in his arraignment of the Canadian authorities for denying to our fishing vessels the benefit of the enlightened measures adopted in later years by commercial nations, especially by the United States and Great Britain. We admitted fish free of duty into our country, while Canada refused to our fishermen the right to purchase bait and other supplies in Canadian ports, thus preventing our fishermen from competing with the Canadians on the open sea. The President undertook, by treaty, to correct this injustice, but the Senate thought that the provisions of the treaty were not adequate for that purpose, and declined to ratify it. He thereupon recommended that Congress provide certain measures of retaliation, which, in the opinion of the Senate, would have inflicted greater injury to the United States than to Canada. This honest difference of opinion, not based upon party lines, opened up the consideration of all our commercial relations with Canada. The speech made by me dealt with the policy of the United States with Canada in the past and for the future, and led me to the expression of my opinion that Canada should be, and would be, represented in the parliament of Great Britain or the Congress of the United States, with the expression of my hope of its being annexed to our country. I said:
“And now I submit if the time has not come when the people of the United States and Canada should take a broader view of their relations to each other than has heretofore seemed practicable. Our whole history, since the conquest of Canada by Great Britain in 1763, has been a continuous warning that we cannot be at peace with each other except by a political as well as commercial union. The fate of Canada should have followed the fortunes of the colonies in the American Revolution. It would have been better for all, for the mother country as well, if all this continent north of Mexico had participated in the formation, and shared in common the blessings and prosperity of the American Union.
“So, evidently, our fathers thought, for among the earliest military movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the occupation of Canada, and the capture of the British forces in Montreal and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition, the heroism of Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the fearful suffering borne by the Continental forces in the march and retreat, is familiar to every student of American history. The native population of Canada were then friendly to our cause, and hundreds of them, as refugees, followed our retiring forces and shared in the subsequent dangers and triumphs of the war. It was the earnest desire of Franklin, Adams, and Jay, at the treaty of peace, to secure the consent of Great Britain to allow Canada to form a part of the United States, and at one time it appeared possible, but for the influence of France and Spain, then the acknowledged sovereigns of large parts of the territory now included within the United States. The present status of Canada grew out of the activities and acquisitions of European powers after the discovery of this continent. Spain, France, and England especially desired to acquire political jurisdiction over this newly discovered country.
“Without going into the details so familiar to the Senate, it is sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of the Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England held Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title, only the region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The statesmen of this government early discerned the fact that it was impossible that Spain, France, and Mexico should hold the territory then held by them without serious detriment to the interests and prosperity of the United States, and without the danger that was always present of conflicts with the European powers maintaining governments in contiguous territory. It was a wise policy and a necessity to acquire these vast regions and add them to this country. They were acquired and are now held.
“Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater force. The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty-four years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our own country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character, and its geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect freedom as to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to the prosperity of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of the world; and as far as the interests of the two people are concerned, they are divided by a mere imaginary line. They live next door neighbors to each other, and there should be a perfect freedom of intercourse between them.
“A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them, rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European power, one hundred years ago, was able to hold that territory against us; but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become an independent government to all intents and purposes, as much so as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida, Louisiana, and the Pacific coast and Texas, apply to Canada, greatly strengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and matters of transportation. These intensify not only the propriety, but the absolute necessity, of both a commercial and a political union between Canada and the United States.”
This was my opinion then, but further reflection convinces me that the annexation of Canada to the United States presents serious difficulties, and that the best policy for the other English-speaking countries is that Canada should constitute an independent republic, founded upon the model of the United States, with one central government, and provinces converted into states with limited powers for local governments. The United States already embraces so vast a country, divided into forty-four states and four territories, exclusive of Alaska and the Indian Territory, that any addition to the number of states would tend to weaken the system, and the conversion of the provinces of Canada into states of our Union would introduce new elements of discord, while with Canada as an independent and friendly republic we could, by treaties or concurrent legislation, secure to each the benefit of free trade and intercourse with the other, and without the danger of weakening the United States. Great Britain, the common mother of both republics, could take pride in her progeny and be relieved from the cares and controversies that have arisen and will arise in her guardianship of Canada. Her policy in recent years has been to surrender, as much as possible, her legislative power over Canada, but, as Canada is not represented in parliament and cannot be represented by a minister at Washington, the spectacle of a British minister of the highest rank engaged in an effort to negotiate a treaty for the benefit of Canada about bait and fish and fisheries, imposing restrictions of trade in direct opposition to the policy of the mother country. This condition of Canada constantly invites a breach of the peace between the United States and Great Britain, but with Canada governed by a parliament and by local assemblies in the provinces on a plan similar to our own, the two republics would be independent of each other, and could arrange their matters without any other country to interfere.
There were many other measures of interest and importance in the discussing and framing of which I participated at this session, but as this is not a general history of Congress, I do not deem it necessary to mention them in detail.
CHAPTER LV. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1888. Majority of the Ohio Delegates Agree to Support Me for President— Cleveland and Thurman Nominated by the Democrats—I Am Indorsed by the State Convention Held at Dayton, April 18-19—My Response to a Toast at the Americus Club, Pittsburg, on Grant—Meeting with Prominent Men in New York—Foraker’s Reply to Judge West’s Declaration Concerning Blaine—Blaine’s Florence Letter to Chairman Jones—His Opinion of My Qualifications for the Honorable Position—Meeting of the Convention in Chicago in June—I Am Nominated by General D. H. Hastings and Seconded by Governor Foraker—Jealously Between the Ohio Delegates—Predictions of My Nomination on Monday, June 25—Defeated by a Corrupt New York Bargain—General Harrison is Nominated—Letters from the President Elect—My Replies—First Speeches of the Campaign—Harrison’s Victory—Second Session of the 50th Congress—The President’s Cabinet.
While Congress was in session the people of the United States were greatly interested in the choice of a candidate for President. Conventions were held, votes were taken and preferences expressed in every state. It was settled early in the year that a large majority of the delegates from Ohio would support me for President, and several weeks before the convention was held it was announced that I would receive the unanimous support of the delegates from Ohio. The Democratic party nominated Grover Cleveland and Allen G. Thurman for President and Vice President.
The Republican state convention was held at Dayton, Ohio, on the 18th and 19th of April, and selected Foraker, Foster, McKinley and Butterworth as delegates at large to the national convention. Forty-two delegates were nominated by the twenty-one districts, and all of them were known to favor my nomination. The convention unanimously adopted this resolution:
“Seventh. The Republicans of Ohio recognize the merits, services and abilities of the statesmen who have been mentioned for the Republican nomination for the presidency, and, loyal to anyone who may be selected, present John Sherman to the country as eminently qualified and fitted for the duties of that exalted office, and the delegates to the Republican national convention this day selected are directed to use all honorable means to secure his nomination as President of the United States.”
The speeches made at the convention by the delegates at large, and by other members, expressed without qualification the hearty and unanimous support of my nomination. The condition upon which alone I would become a candidate for so exalted a position as President of the United States had been complied with, and I therefore felt that I might fairly aspire to the nomination. Mr. Blaine had declined it on account of his health, and no one was named who had a longer record of public service than I had.
The movement for my nomination was heartily indorsed by the people of Ohio and was kindly received in the different states. Many of the leading newspapers assumed that it was assured. Sketches of my life, full of errors, appeared. My old friend, Rev. S. A. Bronson, issued a new edition of his “Life of John Sherman.” Comments favorable and unfavorable, some of them libelous, appeared in print. Mrs. Sherman, much more sensitive than I of calumny, begged me not to be a candidate, as the office of President had killed Lincoln and Garfield, and the effort to attain it had broken down Webster, Clay and Blaine, and would do the same with me. However, I remained at my duties in Washington as calmly awaiting the action of the Chicago convention as any one of my associates in the Senate. I read the daily reports of what was to be—“that I was to be nominated on the first ballot,” and “that I had no chance whatever,” and became alike indifferent as to the one or the other result.
Shortly after the Ohio convention, I was invited to attend a banquet of the Americus club at the Monongahela House, in Pittsburg, on the 28th of April, at which Senator Harrison and Colonel Fred. Grant were guests. The lobby of the hotel looked as if a political convention was in session, many prominent men from Pennsylvania and other states being present.
At the banquet I was called upon to respond to the toast “Grant; He Was Great to the End.” I insert a portion of my remarks:
“I saw General Grant when he arrived in Washington. He soon took command of the Army of the Potomac. His plan of campaign was soon formed. His objective point was Lee’s army. Where Lee went he went, and if Lee moved too slowly Grant flanked him. After the fearful and destructive battles of the Wilderness, Washburne wanted to carry some consoling message to Lincoln, and Grant wrote ‘I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.’ And so he did, and all winter. He never loosed his tenacious grip of Lee’s army until Lee surrendered at Appomattox. If you ask me the secret of his success I say tenacity, tenacity. He never was discouraged. He knew how to hold on. And when his object was attained, and not till then, he knew how to be generous.
“He carried the same traits into civil life. He was always the same plain, simple, confiding, brave, tenacious and generous man in war and peace, as when the leader of vast armies, President of the United States, the guest of kings and emperors, and in his final struggle with grim-visaged death. Gentlemen, you do right to commemorate his birthday. It was his good fortune to be the chief instrument of Divine Power to secure to you and your posterity the blessing of a free, strong and united country. He was heroic to the end, and you should be equally heroic in maintaining and preserving the rights and privileges and policy for which he contended.
“I deem it an honor to be called upon by your club, on this sixty-sixth anniversary of the birthday of General Grant, to present in brief words this typical American citizen, this illustrious soldier, this patriotic President. By his tenacious courage and skill the armies of the Union were led from victory to victory, from Belmont to Appomattox, until every enemy of the republic laid down his arms in unconditional surrender. He won from foreign nations reparation for injuries done to us during the war. He did more than anyone else to preserve untarnished the public credit and honor. Heroic to the end, in the hours of death he won his greatest victory by the story of his life, told in words so plain, truthful, charitable and eloquent that it will become as classic as the commentaries of Caesar, but more glorious as the record of a patriot who saved his country, instead of a conqueror who overthrew its liberties. When speaking of General Grant I do not know where to begin and where to end, whether with his personal traits of character, his achievements as a commander of armies, or his services as an untried magistrate in civil life; I can only make a mere reference to each of these elements of his fame.”
During the whole of the month of May I remained in Washington, and attended constantly the sessions of the Senate. I was greatly interrupted by visits of persons from different parts of the country, who wished to converse with me in regard to the approaching convention. I treated them kindly, but referred them to General Raum for any information he could give them. I was called to New York on the 8th of June, to attend a meeting of the directors of the Fort Wayne Railway Company. I stopped at the Fifth Avenue hotel, where great numbers of politicians called upon me, but I was charged with having interviews with many persons whom I did not see. I met the leading politicians of the state, including ex-Senator Platt, Senators Hiscock and Quay, Charles Emory Smith, of Philadelphia, and many others. The newspapers had a good many alleged interviews which never occurred. I then became satisfied that I would not probably receive more than five or six of the votes of the New York delegation, as they had generally committed themselves to Mr. Depew, who was understood to be a candidate.
It was already asserted in the papers that I would not be nominated, but that Blaine would be, in spite of his declination in his Florence and Paris letters. Among others, this was asserted by Judge West, of Ohio. Governor Foraker, who was at the head of the Ohio delegation to Chicago, was reported to have said in reply to West:
“I do not attach much importance to Judge West’s recent speech. He is not a delegate this year, and he only speaks for himself. Mr. Sherman will have the united and hearty support of the delegates from this state, and I think his nomination is reasonably assured. I received a letter from him yesterday in which he expressed himself as being very confident of getting the nomination. It certainly looks that way to me.”
“How do you account for the circulation of the reports that you are not entirely loyal to Sherman?”
“I suppose they originated in the breasts of mischief-makers who would like to make trouble. There never was the slightest foundation for them. I have paid no heed to them, for if my character is not sufficiently established in this state to make my attitude towards Mr. Sherman perfectly clear, nothing I could say would alter the situation. It has been practically settled that General Hastings, the adjutant general of Pennsylvania, will present Mr. Sherman’s name to the convention. He is an excellent speaker, and will, no doubt, acquit himself with credit. Yes, I shall probably make the speech seconding his nomination from this state. It is customary, I believe, to have a candidate presented by a delegate from some other state than his own, and in Sherman’s case it seems eminently proper that he should be presented in this way, as he is in such a broad sense a national candidate.”
There was a common opinion prevailing that the relations of Blaine and myself were not friendly. This was a grave mistake. We had never had any controversy of a personal character. He had spoken of me in terms of the highest eulogy in his book “Twenty Years of Congress,” in this manner:
“It seldom happens that the promoter of a policy in Congress has an opportunity to carry it out in an executive department. But Mr. Sherman was the principal advocate of the resumption bill in the Senate, and during the two critical years preceding the day for coin payment he was at the head of the treasury department. He established a financial reputation not second to that of any man in our history.”
Prior to our state convention, while Mr. Blaine was abroad, I wrote to a friend of his, who was with him, that if Blaine desired to be a candidate I would withdraw and advocate his nomination. This letter was handed to Murat Halstead, who was about to proceed to Europe. He showed it to Blaine, who insisted that he could not and would not be a candidate, and wrote a letter to B. F. Jones, chairman of the Republican national committee, in which he stated, in terms that could not be mistaken, his position in regard to the presidency, and settled for good the question of his candidacy. In neither of his previous epistles did he state positively he would not accept the nomination if tendered him. In the letter to Chairman Jones this declaration was most emphatically made. Under no circumstances, Mr. Blaine said, would he permit the use of his name in Chicago, nor would he accept a presidential nomination unanimously tendered him. He further went on to say that Senator John Sherman was his preference, and advised the convention to place his name at the head of the Republican national ticket.
Mr. Halstead said to a correspondent of the New York “World,” in regard to Mr. Blaine’s position, that he had achieved the greatest place in our political history—above that of Henry Clay—that the nomination would have come to him unsought, but he had smothered any personal ambition he may have had for the good of his party. Mr. Blaine’s name, he declared, would not come before the Chicago convention as a candidate in any contingency we have a right to assume. “Mr. Blaine told me,” he said, “when I met him in Europe in August last, that he was not a Tichborne claimant for the presidency, and he wanted his friends to understand it. Mr. Blaine will have as distinguished a place in history as he could have obtained had he been elected to the presidency.”
Mr. Blaine was asked: “Do you think Mr. Sherman could be elected?”
He replied: “Mr. Sherman represents the principles of the Republican party from its beginning. He has never wavered in his allegiance to the party. If we cannot elect a man on the principles of the Republican party we will not be able to pull anyone through on personal popularity. I think Mr. Sherman is as strong as the Republican party, and that if nominated he can be elected, and also that he has great personal strength.”
In reply to the question, “Will the Ohio delegates remain true to Sherman?” Mr. Blaine said: “Of that there can be no doubt. They are riveted and double-bolted to him. The talk of Foraker’s scheming for himself is nonsense and malice. Foraker is a young man and has a great future before him. He may go to the Senate and be President later on. No, the Garfield miracle cannot be repeated this year. It is impossible.”
The convention met at Chicago on the 19th of June. The delegation from Ohio was promptly in attendance, and was to all appearances united, and determined to carry out the instructions and requests of the state convention to support my nomination. There appeared to be some needless delay in the report of the committee on resolutions. Mr. McKinley, as chairman of the committee, reported the resolutions and they were unanimously adopted by the convention by a standing vote amid great enthusiasm.
I was nominated by General D. H. Hastings, of Pennsylvania, in a speech of remarkable power and eloquence. When he closed, enthusiastic and prolonged cheering and waving of flags greeted him from the galleries, which was joined in my many delegations.
Governor Foraker seconded the nomination. His opening words were: “Ohio is sometimes like New York. She occasionally comes to a national Republican convention divided as to her choice for the presidency, and sometimes she comes united. She has so come on this occasion. Her forty-six delegates are here to speak as one man.” His speech throughout was received with great applause, and it and that of General Hastings were regarded as the most eloquent nominating addresses of the convention. They were followed by speeches made by John M. Langston, of Virginia, and Mr. Anson, of North Carolina. There certainly could be no fault found with either the manner or the matter of these addresses.
There was a constant effort made to produce jealousy between the members of the Ohio delegation, and perhaps it may be admitted that the natural divisions in a body of forty-six members would give rise to suspicion and misunderstanding, but I have no right to complain of anything done by the members of the delegation during the convention. There was a natural rivalry between Foraker and McKinley, as they were both young, able and eloquent men. Rumors prevailed at times that the Ohio delegation could be held solid no longer, but if there was any ground for these rumors it did not develop into a breach, as the delegation, from beginning to end, cast the entire vote of Ohio for me on every ballot except the last two or three, when one of the delegates, J. B. Luckey, voted for Harrison, placing his action on the ground that he had served with him in the army and felt bound to vote for him.
On Saturday evening I was telegraphed by different persons that I would certainly be nominated on Monday. That was the confident belief in Washington. On Sunday the following dispatch was published, which, though I do not recall any such conversation, expresses my feeling on that day:
“Senator Sherman says he does not believe that Foraker, or any other Ohio man, will desert him. He spent three hours Sunday at the capitol, in his committee room, and received many telegrams from Chicago, and also sent dispatches to that great central point of interest. He has received some unauthorized dispatches advising him to withdraw in favor of McKinley, but he refuses absolutely to interfere with his managers. His invariable answer to all advising him to pull out is that he is in the fight to stay.”
On Monday, the 25th of June, I did not anticipate a change on the first ballot from the last one on Saturday. I did expect, from my dispatches, that the nomination would be made that day and in my favor, but, as the result proved, an arrangement had been made on Sunday that practically secured the nomination of General Harrison. This became obvious in the course of the vote on Monday and, as Harrison was practically assured of the nomination, Pennsylvania voted solid for him and ended the contest.
From the best information I could gather from many persons with whom I conversed, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that I was defeated for the nomination by New York. I was assured before the meeting of the convention that I would have six votes from the beginning from that state, and could reasonably hope for a large addition to that vote in the progress of the balloting. Instead of this I did not receive a single vote, although three or more of the delegates had been distinctly selected in my favor and had given pledges to their constituents that they would vote for me, but they did not on a single ballot do so, except I was advised that at one ballot one of them voted for me.
I believed then, as I believe now, that one of the delegates from the State of New York practically controlled the whole delegation, and that a corrupt bargain was made on Sunday which transferred the great body of the vote of New York to General Harrison, and thus led to his nomination. It is to the credit of General Harrison to say that if the reputed bargain was made it was without his consent at the time, nor did he carry it into execution.
I believe and had, as I thought, conclusive proof that the friends of General Alger substantially purchased the votes of many of the delegates from the southern states who had been instructed by their conventions to vote for me.
There were eight ballots taken in the convention, in all of which I had a large plurality of the votes until the last one.
When General Harrison was nominated I assured him of my hearty support. I have no respect for a man who, because he is disappointed in his aspirations, turns against the party to which he belongs. I believe that both honor and duty require prompt and ready acquiescence in the choice made, unless it is produced by corruption and fraud.
I had no reason to believe, however, that General Harrison resorted in the slightest degree to any improper or corrupt combination to secure his nomination. In answer to a letter from me expressing my congratulations and tendering my support, I received from him a very cordial reply, as follows:
“Indianapolis, July 9, 1888. “My Dear Senator:—Your very frank and kind letter of June 30th has remained unanswered so long only because it was impossible for me to get time to use the pen myself. Some friends were asking ‘have you heard from Sherman,’ and my answer always was, ‘have no concern about him. His congratulations and assurances of support will not be withheld, and they will not be less sincere than the earlier and more demonstrative expressions from other friends.’ You will recall our last conversation at Pittsburg, in which I very sincerely assured you that except for the situation of our state my name would not be presented at Chicago in competition with yours. I have always said to all friends that your equipment for the presidency was so ample and your services to the party so great that I felt there was a sort of inappropriateness in passing you by for any of us. I absolutely forbade my friends making any attempt upon the Ohio delegation, and sent word to an old army comrade in the delegation that I hoped he would stand by you to the end.
“I shall very much need your service and assistance, for I am an inexperienced politician as well as statesman. My desire is to have a Republican campaign and not a personal one, and I hope a good start will be made in that direction in the organization of the committee. I have not and shall not attempt to dictate the organization, but have made some very general suggestions. I will confidently hold you to your promise to give me frankly any suggestions that you may think valuable, and assure you that criticism will always be kindly received.
“Mrs. Harrison joins me in kind regards to Mrs. Sherman.
“Very sincerely your friend,
“Benj. Harrison.
“Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senate.
“I shall be very glad to see you when you come.”
I had many letters from him during the canvass and gave him a hearty and I think effective support. After his election he wrote me the following letter:
“Indianapolis, Ind., November 22, 1888.
“Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.
“My Dear Senator:—You will understand, without any explanation from me, that my little home bureau was entirely inadequate to deal with the immense flood of telegrams and letters that poured in upon me after the election. It has happened, that some of those that should have had earliest attention have been postponed, by reason of the fact that the associated press carried off the telegrams and they were not returned for some times. But you did not need to be assured that I appreciate very highly your friendly words, and rely implicitly upon that friendly spirit that has not only prompted them, but so much besides that was useful to me.
“I have, up to this time, given my whole attention to visiting friends and to my correspondence with those who have addressed me by wire or mail. We are just now torn up a little in our household by reason of the work necessary to introduce the natural gas; but will after a little while be settled again. I wish that you would feel that I desire you to deal with me in the utmost frankness, without any restraints at all, and in the assurance that all you may say will be kindly received and will have the weight which your long experience in public life and your friendship for me entitles it to. I know the embarrassments that now attend any intercourse with my friends, on their part, rather than on mine; but you will find some method of communicating with me if you desire, and after awhile I will have the pleasure of a personal conference. With kind regards to Mrs. Sherman, I am,
“Very sincerely yours,
“Benj. Harrison.”
I sent him the following answer:
“Washington, D. C., November 26, 1888. “My Dear Sir:—Yours of the 22nd is received. I appreciate the embarrassments of your position and feel that the highest mark of friendship is to let you alone, and have therefore refrained from writing to or visiting you. Still I wish you to feel that I have no hope or ambition higher than to see your administration a complete success. The victory is a Republican victory and that I think is a victory for the whole country. Any advice or aid I can give will be freely rendered on call, but not tendered until needed. I notice that every scribbler is making a cabinet for you, but your observation must have led you to the conviction that this is a duty you only can perform. Advice in this matter is an impertinence. Your comfort and success will largely depend upon this, and if I were to offer advice it would be to consult alone your own judgment, taking care to choose those who above all will be faithful and honorable to you and administer the patronage of the departments, not in their own selfish interests, but for the good of the country. The cabinet should be fairly distributed among the different sections, but this is not the prime necessity, nor is it vital that cliques or factions be represented, but only the general average of Republican ideas and policy.
“As to the broader questions of public policy the rule of action is very different than the one suggested as to cabinet officers. The President should ‘touch elbows’ with Congress. He should have no policy distinct from that of his party, and this is better represented in Congress than in the Executive. Cleveland made his cardinal mistake in dictating a tariff policy to Congress. Grant also failed to cultivate friendly relations with Congress, and was constantly thwarted by it. Lincoln had a happy faculty in dealing with Members and Senators.
“As to visiting you, I will do so with pleasure if you think it necessary, but I dread, on your account as well as my own, the newspaper talk and gabble that will follow. It might embarrass you with others. With the modern facility of dictating you can converse with me without restraint, and all letters passing between us can be returned to the writer. In conclusion permit me to say, and perhaps I am justified in saying by what appears in the papers, that you must not feel embarrassed or under the slightest restraint by seeing my name in connection with office. I am not seeking or expecting any position, nor have I ever determined in my own mind whether I could, consistently with my duties to Ohio, accept any executive office. You should fell like a gallant young gentleman entering upon life with a world of girls about him, free to choose —to propose, but not to dispose.
“Give my kind regards, in which Mrs. Sherman and Mamie join, to Mrs. Harrison and your children, especially the little grandson.
“Very respectfully yours,
“John Sherman.”
The result of the nomination at Chicago did not in the least disturb my equanimity or my allegiance to the great party to which I belonged, and for the success of which I had devoted my life since 1854. I listened with complaisance to the explanations made as to the wavering of the Ohio delegation on the Saturday previous to the nomination, and as to the unexpected action of the New York delegation and the curious reasoning which held them together in the hope that they could persuade their leader to vote for me. The only feeling of resentment I entertained was in regard to the action of the friends of General Alger in tempting with money poor negroes to violate the instructions of their constituents. I have since read many of the revelations made subsequently as to the action of the Ohio delegation, and came to the conclusion that they did what they thought best to promote my nomination, and had just ground for discouragement when my vote fell below the number anticipated.
On the 5th of July I attended the national exposition in progress in Cincinnati at that time, and made a speech mainly confined to the remarkable growth of the northwestern states. On the next day I visited the chamber of commerce, and the Lincoln club. I then went to Mansfield. On the evening of the day of my arrival I was called upon by a great number of my townsmen, who seemed to feel my recent defeat with more regret than I did.
During this visit to Ohio I heard a great deal about the Chicago convention, but paid little attention to it, and said I was content with the result, that my friends had done what they could, that Harrison was nominated and ought to be elected. As quoted by a newspaper reporter, I said: “Henceforth, I can say what I please, and it is a great pleasure. This feeling of freedom is so strong with me that I am glad I did not get the nomination.” Whether I uttered these words or not, they expressed my feeling of relief at the time.
The 100th anniversary of the first permanent settlement in the State of Ohio, at Marietta, was celebrated on the 7th of April, 1888. There was a difference of opinion among the people whether the proper day was the 7th of April or the 15th of July, as the landing of the settlers was on the 7th of April, but on the 15th of July General Arthur St. Clair entered upon the discharge of his duties as governor of the northwestern territory. The result was, the people of Marietta concluded to celebrate on both days. Senator Evarts made an eloquent address on the 7th of April, and I was invited to deliver one on the last day of the second celebration, commencing on the 15th of July. The ceremonies, visiting and feasting continued during five days. The fifth day was called “Ohio day,” and was intended as the finale of a great celebration. It was said that 20,000 persons thronged the streets and participated in the memorial ceremonies on that day. This vast crowd, gathered from many different states, were hospitably entertained by the citizens of Marietta. The exercises commenced in the morning at ten o’clock, with Governor Foraker presiding. Among the distinguished guests were the governors or lieutenant-governors of the states that were carved out of the northwestern territory. I had not prepared a speech, but knew what I intended to talk about. I was introduced by Governor Foraker in an eloquent address, which he knew how to make. I said:
“Ladies and Gentlemen:—The very flattering manner in which our governor has introduced me to you rather disturbs the serenity of my thoughts, for I know that the high panegyric that he gives to me is scarcely justified to mortal man. We have faults, all have failings, and no one can claim more than a fair and common average of honest purpose and noble aim. I come to-day as a gleaner on a well-reaped field, by skillful workmen who have garnered the crop and placed it in stacks so high that I cannot steal a sheaf without being detected. I cannot utter a thought without having it said that I copied from some one else. I thank fortune I have no framed speech made, for, if I had, the speech would have been read or spoken to you in eloquent terms, but I only come with thoughts inspired by the great history we are called upon to review—a hundred years of this northwest territory. What a theme it is! Why is it that this favored country of 260,000 square miles and about 160,000,000 acres of land had been selected as the place where the greatest immigration of the human race has occurred in the history of the whole world? There is no spot in this world of ours of the size of this western territory, where, within a hundred years, 15,000,000 of free people are planted, where, at the beginning of the century, there was scarcely a white man living. I am glad it has been spoken of by such eminent men as Senators Hoar, Evarts, Daniel, Tucker, General Ewing and many other distinguished men; and remember, citizens of Marietta, when I speak of this centennial celebration, I do not mean that on the 15th of July only, but on the 7th of April and the 15th of July bound together in a noble wedlock.”
I referred to the claims made by several of the old states, based upon their so-called titles to the whole or to portions of the northwestern territory. Senator Daniel, who was on the stand with me, had claimed that Virginia owned all the territory south of the 41st degree of north latitude and westward to the “South Sea.” Connecticut claimed all north of that line. New York made a similar claim, all based upon grants by King James or King Charles, neither of whom knew where the South Sea was, and had no conception of or control over the vast territory covered by these grants. Neither of these states had either title to or possession of any part of the northwest territory. The only title based on European law was that acquired by Great Britain from France in 1763, and that title was transferred to the United States at the close of the Revolutionary war. There was no just title to this region except that held by the Indian tribes of America. They owned and possessed it. Before the constitution of the United States was, or could have been, adopted the imaginary claim of the several states was ceded to the United States for the common use and benefit of them all. Virginia and Connecticut reserved large portions of Ohio from their several grants, and these reservations were conceded to them. There is one title which has always been acknowledged by civilized nations, and that is the title by conquest. The only valid title of the United States was that based upon the conquest by George Rogers Clark, who conquered this country from Great Britain. It was not Virginia that did it. And, yet, among the illustrious names that have been furnished by that magnificent state, in the history of this country, that of George Rogers Clark will be gratefully remembered. He, with his two or three hundred Kentuckians, marched through that country, as Senator Daniel described, and subdued the British. Virginia is entitled to the honor of having this son; but it was George Rogers Clark who gave the United States its title to the northwest. The Indians, however, had possession, and how was their title to be disposed of? A treaty was made at Fort Harmar, and plans were adopted to get possession of the Indian land. The Indians always claimed they were cheated in the treaty, defining the boundary line between them and the white men. Therefore, Indian wars came on. St. Clair was defeated by the British and Indians combined. The British were always at the back of every hostile movement that has been made in the history of our country. In Judge Burnett’s “Notes of the Northwest Territory” there is a full account of how white men, step by step, gained possession of this territory.
The Indian tribes made bold and aggressive efforts to hold Ohio. They defeated in succession the armies of St. Clair and Harmar, but were compelled to yield to the invincible force of General Wayne and his army. It is painful and pathetic to follow the futile efforts of the Indians to hold the northwest, their favorite hunting grounds. They were told that only a little land was wanted for some poor white settlers to keep them from starving. They were offered $50,000 in money, and $50,000 annually for twenty years, for the southern part of Ohio. The council adjourned until the next day. When it convened an old chief said that “Great Spirit” had appeared to them and told them a way in which all their troubles could be ended. “Let our Great Father give to the few poor white settlers among us the money you offer to us and let them go back from whence they came and be rich and happy.” Colonel Wayne could not answer this logic, and the Indians were compelled to submit to their fate and ceded one-half of Ohio. In concluding I said:
“In the history of Ohio we have passed through three or four stages. First was the struggle with the Indians. This generation has not realized it, but I have lived long enough to know something about it in the northern part of Ohio. I saw the last Indian tribe leave the soil of Ohio in 1843, the Wyandotte Nation. There was but the feeble remnant of the most powerful tribe in the world. The next period was the clearing of log cabins. Every homestead was a log cabin—no brick houses, no frame houses, except in town. The log houses in the clearing, the toilsome and exciting time. You talk about hard times now—I have seen the time when a man was glad to get thirty-two cents for a bushel of wheat; when eggs could not be sold, when the only way to get ‘York money’ was to drive horses and cattle and sheep over the Alleghanies. The next step was the canal system, which brought laborers into the country. Then came the railroads and telegraphs, when the canals ceased to exist.
“Now, I am done. I shall think, however, that I am not through unless I reverently and devoutly give thanks to the Ruler of the universe for all this great good that has come upon this great continent. Here we see the most wonderful republic in the world, born within a hundred years, a great community peopling a continent, having every facility in the world for homes—no land-locked monopoly, closing the door to the poor acquiring homes, or if it does, it should be broken down at every hazard by wise laws passed from time to time. I reverently thank God for our homes, for our great cities, for our state and, more than all else, for our country.”
On the 6th of October, while Congress was still in session, I went to Cincinnati and joined in celebrating “Republican day” at the exposition.
Immediately upon the adjournment of Congress I went to Cleveland to attend a meeting in the Music Hall, where I made my first speech in the political campaign. It was carefully prepared and was confined mainly to a full discussion of the tariff question. From that time until the day of the election I was constantly occupied in making speeches in different parts of the state and in Indiana. Among the many places in which I spoke in Ohio were Lancaster, Defiance, Toledo and Mansfield. My first speech in Indiana was at Portland. I referred to a statement made in the newspapers that the Republicans had given up Indiana, and denied this emphatically. I said that since I had come among them and felt the enthusiasm exhibited by them I was entirely confident that they would give to their own “most gallant citizen for President of the United States” a hearty and enthusiastic support. I discussed at length the Mills bill and the tariff bill of the Senate, and closed with an appeal to the “Hoosier voter” in behalf of Ben. Harrison, “the hero of Peach Tree Creek, and the man that honored Indiana in the Senate of the United States for six years.”
On the next day I spoke at Huntington, opening my speech as follows;
“When I was traveling over the State of Ohio, recently, I was occasionally asked ‘what about Indiana?’ and now, since I have been in Indiana, I will be able to answer more accurately than I could have done, although I believed the people of Indiana were loyal, and brave, and true, and would never turn their backs upon their most eminent citizen when he had been designated by the Republican party as a candidate for chief magistrate of the Union. But I have no longer any doubt about Indiana. I saw yesterday 10,000 to 15,000 people, excited by the highest enthusiasm, marching in the bright sun and warm atmosphere in a county supposed to be Democratic. To-day, although the weather is inclement, I see your streets filled with ardent and enthusiastic people, shouting for Harrison and Morton and the Republican ticket. No rain disturbs you; no mud stops you. I shall go back to Ohio and tell them that the Buckeyes and Hoosiers will march together.”
While in Indiana I received a request from Harrison to speak at Indianapolis, but my engagement at Toledo prevented this, much to my regret.
My part in the canvass closed at home on the evening of the 5th of November. I concluded my speech as follows:
“Benjamin Harrison possesses many qualities of the highest character. He is an able lawyer, an honest man and a good citizen. Benjamin Harrison is a man for whom every American citizen should vote. He would stand like a wall of fire on every question of honor with a foreign country. If you want to do your country a valuable service you will go to the polls and give a good square honest vote for Harrison.”
Harrison received in Ohio a majority over Cleveland of 19,000 votes, and a majority of the electoral vote in the country.
During the period immediately following the election, the papers were, as usual, full of conjectures as to cabinet appointments. All sorts of cabinets were formed for General Harrison and in many of them I was mentioned for the office of Secretary of State. It was because of this that I wrote to Harrison the letter already inserted of the date of November 26. I wished to relieve him from all embarrassments, as I had made up my mind not to hold any office except such as might be given to me by the people of Ohio. I gratefully acknowledge that all the political favor I have received has been from the people of my native state.
On the 28th of November Mrs. Ellen Ewing Sherman, wife of General Sherman, died at her home in New York. She had been in feeble health, but was taken seriously ill about three weeks before her death. She was an accomplished woman of marked ability inherited from her father, a devout Christian of the Catholic faith. Her life had been devoted to the relief of suffering and want. This sad calamity was a source of great grief to her own family and that of her husband. She was married to General Sherman on the 1st of May, 1850, at Washington, when her father was a member of the cabinet of President Taylor. Throughout her entire life she was an affectionate wife and a devoted mother. Her remains were removed to St. Louis, and were there buried beside those of two sons and three grandchildren.
The winter of 1888-89, after the political excitement of the year before, seemed a tranquil period of rest. The coming change of administration excited some interest, especially the selection of a cabinet. Blaine and I were frequently mentioned in the public prints for appointment as Secretary of State, but I gave no attention to the rumors. I did not care to decline an office not tendered to me, though I had definitely made up my mind not to accept any executive office. The duties of a Senator were familiar and agreeable to me. I doubted the wisdom of competing presidential candidates accepting cabinet appointments under a successful rival. The experiment of Lincoln, with Chase and Seward as his principal advisers, was not a good example to follow.
The short session of the 50th Congress, commencing December 3, 1888, was mainly occupied with the tariff question, already referred to, but without hope of passing any tariff bill. Many other questions of public policy were also discussed, but as a rule were postponed to the next Congress, which it was known would be Republican in both branches. Perhaps the most interesting topic of debate was the condition of affairs in Samoa. As chairman of the committee on foreign relations, on the 29th of January, 1889, I presented to the Senate a full statement of the complications in that far distant group of islands. In opening I said:
“The time has arrived when Congress, and especially the Senate, must give intelligent attention to the questions involved in the occupation and settlement of the Samoan Islands. These questions are now exciting profound attention, not only in this country, but in Great Britain and Germany. While supporting the amendments proposed by the committee on foreign relations, reported now from the committee on appropriations, I think it is due to the Senate and the people of the United States that I should state, in a skeleton form, the chief facts in regard to this matter, and that, too, without any feeling whatever, without any desire to interfere with our diplomatic negotiations, or to disturb the harmony of our relations with Germany or Great Britain. I hope that the action of the Senate will be unanimous upon the adoption of these amendments, and that a frank and open debate will tend to this result.”
It is not worth while to follow the line of events that resulted in making Great Britain, Germany, and the United States the guardians of these far distant, half-civilized, mercurial, and combative orientals. The only interest the United States had in these islands was the possession and ownership of the Bay of Pago-Pago, acquired by a treaty in 1878 between the United States and the King of Samoa. The repeated wars on a small scale that have occurred since that time, and the complications and expense caused by the tripartite protectorate of the islands, furnish another example of the folly of the United States in extending its property rights to lands in a far distant sea. Our continental position ought to dissuade us from accepting outside possessions which in case of war would cost the United States more to defend than their value.
On the 24th of February, 1889, my youngest sister, Fanny Sherman Moulton, the widow of Colonel Charles W. Moulton, died at her residence at Glendale, Ohio, after a brief illness. Her husband died in January, 1888. She was buried by his side in Spring Grove Cemetery, near Cincinnati. In the hurry of the close of the session I could not attend her funeral. She was always kind and affectionate, not only to her children, but to all her kindred. I felt her death keenly, for as the youngest of our family she had lived with me until her marriage, and was regarded by me more as a daughter than a sister.
The called session of the Senate convened on the 4th of March, 1889. President Harrison’s message was well delivered and well received. It was longer than the usual inaugural. It was free from any studied rhetoric, but was sensible, logical and satisfactory. The nominations of the cabinet officers were made and immediately confirmed. Those of Blaine and Windom were anticipated but the remainder of the cabinet excited some surprise. They were comparatively new men, without much, if any, experience in congressional life, but were well known in their respective states as gentlemen of ability and high character. A bare majority of the Senate were classed as Republicans. They retained the organization of the committees and no material changes were made. The Senate acted upon its general custom to confine its business to that which it could do alone without the action of the House. It adjourned on the 2nd of April, 1889.
CHAPTER LVI. FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS IN EUROPE. Our Party Takes Its Departure on the “City of New York” on May 1— Personnel of the Party—Short Stop in London—Various Cities in Italy Visited—Sight-Seeing in Rome—Journey to Pompeii and Naples —Impressions of the Inhabitants of Southern Italy—An Amusing Incident Growing Out of the Ignorance of Our Courier—Meeting with Mr. Porter, Minister to Rome—Four Days in Florence—Venice Wholly Unlike Any Other City in the World—Favorable Impression of Vienna —Arrival at Paris—Reception by the President of the Republic of France—Return Home—My Opinion Concerning England and Englishmen —Reception at Washington—Campaigning Again for Foraker—Ohio Ballot Box Forgery and Its Outcome—Address at Cleveland on “The Congress of American States”—Defeat of Foraker for Governor.
Soon after the close of the called session in April, 1889, Mrs. Sherman and I concluded to make a trip to Europe. Both of us had been confined more than usual for over a year, and needed recreation and a change of scene. We went to New York on the 27th of April, stopping with my niece, Mrs. Alfred M. Hoyt. On the next day we witnessed from the battery the naval parade in honor of the centennial of the inauguration of Washington. On the first of May my little party, composed of Mrs. Sherman, Miss May Hoyt, my daughter Mary and myself, were driven to the steamer “City of New York,” and there met Senator Cameron and his wife, with their infant child and nurse, Mrs. Colgate Hoyt, a niece of mine, with four children and nurse, and Mrs. Henry R. Hoyt, child and nurse. With this large party we had a joyous and happy voyage. Among the passengers we found many agreeable companions and had the usual diversions, such as music, singing and card playing. We arrived at Queenstown on the 8th of May without any special incident, proceeding thence to Liverpool and London, where we stopped at the Hotel Metropole. Here all our companions except our family party of four left us. As it was our desire to visit Italy before the hot weather set in, we determined to push on as rapidly as convenient to Naples. We spent a day or two in London. We pushed on to Paris via Folkestone and Boulogne. We remained three days at the Hotel Liverpool in Paris and there met several friends, among them Mrs. William Mahone and daughter, and Major and Mrs. Rathbone. On the 14th we went to Lyons, the 15th to Marseilles, and the 16th to Nice. On the 17th we visited Monte Carlo, and on the 18th went to Genoa. Here we spent two days in visiting the most interesting places in that ancient and interesting city. From thence, on the 20th, we went to Rome. The city had already been abandoned by most of the usual visitors, but we did not suffer from the heat, and leisurely drove or walked to all the principal places of interest, such as the ruins of the Roman forum, the Colosseum, the baths of Caracalla and St. Peter’s, and the many churches in that ancient city. In the six days in Rome we had, with the aid of maps and a good guide, visited every interesting locality in that city, and had extended our drives over a large part of the Campagna. At Liverpool I had employed a Swiss with the awkward name of Eichmann as my courier. He had a smattering knowledge of many languages, but could not speak any well; he proved to be faithful, and, so far as I could discover, was honest. He relieved us from petty cares and could generally find the places I wished to see. On the 27th we went to Naples, and on the 28th by steamer to Sorrento and Capri. On the 29th we traveled by carriage to Pompeii and thence to Naples. On the 30th we drove about Naples as well as we could, but here we began to feel the heat, which was damp and depressing. It is the misfortune of this city that, although surrounded on all sides by the most beautiful and picturesque scenery of sea and mountain, in a land rich in historical and poetical annals, yet a large portion of the inhabitants impress a stranger with the conviction that they are the poorest, and perhaps the most ignorant, population in Europe. It is a sad reflection, that applies especially to all parts of southern Italy, that the descendants of the Romans, once the rulers of the world, are now classed among the lowest in intelligence in the Christian and civilized world. I remember two things about Naples, one that Mount Vesuvius was in partial action during our stay, and that we had a full opportunity to explore the ruins of Pompeii.
About this time there occurred an amusing incident growing out of the ignorance of a common American phrase on the part of my courier. Mr. Oates, of Alabama, a leading Member of the House of Representatives, was traveling with his wife and friends on the same general route that I was. We frequently met and had pleasant and friendly chats. Eichmann noticed our intimacy and was very polite to Mr. Oates. One day, as my party and I were about to enter a car, some one said: “Is not that John Sherman?” Mr. Oates said, in the hearing of Eichmann: “Yes, that is Sherman,” and added as a compliment: “He was a good watchdog in the treasury.” Eichmann catching the phrase “watchdog” applied to me regarded it as a gross insult. He rushed into my car, his face aflame with passion and his English more confused than usual, and said: “That man,” pointing to Oates, “was not your friend; he called you, sir, a watchdog; yes, sir, a watchdog. He has but one arm, sir, one arm, or I would have chastised him.” I had great difficulty in persuading him what a “watchdog” meant, that it was intended as a compliment, not as an insult.
On the 31st we returned to Rome. During my stay there I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Porter, our minister to Rome. He was hardly yet installed in his duties, as the king had been absent, but returned from Germany the day I arrived. Porter and I had been in Congress together, and boarded at the same house. He was not only a man of ability, but of pleasing address and manners.
Everybody I saw in Rome was talking about the heat and moving out of town. On June 1, I went to Florence. There we spent four days very pleasantly. The hotel was good, the weather all we could desire, and the people we met, looked contented and comfortable. They were in striking contrast with their countrymen in Naples. There was an air about the place that indicated prosperity. Florence is an art gallery. Several of our countrymen, famous as artists, of whom I can recall Powers, Meade and Turner, were not only pursuing, but learning, their art. I was told that a considerable part of the population were engaged in painting and sculpture. No doubt their wages were small but food and clothing were also low.
We would gladly have remained longer in Florence if my plan of travel would have allowed it. Not only was the city and all the treasures of art interesting, but the country around was picturesque and highly cultivated. We could ride in any direction over admirable roads and almost every place had an historical interest. I witnessed there a review of several thousand troops, but was especially interested in a body of small men well drilled for rapid movements. The parade was on Sunday and the ladies objected to a parade on that day. I observed that in the Latin states I visited, Sunday was generally selected for such displays. I purchased two works of art from American artists. I commend the wisdom of their choice of location, for in Florence the love of art, especially of sculpture, is more highly appreciated than in any other city of Europe that I have visited.
Our next stopping place was Venice. The chief attraction of this city is that it is unlike any other city in the world in its location, its architecture, its history and in the habits and occupation of its people. It is literally located in the sea; its streets are canals; its carriages are gondolas and they are peculiar and unlike any other vessel afloat. Magnificent stone palaces rise from the waters, and the traveler wonders how, upon such foundations, these buildings could rest for centuries. Its strange history has been the basis of novels, romances, dramas and poetry, by writers in every country and clime. Its form of government was, in the days of the Doges, a republic governed by an aristocracy, and its wealth was the product of commerce conducted by great merchants whose enterprise extended to every part of the known habitable globe.
We visited St. Mark’s cathedral, the palace of the Doges, and the numerous places noted in history or tradition. We chartered a gondola and rode by moonlight through the Grand Canal and followed the traditional course of visitors. The glory of Venice is gone forever. We saw nothing of the pomp and panoply of the ancient city. The people were poor and the palaces were reduced to tenement houses. Venice may entice strangers by its peculiar situation and past history, but in the eye of an American traveler it is but a great ruin. The wages paid for labor were not sufficient to supply absolute necessities.
The construction of the railroad to Vienna is a remarkable feat of engineering. The route over the Semmerling pass presents difficulties far greater than any encountered in the United States. We spent four days in and about Vienna. Its location on the River Danube was a good one for a great city. The surrounding country was interesting and well cultivated. The comparison between the people of Vienna and Venice was very much in favor of Vienna. The city was clean, well built, with many signs of growth and prosperity. The people were comfortably clad, and the crowds that gathered in the parks and gardens to hear the music of the military bands were orderly and polite. Among the European cities I have visited, I recall none that made a more favorable impression on my mind than Vienna. I found no difficulty in making my English understood, and it was said of the people of that city that they generally knew enough of the English and French languages, in addition to their native German, to sustain a conversation in either. We visited Colonel Fred. Grant, then our minister to Austria, at Vosben, about twenty miles by rail from Vienna. I did not seek to make acquaintances in Vienna, as my time would not allow it, but, from a superficial view, I believed that the people of that city were intelligent, social and friendly, with more of the habits of Frenchmen than of the Germans of Berlin, or of the English of London.
From Vienna we followed the line of railroad through Salzburg, Innsbruck, to Zurich, stopping at each place for a day. This a very interesting country, generally picturesque, and in some places mountainous. Here we see the southern German in his native hills. A vein of superstition colors their creed as good Catholics. They are, as a rule, loyal to their emperor, and content with their condition. The passage from the Tyrol into Switzerland is not marked by national boundaries, such as rivers or mountains, nor does the population vary much until one reaches Zurich. In our progress thus far, from Nice through Italy and Austria, our party had been traveling over, to us, a new and strange land. At Zurich we entered within a region visited by Mrs. Sherman and myself in 1859. The cities and mountains of Switzerland seemed familiar to us. Great changes, however, had occurred in modes of travel in this short period in these old countries. Railroads traversed the valleys and crossed the mountains, where we had traveled in the stage coach. At Lucerne I went up a tramway to the top of Mt. Pilatus, at a grade of from 25 to 35 degrees. I did not feel this in ascending, but in descending I confess to experiencing real fear. The jog-jog of the cogwheels, the possibility of their breaking, and the sure destruction that would follow, made me very nervous. I would have been less so but for a lady unknown to me, sitting by my side, who became frightened and turned deathly pale. I was glad indeed when we reached the lake.
From Lucerne Mrs. Sherman went to Neuchâtel to meet my niece, Mrs. Huggins, then sick at that place. The remainder of the party went to Interlaken and the valley in which it is situated. I have no room for the description of mountain scenery, and no language can properly convey a sense of its grandeur. I have mentally contrasted Mt. St. Bernard and the Simplon with Pike’s Peak and Mt. Washburn, and feel quite sure that in grandeur and in extent of view the American mountains are superior to those named in Europe, but the larger population in easy reach of the mountains of Switzerland will give them the preference for a generation or more. Then Mt. Shasta will take its place as the most beautiful isolated mountain in the world, and the Rocky Mountain range will furnish a series of mountains surpassing the mountains of Switzerland; but both South America and Asia contain mountains thousands of feet higher than either or any of the mountains of Europe or North America.
Without going into details of travels over familiar ground all our party arrived safely at Paris on the 2nd of July, 1889. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sherman was called back to Neuchâtel on the 4th of July, on account of the continued serious illness of Mrs. Huggins, the balance of the party remaining in Paris. We were in that city two weeks and attended the international exposition many times. The French people know better than any other how to conduct such a show. The great building in which it was held was so arranged that similar articles were grouped together, and yet all productions of a country were in convenient proximity. The French are artists in almost every branch of human industry. They are cheerful, gay and agreeable. They are polite and therefore sensitive of any slight, neglect or rudeness and promptly resent it.
While in Paris we formed some agreeable acquaintances. Whitelaw Reid, our minister to France, entertained elegantly his countrymen and his associates in the diplomatic corps. From him our little party, especially the two young ladies, received many courtesies, and through him we had invitations from the President of the French Republic and officers of the exposition. The reception at the palace of the president was in striking and pleasing contrast with that given by the emperor in 1867, already referred to. The later reception was simple in form, something like a reception by the President of the United States, but where it differed it was an improvement upon our custom. The invitation was quite general and extended to the diplomatic corps, to all persons representing any article in the exposition, and to many citizens and visitors in Paris, who were named by the diplomatic corps or by the officers of the French government. I think that fully as many persons were present as usually attend the receptions of our President. Each invited guest, as he entered the reception room, gave his name, and, if escorting others, gave their names to the officer in charge. The name was announced to the president, who stood a few paces in the rear, the guests and the president bowed but did not shake hands and the guests passed on through a suite of rooms or into the garden. Miss Hoyt, my daughter and I attended the reception with Mr. and Mrs. Reid. As Mr. Reid entered the room his name and office were announced, and the president and he advanced towards each other, shook hands, and I and my party were introduced and we shook hands. This occupied but a moment and the reception of others went on, only occasionally interrupted by the president when he chose to recognize some one by handshaking. When we were received, as stated, we were introduced by Mr. Reid to several persons on attendance on the president, and then retired with the passing company. In this way the president and his wife escaped the extreme fatigue of shaking hands with thousands of people in rapid succession, often producing soreness and swelling of hands and arms. I hope some President of the United States will be bold enough to adopt, as he can, this simple measure of relief practiced by the President of the French Republic. The French government also furnishes a house ample enough for a large reception, which the United States does not do, but I trust will.
We left Paris on the 15th of July and joined Mrs. Sherman at Neuchâtel. After two days at this delightful place we went to Basle and thence down the Rhine, stopping at places of interest on the way, but this is a journey I had taken before.
We made a brief visit to Amsterdam and the Hague, and then went to Brussels, with which city we had become acquainted on our previous visit. We arrived in England about the 1st of August and remained in London, or its environs, a week, most of the time in the country. During my stay I did not seek to form new acquaintances and most of the people I knew were absent in the country. From London we went to Oxford and remained several days visiting the colleges and the country around, especially the beautiful palace of the Duke of Marlborough. From there we went to Leamington, and made short excursions to Warwick Castle, Kenilworth, Stratford and Coventry. We then visited the English lakes, including Windermere. I was especially interested in the games, races and wrestling at Grasmere. From there we went to Chester spending several days in that city and surrounding country. We visited the magnificent estate of the Duke of Westminster, a few miles from Chester, and drove through Gladstone’s place, but he was then absent. In Chester we met Justice Gray and his wife, and Bancroft Davis and his wife. With them we drove in the old-fashioned coach in and about the environs of Chester. From thence we went to Liverpool, remaining about a week in that city.
It is scarcely necessary to state that such a rapid, transient visit could hardly convey a proper conception of England or Englishmen. Our view was like that of the English traveler in America when he undertakes to describe our vast country on a trip of a month from New York to San Francisco. My idea of Great Britain is based, not upon flying visits, but upon my study of English history and literature. The political institutions of Great Britain are rapidly approaching our own. While progressive, the people of that country are also conservative, but with each successive decade they extend the power of the House of Commons so that already in some respects it represents better the public sentiment than the Congress of the United States. It responds quickly to a change of popular opinion. The functions of the crown are now more limited than those of our President, while the House of Commons can at any moment put an end to the ministry, and if necessary a new House of Commons can be convened within a brief period, and a new ministry be formed or the old one confirmed according to the popular will. All the governments of Europe are following in the same path, so that we may fairly hope that in a brief time Europe will become republican in substance if not in form.
We returned in the steamer “City of New York,” the vessel on which we went over, and arrived in New York on the 12th of September. My wife, daughter and myself returned to Washington, improved in health and strength.
On the evening of the next day after my arrival a large company, estimated at 1,500 people, led by the Marine band, marched to my house. The report given by the “Republican” of Washington the next morning is substantially correct and is here inserted:
“To General Grosvenor had been assigned the duty of formally welcoming the Senator, and he did so in a very pleasant speech. He spoke of the thirty-five years of faithful service which had been rendered Ohio by John Sherman, as Representative, Senator, cabinet officer and citizen; touched upon the eagerness with which Ohio looked for the Senator’s return; referred happily to the Senator’s wife and daughter, and then launched out upon the broad ocean of Ohio politics. He closed by saying that one of the chief causes of Ohio Republican exultation on this occasion lay in the fact that the Senator had returned to do nobly his part toward the re-election of Governor Foraker and the election of a Republican Senator to succeed Mr. Payne.
“The welcome was punctuated with applause, and when the speech and the uproar had ceased the band played ‘Home Again.’ The crowd cheered once more as Senator Sherman stepped forward and commenced his reply.
“Appreciation of the welcome which had been extended to him by friends from Ohio and friends in Washington brightened his opening remarks, and he said that, although his home was in Ohio, yet he had been so long a resident of this city that he felt himself almost entitled to the rights of citizenship here, without, of course, losing his allegiance to the people of his native state. The joys of home and the pleasures of foreign lands were dilated upon, and the Senator said: ‘No American can travel anywhere without having a stronger love and affection for his native land. This is the feeling of every American, and it is sometimes too strongly and noisily expressed to be acceptable abroad. We do sometimes carry the flag too high and flaunt it offensively.’
“Previous visits to Europe were referred to, and the Senator went on: ’And now let me say to you that while we boast in America of the rapid progress we have made in growth, population, wealth and strength, yet it is equally true that some of the oldest nations in the world are now keeping pace with us in industry, progress and even in liberal institutions. Everywhere in these old countries the spirit of nationalism is growing stronger and stronger.
‘Thirty years ago Italy had at least five different forms of government; now it is under one rule. Twenty-two years ago France was an empire, under the almost absolute dominion of Napoleon III; now it is a republic, with all the forms of republican institutions, but without the stability of our government. The kingdom of Prussia has been expanded into the great German empire, among the strongest, if not the strongest, of the military powers in the world. The institutions of Great Britain have become liberalized until it is a monarchy only in name, the queen exercising far less power than the President of the United States. The whole tendency of events is to strengthen and at the same time popularize government.’
“The popularity of Americans in Europe was mentioned, and it was said of them that while abroad they were not partisans, but patriots; they believed that any party at home was better than all parties in foreign lands. The signs of war abroad and of peace in the United States were sketched, and the veterans who fought for the Union were eulogized and said to be entitled to the most liberal treatment. The Republican party, having saved the Union should be the governing party, and it should be heartily supported by all true patriots.”
As I concluded, the audience came forward and shook hands with me. Later addresses were delivered by Thomas B. Coulter, ex-Lieutenant Governor Wm. C. Lyons, of Ohio, Rev. Wm. Warring, J. H. Smyth and ex-Speaker Warren J. Keifer.
Quite a number of callers were received in the house by Mrs. and Miss Sherman.
During the balance of the month of September I remained in Washington engaged in writing letters, dictating interviews, and preparing for the gubernatorial contest in Ohio, then in active progress. Governor Foraker was the Republican candidate for re-election, and James E. Campbell, formerly a Republican and recently a Democratic Member of Congress, was the opposing candidate. Both of these gentlemen were lawyers of ability, in the prime of life and living in adjoining counties. The canvass had become interesting before my return and I desired to do all I could in aid of Foraker. He was nominated while I was still in Europe, for the third term, and under conditions that weakened him somewhat. Still, his ability as a debater, his popular manners, and his interesting history, seemed to assure his success. I returned to Ohio with my family about the 1st of October, and made my first speech in this canvass at the Wayne county fair, at Orrville, on the 10th. I was introduced to the audience by M. L. Smyser, the Member of Congress from that district, in terms too complimentary to quote. He gave notice that Campbell would speak to them on the next day on behalf of the Democratic party. In explanation of my appearance there where politics were generally excluded I said:
“It is rather unusual at a county fair, where men of all parties are invited to exhibit and compare their productions, to discuss party politics. Therefore, I hesitated to accept your invitation to speak here in behalf of the Republican party; but upon being advised by my friend, Mr. Smyser, your Representative in Congress, that the same invitation was extended to Governor Foraker and Mr. Campbell, the two candidates for governor, that Governor Foraker could not attend, but Mr. Campbell had accepted, I concluded also to accept, and am now here to give you the reasons for my political faith.”
This speech was prepared for the occasion, and was chiefly on the choice between the Mills tariff bill and the Senate bill, both of which failed to pass in the preceding Congress. I discussed state issues briefly, including recent frauds at elections, the alleged bribery and corruption in the election of Mr. Payne as Senator, and the importance of nonpartisan boards of election. I closed by saying:
“This is not a contest between Governor Foraker and Mr. Campbell. I have the highest regard for both of these gentlemen. Governor Foraker is one of the ablest, one of the most brilliant, men in public life. He was one of the youngest soldiers in the Union army, and, though young, rendered important services at critical periods of the war. He has made his own way in the world, and has filled with distinction every place assigned him. He has made an efficient governor, and I can see no force in the objection that he is running for a third term. If he has performed his duties exceptionally well in the past, it is good reason why he should be continued in office in the future. I have also the pleasure of a very kindly acquaintance with Mr. Campbell, whom I regard as a gentleman of merit and ability. Either of these gentlemen will perform the personal duties of the office with credit to the state, but the contest is not between them, but between the two parties they represent. Governor Foraker represents the principles and tendencies of the Republican party, its progressive national policy, the purity of elections, state and national, and its willingness to take the lead in Ohio in all proper measures to promote good order, temperance and morality, so far as they can be promoted by human laws and popular opinion.
“Mr. Campbell represents the aims and tendencies of the Democratic party, its jealousy of national authority, its want of genuine patriotism, its reactionary policy as to tariff laws, its lawless disregard of fair elections, both north and south, the criminal gangs that disgrace our cities, and its low tone on all questions affecting good order and morals. In my view the choice is as plain as the sunlight of heaven in favor of the Republican party. It may falter for a time in meeting new questions, it may be disturbed by passing clouds, and, like all human agents, may yield to expediency or be tarnished with the corruption and faults of individuals, yet it is the best organized guide in state and national affairs, and should, and I confidently trust will, receive the hearty support of the people of Ohio.”
The reporter, in his description of the meeting, said:
“Senator Sherman was in excellent form to-day; his voice was clear, strong and its carrying power excellent. He spoke with uncommon vigor and, of course, without notes or manuscript. There was something in his manner that seemed to carry conviction with it. The people knew they were listening to an honest man who was a thorough master of every subject upon which he touched. He spoke as one having authority, and the weight of forty years of sturdy public life went into his utterances.”
It was about this period that the Ohio ballot box forgery matter became a subject of discussion. On the 11th of September, Richard G. Wood appeared in Columbus, and delivered to Foraker the following paper, and received the governor’s recommendation for the smoke inspectorship in Cincinnati:
“Washington, D. C., July 2, 1888. “We, the undersigned, agree to pay the amounts set opposite, or any part thereof, whenever requested so to do by John R. McLean, upon ‘Contract No. 1,000,’ a copy of which is to be given to each subscriber upon payment of any part of the money hereby subscribed.
“It is understood that each subscription of five thousand dollars shall entitle the subscriber thereof to a one-twentieth interest in said contract.
1. J. E. Campbell........ Five Thousand Dollars. 2. J. E. Campbell........ Five Thousand Dollars. 3. J. E. Campbell........ Five Thousand Dollars. 4. Wm. McKinley......... Five Thousand Dollars. 5. Justin R. Whiting...... Five Thousand Dollars. 6. Justin R. Whiting...... Five Thousand Dollars. 7. B. Butterworth........ Five Thousand Dollars. 8. John Sherman......... Five Thousand Dollars. 9. John Sherman......... Five Thousand Dollars. 10. S. S. Cox.......... Five Thousand Dollars. 11. Wm. C. P. Breckinridge.... Five Thousand Dollars. 12. Wm. McAdoo.......... Five Thousand Dollars. 13. John R. McPherson...... Five Thousand Dollars. 14. John R. McPherson...... Five Thousand Dollars. 15. John R. McPherson...... Five Thousand Dollars. 16. F. B. Stockbridge...... Five Thousand Dollars. 17. F. B. Stockbridge...... Five Thousand Dollars. 18. ……………........ Five Thousand Dollars. 19. ……………........ Five Thousand Dollars. 20. ……………........ Five Thousand Dollars.
The paper referred to in this alleged agreement as “Contract No. 1,000” purported to be a contract for the manufacture and introduction of the Hall and Wood ballot box, to be used by the United States government whenever it had the authority to use ballot boxes. The merit claimed for the box was that it was constructed in such a manner as to prevent fraudulent voting. This alleged agreement and contract, taken in connection with a bill introduced July 23, 1888, by Mr. Campbell, in the House of Representatives, “regulating Federal elections and to promote the purity of the ballot,” which required the purchase by the government of the ballot box mentioned, would of course, if true, present a clear case of corruption on the part of the Members of Congress signing the agreement, so grave as to justify their expulsion.
A copy of this paper was handed by Governor Foraker to Murat Halstead on the 28th of September, and on the evening of that day the governor made a speech at the Music Hall, Cincinnati, in which he referred to Mr. Campbell having introduced the bill for the purchase of the ballot box. On the 4th of October, Halstead published in the “Commercial-Gazette” a fac-simile of the false paper, with the name of Campbell alone, the names of the other apparent signers not being given in the fac-simile and nothing being said about them. On the 8th of October I was informed that it was whispered about Cincinnati that my name, with many others, was attached to the paper. I at once telegraphed that if this were so the signature was a forgery.
When I spoke at Orrville two days later I did not allude to the subject, regarding the whole thing as an election canard which would correct itself. In a brief time this became true. The whole paper was proven to be a forgery. The alleged signatures were made on tracing paper, from franks on documents distributed by Congressmen. All this was done by Wood, or by his procurement, in order to get an office through Governor Foraker. Halstead, on the 11th of October, published in his paper, over his own name, a statement that Mr. Campbell’s signature was fraudulent, no mention being made of the other alleged signers of the paper. Subsequently, on the 10th of November, after the election, Foraker wrote a letter to Halstead giving a narrative of the mode by which he was misled into believing the paper to be genuine.
It has always seemed strange to me that Foraker, having in his possession a paper which implicated Butterworth, McKinley and myself, in what all men would regard as a dishonorable transaction, did not inform us and give us an opportunity to deny, affirm or explain our alleged signatures. An inquiry from him to either of the persons named would have led to an explanation at once. No doubt Foraker believed the signatures genuine, but that should not have deterred him from making the inquiry.
On the 12th of November, I wrote the following letter to Halstead:
“Senate Chamber, } “Washington, November 12, 1889.} “My Dear Sir:—Now that the election is over, I wish to impress upon you the importance of making public the whole history of the ‘forged paper’ about ballot boxes.
“While you believed in the genuineness of Campbell’s signature you were entirely right in exposing him and the signers of the paper, for if it was genuine it was a corrupt and illegal transaction. I only wonder that seeing the names upon it did not excite your doubt and cause inquiry, but, assuming they were genuine, you had no right to suppress the paper because it involved your friends in a criminal charge. But now, since it is shown to be a forgery, a crime of the greatest character, it seems to me you ought at once to exercise your well-known energy and independence in exposing and denouncing, with equal severity, the man or men who forged, or circulated, or had anything to do with, the paper referred to. No delicacy or pity ought to shield them from the consequences of a crime infinitely greater than the signing of such a paper would have been. I know in this I speak the general sentiment of many prominent men, and you will appreciate the feeling of honor and fairness which appeals to you to denounce the men who, directly or indirectly, were connected with the fabrication of this paper. If my name was forged to it I will consider it my duty to prosecute all men who took that liberty. I will certainly do so whenever I have tangible evidence that my name was forged.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.”
A fac-simile of the paper was then published with all the alleged signatures. The subject-matter was fully investigated by a committee of the House of Representatives, during which all the persons named in connection with it were examined under oath. It resulted in the unanimous finding of the committee as follows:
“In response to the first inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:
‘By whom said alleged contract was prepared, and whether the several signatures appended thereto are forged or genuine,’
“We find that said alleged contract was dictated (prepared) by Richard G. Wood, and that all the signatures thereto are forged.
“In response to the second inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:
‘If forged, what person or persons, if any, were directly or indirectly aiding, abetting, assisting, or knowingly consenting to the preparation and uttering of said forgery, and for what purpose,’
“We find that Richard G. Wood, Frank and L. Milward, and Frank S. Davis were the only persons directly or indirectly aiding, abetting, assisting, or knowingly consenting to the preparation of said forgery with knowledge of its character.
“We further find that J. B. Foraker and Murat Halstead aided in uttering said forgery, Mr. Foraker by exhibiting the paper to several persons and thereafter delivering it to Mr. Halstead, and Mr. Halstead aided in uttering said forgery by publishing the forged paper on October 4, 1889, in the Cincinnati ‘Commercial Gazette;’ but we find that neither of said parties, Foraker and Halstead, in uttering said paper, knew the same was a forgery.
“In response to the third inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:
‘Whether any of the Members whose names appeared on said alleged contract had or have, either directly or indirectly, any unlawful, corrupt or improper connection with, or interest in, the ballot boxes which are the subject-matter of said alleged contract.’
“We find that no one of the persons whose names appear on said alleged contract had or has, either directly or indirectly, any unlawful, corrupt, or improper, or any other connection with, or interest in, the ballot boxes which are said to be the subject of said alleged contract, and that there never was any other contract relating to said ballot boxes in which either of these persons, alone or jointly with others, was in any way interested.”
William E. Mason, chairman of the committee, added to the report quoted the following just and true statement, which relieved Foraker and Halstead from the implication stated in the report:
“If our unanimous finding is correct that Messrs. Halstead and Foraker did not know the paper was forged when the uttered it, then they were deceived by some one, for we have found it was a forgery. Being deceived, then, is their only offense.
“They each have made reputation and character equal perhaps to any of the gentlemen who were outraged by the forgery. Since they found they were deceived, they have done all in their power, as honorable men, to make amends. To ask more seems to me to be most unjust, and, believing as I do that the evidence does not warrant the censure indulged in by my associates on the committee in their above additional findings, I most respectfully, but most earnestly, protest.”
This unfortunate incident, not fully explained before the election, created sympathy for Campbell and naturally displeased friends of McKinley, Butterworth and myself. I did not feel the least resentment after Halstead denounced the forgery, but entered with increased energy into the canvass. During this period I had promised to attend, on the 15th of October, a banquet given by the citizens of Cleveland to the delegates to the Pan-American Congress, then making a progress through the United States, to be presided over by my colleague, Senator Payne. As this speech is outside of the line of my usual topics, the toast being “The Congress of American States,” and yet relates to a subject of vital importance, I introduce it as reported in the Cleveland “Leader:”
“Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen:—The toast you ask me to respond to is the expression of a hope indulged in by many of the ablest statesmen of the United States ever since our sister American states dissolved their political connections with European powers. Henry Clay, as early as 1818, when proposing to acknowledge the independence of the South American states, eloquently depicted the mutual advantage of closer commercial relations with those states. Mr. Monroe proclaimed to the world the determination of the United States not to suffer any European power to interfere with the internal concerns of independent American states. Still no effective measures were adopted to promote intercourse between them. The hope of closer union has not been realized, mainly because of the neglect of the government of the United States. We have been too much engaged in political disputes and in the development of our own resources. Then we have had a serious unpleasantness among ourselves, which, if it had terminated differently, would have made us very unacceptable partners. But, now, all this is past and gone, and I can give assurance to our guests that not only the government of the United States, but the people of the United States, all parties and of every section, have united heartily in inviting you here, that they will do their full share in carrying out your recommendations, and sincerely hope that your conference will lead to a congress of American nations.
“I look upon this conference as having the same relation to the future of America as the conference of the thirteen British colonies, in 1774, had to the declaration of American independence. That conference led to the constitution of the United States and was the beginning of the independence of all the American states. Your conference is of infinitely greater importance, for your deliberations affect the interests of more than one hundred million people, while theirs only affected three million. But, more important still, your conference contemplates only peaceful aids for mutual benefit; theirs provided for war and a desperate struggle with superior forces.
“I do not recall, in the annals of man, a meeting of the selected representatives of any nations with nobler aims or with greater opportunity for good than this conference of American states. You seek to prevent war by peaceful negotiations and arbitration; you seek to promote intercourse with each other by land and by sea; you seek, as far as the wants and interests of each nation will permit, to remove unnecessary restrictions to trade and commerce; you seek to bring into closer union sixteen republics and one empire, all of them governed by free institutions. You do not unite to conquer, but to help each other in developing your resources and in exchanging your productions.
“If your conference deals wisely with your opportunity you will light a torch that will illuminate the world. You will disband armies, you will convert ships of war into useful agencies of commerce; you will secure the construction of a continuous line of railways from New York to Buenos Ayres, with connections to the capital city of every American country; you will contribute to the construction of the Nicaraguan Canal and all other feasible methods of transportation between the Atlantic and Pacific; you will unite in a generous rivalry of growth and progress all the American states. And, more important than all, you will pave the way for a congress in which all these states will be represented in a greater than an Amphictyonic council, with broader jurisdiction and scope than the rulers of ancient Greece conceived of.
“Is this to be only a dream? I do not think so. The American states are now more closely united in interest than any other part of the world. Our institutions are similar. We nourish no old-time feuds to separate us. Our productions do not compete with, but supplement, each other. Their direct exchange in American vessels is the natural course of trade. The diversity of language is less marked than in any other continent. The sentiment is universal in America that America belongs to Americans, that no European power should vex us with its policy or its wars; that all parts of America have been discovered and are not open to further discovery; each country belongs to the people who occupy it, with the clear and unquestioned right of home rule. Such, at least, is the feeling in the United States.
“And now, looking back with pride over a century of growth, exhibiting to you, as we are doing by a rather tiresome journey, what we have done, and appreciating fully the rapid progress and enormous resources of our sister American states, recognizing your equality and absolute independence, whatever may be your population or extent of territory, we say to you, in all frankness, that we are ready and willing to join you in an American congress devoted exclusively to the maintenance of peace, the increase of commerce, and the protection and welfare of each and all the states of the American continents.”
On the 19th of October I addressed a great audience in Music Hall, Cincinnati, at which Butterworth and Grosvenor also made speeches. In this speech I especially urged the election of Governor Foraker and answered the cry against him for running for a third term. I said:
“Now, you have a good ticket, as I said, from top to bottom. I need not add anything more with respect to Governor Foraker, who, I believe, ought to be elected, not only because he has been a good soldier, but because he has been a good governor. Nor do I fear that cry about a third term. How should I fear it, when I am an example of a man serving on the fifth term of six years each? If Foraker has done his duty well for two terms, it is a good reason why he would do better the next time. If he made any mistakes in the past, he will have a chance to correct them in the future, and I believe he will do so if he has made any; and I don’t believe he has.”
On the 24th of October I was to address a meeting in Columbus, and hearing that Governor Foraker was sick, at his residence, I called upon him, and we had a free and friendly conversation. I did not introduce the subject of the ballot box forgery, but assured him that I was doing, and intended to do, all I could to promote his election. He thanked me heartily, expressed his regret that he was unable to take part in the canvass, but hoped to do so before its close. At one of the largest indoor meetings ever held in Columbus, that evening, I especially urged the importance of Governor Foraker’s election, and ridiculed, to the best of my ability, the cry that was made for a third term. I called attention to the fact that all that could be said against Governor Foraker was that he was running for a third term. Continuing, I said:
“Why for a third term? Because he did so well in both his previous terms that the Republican party of Ohio was willing to sanction him as its candidate for a third term—and intend to elect him. Why should not a man be nominated by the Republicans for a third term as Governor of Ohio? What is there in the office that prevents his full and free and complete performance of all the duties imposed upon him as Governor of Ohio? Why, they say the President, by a prescriptive rule that has been established since the time of Washington, cannot be nominated for a third term. What of that? The powers of the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States are as different as a and z, and are as wide apart as heaven and earth. The President of the United States is armed with more power during his four years than any prince or potentate of Europe; he exercises a power greater than any man in any country of the world, whether a monarchy or empire. But is there any similitude between the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States? What power has he? The Governor of Ohio has less power than almost any other governor of the United States.”
I spoke on the 2nd of November in the Music Hall at Cleveland, and there again urged the election of Foraker. I give a short extract of the description of the speech as it appeared in the papers of that city:
“He ridiculed the third term scare of the Democracy and then paid a glowing tribute to the worth and integrity of Governor Foraker. ‘Has any man said,’ he asked, ‘that Governor Foraker is a bad man; that he is not a good man? My countrymen, no one has said that. He was a brave soldier. He is a self-made man; the son of good, plain people. He is self-educated. By integrity and toil he mounted, step by step, on the ladder of fame. Nearly every man who has arisen to prominence in our country has arisen from the ranks by toil. Such a man is Governor Foraker.’”
I spoke daily during the last two weeks of the canvass and everywhere made the same appeal in behalf of Governor Foraker and the state ticket. The result of the election was that Campbell received a plurality of 10,872 votes and was elected. A majority of the legislature was Democratic, and subsequently elected Calvin S. Brice United States Senator.
Elbert L. Lampson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, was elected by a plurality of 22. The other candidates on the Republican state ticket were elected by an average plurality of about 3,000.
CHAPTER LVII. HISTORY OF THE “SHERMAN SILVER LAW.” President Harrison’s First Annual Message—His Recommendations Regarding the Coinage of Silver and Tariff Revisions—Bill Authorizing the Purchase of $4,500,000 Worth of Silver Bullion Each Month— Senator Plumb’s “Free Silver” Amendment to the House Bill—Substitute Finally Agreed Upon in Conference—Since Known as the “Sherman Silver Law”—How It Came to Be so Called—Chief Merit of the Law— Steady Decline of Silver After the Passage of the Act—Bill Against Trusts and Combinations—Amendments in Committee—The Bill as Passed —Evils of Unlawful Combinations—Death of Representative Wm. D. Kelley and Ex-Member S. S. Cox—Sketch of the Latter—My Views Regarding Immigration and Alien Contract Labor—McKinley Tariff Law—What a Tariff Is—Death of George H. Pendleton—Republican Success in Ohio—Second Session of the 51st Congress—Failure of Senator Stewart’s “Free Coinage Bill.”
The first session of the 51st Congress convened on the 2nd of December, 1889, both branches being Republican. President Harrison, in his message, reported a very favorable condition of the national finances. The aggregate receipts from all sources, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, were $387,050,058. The total expenditures, including the sinking fund for that year, were $329,579,929. The excess of receipts over expenditures was $57,470,129. The estimated surplus for the current year was $43,678,883. This would justify, and the President recommended, a reduction of taxation to that amount. He called attention to the reduction of the circulation of national banks amounting to $114,109,729, and the large increase of gold and silver coin in circulation and of the issues of gold and silver certificates. The law then in force required the purchase of two million dollars worth of silver bullion each month, to be coined into silver dollars of 412½ grains of standard silver nine-tenths fine. When this law was enacted, on the 28th of February, 1878, the price of silver in the market was $1.20 per ounce. Since that time to the date of his message the price had fallen to 70.6 cents an ounce. He expressed a fear of a further reduction of the value of silver, and that it would cause a difference in the value of the gold and silver dollars in commercial transactions. He called the attention of Congress to these three subjects of national importance—the reduction of taxation, the circulation of the national banks, and the further issue of silver coin and silver certificates, and invoked for them the considerate action of Congress.
He recommended the revision of the tariff law in such a way as not to impair the just and reasonable protection of our home industries, the free list to be extended to such domestic productions as our home industries did not supply. He referred approvingly to a plan for the increased use of silver, which would be presented by Secretary Windom.
The plan, submitted by Secretary Windom in his report, for increasing the use of silver in the circulation, provided that the treasury department should purchase silver bullion every month to a limited extent, paying therefor treasury notes receivable for government dues and payable on demand in gold, or in silver bullion at the current market rate at the time of payment, and that the purchase of silver bullion and the compulsory coinage of silver dollars under the act of 1878 should cease.
On the 28th of January, 1890, Senator Morrill introduced, by request, a bill which had been prepared by, and embodied the views of the Secretary of the Treasury. This bill was referred to the committee on finance, and was reported back by Senator Jones, of Nevada, February 25, with amendments. The first section of the amended bill authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase $4,500,000 worth of silver bullion each month, and to issue in payment therefor treasury notes receivable for customs and all public dues, and when so received they might be reissued. They were also redeemable on demand in lawful money of the United States, and when so redeemed should be canceled. Such portion of the silver was to be coined as might be necessary to meet the redemptions authorized. Other sections provided for details by which the plan was to be effected.
To this bill I proposed an additional section authorizing the deposits of legal tender notes by national banks with the United States treasurer, to meet the redemption of the notes of such banks which had failed, gone into liquidation, or were reducing their circulation, to be covered into the treasury to the credit of an appropriation from which the money could be withdrawn as necessary to meet the payments of the notes for which the deposits had been made. The deposits of this character often exceeded $50,000,000, but under the plan proposed the money became immediately available in current disbursements, thus avoiding a hoarding of the notes in the treasury or the creating of a stringency in the circulation, and, at the same time, giving the government the use of the deposits until needed, by which the issue of bonds to a considerable extent would be avoided. This arrangement was accepted and eventually became section 6 of the law which is now in satisfactory operation.
In the progress of the debate on this bill every question connected with the financial operations of the government for twenty years was introduced and made the subject of debate, and especially the coinage act of 1873, and the dropping of the old silver dollar from coinage. Although this coin has been restored by the act of 1878, and hundreds of millions of such dollars had been coined, yet the Senators from the silver producing states, and especially Stewart, were continually harping on “the crime of 1873,” as they called the coinage act of that year, a careful statement of which has already been made in these volumes.
The only new allegation made was that the amendment recommended by the Senate committee on finance, to strike out the franc dollar of 384 grains, provided for in the bill as it came from the House, and insert the trade dollar, was not agreed to in the Senate, but that the change was made in committee of conference, and passed without the knowledge of the Senate. A conclusive answer was made to this statement by the production, from the files of the secretary’s office, of the original bill as it stood after its passage in the Senate and before it was sent to conference. As similar statements have been frequently made, I reproduce the portion of this original bill showing the section in question, with the printer’s note accompanying the bill explaining the different type used in printing it. The word “AGREED” on the bill is in the handwriting of the journal clerk of the Senate, Mr. McDonald, who held that position many years until his death. It shows that the Senate adopted the recommendation of the committee on finance before the bill was sent to conference. This amendment was agreed to by the House conferees.
[Note in explanation of the bill (H. R. 2934).] 1. The body of the bill, printed in brevier, is as it came from the House. 2. Amendments to insert, reported by the Committee on Finance, are in italics. 3. Amendments to strike out, reported by the Committee on Finance, are in [brackets]. 4. Amendments made by the Senate striking out words are in brevier, with brackets, and the words inserted in lieu thereof in the handwriting of the Clerk, are in SMALL CAPS.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
May 29, 1872.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
December 16, 1872.
Reported by Mr. Sherman with amendments, viz.: Strike out the parts in [brackets] and insert the parts printed in italics.
January 7, 1873.
Mr. Sherman, from the Committee on Finance, reported additional amendments, which were ordered to be printed with the bill.
AN ACT Revising and amending the laws relative to the mints, assay-offices, and coinage of the United States. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 2 United States of America in Congress assembled, 1 Sec. [16] 15. [That the silver coins of the United States shall be 2 a dollar, a half-dollar or fifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty-3 five-cent piece, and a dime or ten-cent piece; and the weight of the 4 dollar shall be three hundred and eighty-four grains; the half-dol 5 lar, quarter-dollar, and the dime shall be, respectively, one-half, 6 one-quarter, and one-tenth the weight of said dollar; which coins 7 shall be a legal tender, at their nominal value, for any amount not 8 exceeding five dollars in any one payment.] That the silver coins 9 of the United States shall be a trade-dollar, a half-dollar or fifty-AGREED A DIME OR TEN-CENT PIECE 10 cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty-five-cent piece ^; and the 11 weight of the trade-dollar shall be four hundred and twenty grains 12 troy; the weight of the half-dollar shall be twelve grams and one-13 half of a gram; the quarter-dollar and the dime shall be, respec-14 tively, one-half and one-fifth of the weight of said half-dollar; 15 and said coins shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for 16 any amount not exceeding five dollars in any one payment. AGREED
On the 5th of June I made a speech covering not only the pending bill, and the cognate questions involved, but all the irrelative topics introduced by other Senators. I said:
“I approach the discussion of this bill, and the kindred bills and amendments pending in the two Houses, with unaffected diffidence. No problem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty. Our action will affect the value of all property of the people of the United States, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our trade and commerce with all the world. In the consideration of such a question we should not be controlled by previous opinions or bound by local interests, but, with the lights of experience and full knowledge of all the complicated facts involved, we should give to the subject the best judgment which imperfect human nature allows. With the wide diversity of opinion that prevails, each of us must make concessions in order to secure such a measure as will accomplish the objects sought for without impairing the public credit or the general interests of our people. This is no time for visionary theories of political economy. We must deal with facts as we find them and not as we wish them. We must aim at results based upon practical experience, for what has been probably will be. The best prophet of the future is the past.
“To know what measures ought to be adopted we should have a clear conception of what we wish to accomplish. I believe a majority of the Senate desire, first, to provide an increase of money to meet the increasing wants of our rapidly growing country and population, and to supply the reduction in our circulation caused by the retiring of national bank notes; second, to increase the market value of silver, not only in the United States, but in the world, in the belief that this is essential to the success of any measure proposed, and in the hope that our efforts will advance silver to its legal ratio with gold, and induce the great commercial nations to join with us in maintaining the legal parity of the two metals, or in agreeing with us in a new ratio of their relative value; and, third, to secure a genuine bimetallic standard, one that will not demonetize gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but that will establish both gold and silver as standards of value, not only in the United States, but among all the civilized nations of the world.
“Believing that these are the chief objects aimed at by us all, and that we differ only as to the best means to obtain them, I will discuss the pending propositions to test how far they tend, in my opinion, to promote or defeat these objects.”
Those of us who were in favor of good money, whether of gold or silver, or whether issued by the government in the form of notes or currency by the national banks, all to be maintained at par with each other and of equal purchasing power, were constantly charged with reducing the volume of money. I showed that since the resumption of specie payments, January 1, 1879, there had been a constant annual increase in the total circulating medium of the country. I furnished a table showing the steady increase of circulation during the period named, which I here insert: